V for Vendetta

I've been holding out this review for several reasons. Mainly, I guess, 'cause I still have mixed emotions about this movie. But what better reason then, than leting it out.

For starters, I need to point out that I've seen this movie twice already. I went with my friends on Sunday, three weeks ago. Then I went with my mom and brother. This is a point that I wanted out of the way because I think that the enviroment can affect our mood and that will reflect on how we experience a movie. So, I'll start with some of my first impressions.

James McTeigue debuts as a director with a highly ambitious project, one that has been surrounded by controversy ever since it was first announced. First there was the conflict between writer Alan Moore and DC Comics, publisher and current holder of the rights to V and subsidiary of Warner Brothers, the studio that is producing the movie. Then, when the film was already in post-production, came the terrorist attack on London's Underground and there were rumors of WB ditching the project. The release date was then changed from November 5th, 2005 to March 16th, 2006.

Technically speaking the movie is spotless. McTeigue came out as a skilled director able to tell a story at least as good as his mentors, the Wachowski Brothers. Or maybe it's just the fact that he didn't need to rely on the special FX or abuse of action sequences, using them only when they helped move the story onward. Camera work, cinematography, sets and costume design combine quite well to evoke David Lloyd's visual work.

The cast certainly held its own in this one, Hugo Weaving -awful dialogues notwithstanding- performs extraordinarily well, Natalie Portman is in one of her best performances -it could have been the best if not for her struggles with her accent-, John Hurt it's at his usual high standards as Big Bro... I mean, High Chancellor Sutton, just as Stephen Rea adds another solid interpretation to his resumé.

And then the script. The story is there, and the adaptation is not bad at all. But it's here where I have issues. The story needed some changes to make the transition to film and that was to be expected. Some of the changes work better than others. But the dialogues are awful. While it's true that all the quoting helps to build the dramatic side of V, the Wachowskis apparently became obsessed quoting Shakespeare and simply overdid it. And that's a shame, because Weaving has a voice capable of giving life to a character without needing help from facial expressions.

But I guess that what really bothers me is the fact that, even when the story is mostly there, it feels empty. Moore's tale is haunted by a subtle subversive feel that the movie doesn't have. Chaos, anarchy, and a couple of terrorist actions can't replace ideas. And I guess that somehow it seems appropiate that the movie credits admit "based in the graphic novel illustrated by David Lloyd" and there's no mention of Alan Moore. Most of the visual are there, but not all of the content. Ideas might be bulletproof, but it seems that they are not Hollywood-proof.

Most of my objections are entirely subjective and are related to what I deem as an inappropiate treatment of the ideas and subtext of the original Graphic Novel, so I've decided to discuss that separately.

For now, the only thing left to say is that V for Vendetta it's a good action movie, with a story sure to satisfy more of its audience. Unless, of course, that you are a little bit more demanding that the average movie-goer, or feel that fictionary movies shouldn't be used as vehicles for political propaganda. More on that on my next post.

Originally published in Spanish at La Hoguera de las Necedades on April 3th.