I can certainly count on one hand the amount of times I've been to the movie theater this year; mainly because nothing has really seemed worth the money and effort. However, I was recently persuaded to check out V for Vendetta because of strong word of mouth and generally good reviews (now in the top 250 at imdb). I was surprised by how much I enjoyed it. I think its main charm is that it's so hard to put in any one genre. It's based on a comic book (maybe I'm not PC but I refuse to call a comic book a graphic novel), but it doesn't feel anything like a typical comic book movie. Its tone is dark, its story is complex, and its overall setting in a futuristic totalitarian state is frighteningly realistic. There are only a few action scenes (one is particularly violent, that I enjoyed but Sarah did get a little squeamish), so certainly the main focus is on the story and the complexities of the two main characters: V and Evey. Despite the fact that V wears a mask, Hugo Weaving (remember Agent Smith from Matrix or perhaps Elrond) does an excellent job with the many sides of V. Natalie Portman does a great job as well, although she loses some of her hotness with a shaved head.
I don't want to give away any more of the plot, because I personally like going into a movie with as little knowledge as possible. I do recommend checking it out if you have the opportunity, I'd give it a solid 8 out of 10 and I think many of you would enjoy it.
6 comments:
I agree with everything he said about 'V' It's good. Almost as good as the graphic novel.
Yes, I will call it a graphic novel. There is a difference. A book of Garfield strips (i.e. presentations of comedy) is a comic book. A book that tries to tell an entire story, like a novel would, but in graphic form, is a graphic novel. That's the difference.
If you like the movie, read the graphic novel. And if you like THAT, read Moore's other one, "Watchmen." Both are excellent, dark, and enthralling. I happen to like "Watchmen" a little better (I own it, even), but that may be because I read it first.
So, should DC Comics have been named DC Graphic Novels, or have I just been missing all the punchlines in Batman for all these years?
-Bruce ;-)
I disagree with Rob on his assertion that comics are a presentation of comedy, although he might have just been using that as an example. My stab at a distinction is that comics tend to be in serial form, such as a monthly comic book or a daily/weekly strip, whereas graphic novels are a complete story.
I agree with Dave, I've never heard the term "comic book" to refer to a collection of Garfield strips; the distinction (although blurred by bookstores that put a lot in the graphic novel section) is more the serial form vs a complete story in my mind.
P.S. "Rob Blows the Design a Shower Interview Question" would be a great graphic novel.
Hmm, I can live with that distinction, Dave. Works for me.
I was curious what the industry definition was so I looked it up on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphic_novel). They come to pretty much the same conclusion Dave does, although there is some looseness in the term and some disagreement with its use. One example of a well known author who doesn't like it? Alan Moore, author of "V for Vendetta" - which makes Mike Diehl correct in his initial description :) (although I still say he shouldn't snub the term Graphic Novel in general)
Rob "I get it right eventually" Smith
Not that this discussion of comics vs graphic novels isn't important and worthy of discussion, but I have a more urgent question. Mike, when are you going to Casa Bonita?! You are running out of time! Don't let me down!
Post a Comment