[Vix22]

watched this film last night with my OH and thought iwas crap- i though V's voice was highly irritating, and the concept for the film over exagerrated. They have obviously have taken the concept for 1984 and gone to pot with it.
The way it finished was really corny, and not at all plausible. I mean how easy was it for them to pack an underground train with explosives and let it just casually roll under Parliment to blow it up? Surely the security forces would have had enough sense to guard the lines directly underneath the building?! no, the coast was completley clear. aghhhhh!

Anyone else agree? or am i being overly critical?

[Radiator]

Erm, I thought this to be one of the best films ive seen in ages! And the public and critics seem to agree, must just be you!

[ironjade]

Alan Moore didn't think much of it either.

[Motthus]

Yeah but he always hates the film version of his graphic novels!
I thought V For Vendetta was a great film and I really enjoyed it!

[Daveydje]

I was prepared to think i'd hate it, but actually found it really enjoyable. And Motthus is right, Alan Moore a terrible judge films of based on his own work.

[Histeria]

Originally Posted by ironjade

Alan Moore didn't think much of it either.

Alan Moore didn't see it (he refused), so he can shut up bleating.

To be fair, I thought it was kinda weak, and the changes from the book were mostly for the worse (for one, the ambiguity was removed, and V was patently the "good guy" - despite torturing Evey - and the Government the "bad guys"). I also though the movie was rather dull in places, and kinda badly paced, although unlike some, I also think the book is massively overrated.

[p_c_u_k]

I really liked it, and I reckon it took balls to do something like that in mainstream cinema.

It's not perfect - the Guantanamo Bay-inspired torture sequence being particularly unwise and shoehorned in; the lack of ambiguity (the terrorist/freedom fighter aspect not being explored in quite the way it needs to be) etc.

But overall, when you see some of the stuff being produced by Hollywood (Snakes on a Plane anyone? ) it took courage to produce something like that, and for that it deserves to have some of its flaws forgiven.

[Tenacious G]

Superficial, way to comic-booky, middle of the road adaptation of an already overrated comic book.

It has far too many ideas it doesn't really know what to do with and chickens out on following through on some of the stronger aspects of the comic book, because a mainstream audience would get a little too confused if there were any ambiguity about the good vs evil aspects of the story.

It's probably the kind of movie that will make people who aren't particularly bright leave the cinema saying stuff like "it really makes you think", but I don't know if that's really a good thing.

[Archaon]

Originally Posted by Tenacious G

Superficial, way to comic-booky, middle of the road adaptation of an already overrated comic book.

It has far too many ideas it doesn't really know what to do with and chickens out on following through on some of the stronger aspects of the comic book, because a mainstream audience would get a little too confused if there were any ambiguity about the good vs evil aspects of the story.

It's probably the kind of movie that will make people who aren't particularly bright leave the cinema saying stuff like "it really makes you think", but I don't know if that's really a good thing.

I'm not quite sure how a comic book adaptation can be "way to comic-booky". I assume you mean it leant more to the less serious side of comic books, than the Alan Moore stuff. But apart from that, I agree with everything you've said here. There are some things that are perhaps too complex to be adapted into a two hour film, and I think this is one of them. Maybe it would of worked better as a serialised tv drama, though I doubt it would of succeeded commercially.

[Tenacious G]

Originally Posted by Archaon

I'm not quite sure how a comic book adaptation can be "way to comic-booky".

It was mostly a lot of comic book cheese that didn't translate particularly well to live-action.

Originally Posted by Archaon

There are some things that are perhaps too complex to be adapted into a two hour film, and I think this is one of them. Maybe it would of worked better as a serialised tv drama, though I doubt it would of succeeded commercially.

That's not a bad idea. It could have been an excellent mini-series.

[comedyfish]

Originally Posted by p_c_u_k

It's not perfect - the Guantanamo Bay-inspired torture sequence being particularly unwise and shoehorned in; the lack of ambiguity (the terrorist/freedom fighter aspect not being explored in quite the way it needs to be) etc.

.

The only bit I can think you're talking about was lifted nearly scene for scene form the book written 20 years ago

I thought the film was quite good, V for Ven is quite a read - I had to read it a few times to get my head 'round it - the film was a lot more accessible I thought

[Richie12345]

I don't really rate it. People that read the comic books would probably appreciate the film more.

[Vellocet]

Loved it and loved the graphic novel. Best film of the year so far.

[Histeria]

Originally Posted by Richie12345

I don't really rate it. People that read the comic books would probably appreciate the film more.

Having read the book, I have to say... no really, no.