V for Vendetta (2006) 
Voluptuous
|
So I read this comic a while ago. I really like some of Alan Moore’s stuff and I was not especially impressed with this one. But it was Alan Moore so it was still good. Anyway, I looked forward to this with mixed feelings. It seemed like the Matrix guys had some potential to do some good things with the script, actually hold true to some of the depth of characters. At the same time, the last Matrix movies really petered out and there was a mean review in the New Yorker.
Imagine my delight as I really got into the film. It wasn’t just a big action fest, and I ended up getting into the somewhat ridiculous plot. I was especially happy with the job that the V guy did. I thought he did well at bringing life to a dude with no face. It will be interesting to see how The Watchmen comes out.
how’s the action? it looks like it has the matrix style of overchoreagraphed action with a lot of slo mo. if it has good action i might see it, but same as you i was never too psyched on the comic.
Comment by Unfrozen Cavedan — April 3, 2006 @ 7:30 pm
I only remember one slow-mo action sequence and it was one of the alst ones, so they kind of built up to it. Its kind of hard to get a handle on how much of a bad ass V is, which is probably good. They spend a little time mentionning the how his kinetic reflexes got augmented. He seems kind of like one of the Sin City “Michael Jordan of fighting” types.
In short, I enjoyed the action. I don’t remember a ton of slow-mo. However, it was not on the Ang Bat scale of goodness.
Comment by nate — April 3, 2006 @ 9:56 pm
I hadn’t heard that they were doing a Watchmen movie. That seems like an impossible story to do well as a movie.
I thought the action in V was pretty cool looking and exciting, but maybe undermined some of the philosophical strength of the movie by making him too much of a bad-ass.
I find it interesting that he’s a hard-core anarchist in the comic, but I don’t think they use that word once in the movie. Were the Wachowskis afraid of turning people away from him? In general he was a lot more lucid and easier to understand than the comic character. I think it made him more likeable, but it made the imprisonment extra strange and disturbing.
Comment by poogas — April 4, 2006 @ 12:02 am
I think it would have been to hard to capture the intellectual reasonning for anarchy in a film. Though the ‘terrorist’ as hero did not seem to difficult to pull off. It seems like we know where the Wachoiski brothers see the line between terrorist and post-modern rebel.
He didn’t seem like more of a bad ass than any Bruce Lee, Batman, Mel Gibson character with the exception of the finaly where he is just trying to be as tough as Clint Eastwood.
Comment by nate — April 4, 2006 @ 5:22 am