I hated Serenity.

This morning I got into work and was bullshitting with a co-worker and she immediately said "I saw V for Vendetta. Go see it! Loved it!"

I haven't heard anyone dislike it yet. Everyone has felt very strongly about it.

Thanks Joe,

I think the movie ending is fine compared to the graphic novel as you described. However, the very last part in the GN would have been nice. As a matter of fact, I knew nothing about the GN and assumed that's how events would have turned out as far as Evey was concerned.

I wonder if people other than us are giving this good word of mouth?

I appreciate the spoilerized ending from the GN, too.

I enjoyed the movie quite a bit. **** ouf five. Stephen Rhea was excellent, as was Weaving. V's opening monologue to Evey was awesome - I'm not sure how many actors could actually pull that off. Portman was good - her accent was a bit soft/weak, but I would have rather had her do a soft one than over-do it.

It definitely looked as if the Wachowski's directed the subway scene towards the end, in addition to one or two more scenes.

I was also happy to see quite a bit of humor interspersed throughout the film.

And I liked the closing credits.

I'll most likely go see it again because my brother wants to see it - might try to take the wife, too. I think she will like it.

i thought this was a nice, ironic turn as well.

Oh, I forgot. I loved the score and the music as well.

Any known reason why Moore disowned the film? Was it just for being turned into a movie or was it about specific changes to the script?

I thought it was very average...the action scenes were pretty good, but they were too few...the story got old after a while and it seemed the politics were a bit too forced.

My advice...skip it. Rent Batman Begins instead.

I actually liked it MUCH more than Batman Begins....thought the acting and the screenplay was much better.

This is the first movie in a very long time that I would've stayed in the theater and watched it again as soon as it was over.

Well, as someone who completely agreed with the politics, I didn't have a problem watching it.

I thought the characters were very one dimensional - either a pure, perfect person or an evil tyrant. I nearly lol'd several times. I'd say which parts but it'd push some buttons.

Completely disagree. I'd say the two leads were a little of both. The only entirely good person was Stephen Rea.

Bleh....I disagree with you there....I thought Batman Begins had more of an identity about it. This movie just didnt seem to. Or maybe they just didnt know how to market it. Also, some of the performances felt forced. I didnt care for John Hurt in this (who I normally think is brilliant).

Anyways, my brother and I were both disappointed. We both were shrugging our shoulders afterwards.

Basically, average and forgettable. Of course, I LOVE Natalie Portman, so this is hard for me to say.

From what I've read, the two main reasons were League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Constantine. After those, Moore was said to have requested that his name not be attached to any future adaptations of his work.

So from what I've read here, it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 87:4, people adoring this film vs. people thinking it was mediocre. Awesome.

-JP

Like I said...everyone I run into "in real life" is raving about it.

I know more people that liked this than Brokeback.

Its gotten a 75% review from rotten tomatoes...so most of the critics liked it.

I just didnt care for it.

Because the GN is very much a creature of its times. Even in the introduction to the GN, Alan Moore specifically states that there are a lot of things in the GN that didn't happen and can't happen (survivability of a nuclear war, a vitory for Labour in the mid-1980s, etc). So, realizing that a nuclear exchange is unlikely, change a few plot points to make the movie plausible in post 9/11 world- biologic attacks as opposed to two superpowers shooting the hell out of each other.
Right now, the bigger bogeyman is a terrorist using bio-weapons against a populace. And let's not forget that has happened.

Saw the movie this w/e and I have to say it's one of the best movies I've seen in a while.

I have to start by saying that I think it's pretty faithful to the graphic novel. So much so that, quite frankly, I have no idea why Moore objected to this movie so strenuously. I have to think that it has more to do with past movie experiences in general rather than this movie in particular. And although Moore is not credited (by request), I noticed that they did credit David Lloyd -- something like "Based on a graphic novel illustrated by David Lloyd". Good on them.

The movie captures all of the major elements of Moore's book and even the ambiance. The main things the Wachowskis changed are, 1. the tie-in to the Iraq war and American politics (and a new American civil war) to partially explain their dystopian society; 2. the conversion of V from morally ambiguous anti-hero to outright hero; 3. the removal of V's use (and IMO, overuse) of cultural quotes; and 4. the altered ending (although the ending is metaphorically the same, the details are different). But overall I think the Wachowskis and McTeigue have done an outstanding job of capturing Moore's ideas and bringing them to the screen. Kudos to all of them.

I also have to comment about Natalie Portman; other than her terrbible English accent, she gives an excellent performance. And Hugo Weaving -- what can I say? I think they may have to create a new category at the Oscars: Best Performance by an Anonymous Actor. How he is able to communicate his character's demeanour just by body language and voice is nothing short of brilliant and has to be seen to be believed.

All in all, a great movie and highly recommended.

BTW, for those posters asking for a pic of Natalie in her schoolgirl outfit, I offer the next best thing -- the corresponding panel from the comic:

So that means that, say for instance, when Superman, wearing the same costume and doing the same things he does in the comic will, at the hands of Bryan Singer, come off as Ghandi?

I absolutely loved this movie. Enough to forgive it 3% goofiness, 97 % awesome shit. I can't wait to see this again.

The one scene I really, really wish they had put in there, though:

And did anyone else laugh out loud at the part where

I was the only one in the theater that did. I guess I'm insensitive.

so is there just one novel?
if so what do the other stories tell?

There's just the one graphic novel, and I'm 99.9% sure that's the only one Moore will ever do.

Yeah, I don't imagine Moore would revisit the material, besides

Either way, since Moore had already let the story sit for 16 years, it seems unlikely he would get a wild hair to revisit it, especially since it would mean working with DC Comics again.

Loved it, as did everyone I saw it with. Also, very impressed by Weaving.

[QUOTE=Flave]
2. the conversion of V from morally ambiguous anti-hero to outright hero; [QUOTE]

Can someone offer more details? While I was rooting for V and felt he was heroic, I felt his morals were, at times, questionable. Especially considering his treatment of Evey.

But thats from the point of view of someone who hasn't read the GN. How was he more morally ambiguous in the GN? I'm really curious.

[QUOTE=iggystar][QUOTE=Flave]
2. the conversion of V from morally ambiguous anti-hero to outright hero;
In the GN he didn't seem to express any remorse for what he did with Evey, furthermore, this movie humanitized him a bit more. The GN kept him mysterious in his behavior, and he almost always spoke in riddles with a tinge of insanity. In fact, you never know if he doing what he does because it is right or if it is just because he is just a crazy terrorist. The movie makes it clear that he is a tormented being and he also seems legitimately shocked/hurt when Evey abandons him with the priest. In short, he is actually likeable in the movie, while in the GN he is quite a bit of an asshole.