Basket.

Following review contains major spoilers for both the graphic novel V for Vendetta and eponymous film production. If you plan to in the near future read the book or watch the film, avoid this post like the plague. You have been warned.

It is really a pity. One, it is a pity that the movie V for Vendetta will forever live in the shadow of the grahic novel that spawned it, for it is a fine work on its own. Two, it is a pity that author Alan Moore refused to have anything to do with the aforementioned production, as it is an excellent adaptation of his unfortunately still superior work. Three, it is a pity that I cannot cite V for Vendetta as the finest graphic novel I have ever read, because I have read so many good ones (Watchmen, Maus, the Sandman series - it is really a superb book and if you have not read it, beg, borrow or steal to get your hands on a copy.

But onto the film. Director James McTeigue skilfully blends sly political commentary, good old-fashioned blockbuster action and human pathos into a work that is only marginally inferior to Alan Moore's masterpiece - while managing to remain sufficiently faithful to the selfsame masterpiece. Like I predicted, the book was better - but not by much, for a change.

I will first comment on the political commentary, which is very slyly and subtly crafted. When Gordon opens his forbidden stash, a poster on the wall shows the words "Coalition of the Willing" (to those who do not find the phrase familiar, think harder). An American war in Iraq is mentioned more than once. Gays and lesbians are prosecuted in this Britain, which is an autocratic theocracy complete with Bible-thumping TV evangelists thinly disguised as political analysts (the Voice of London) - not so different from the anti-gay far-right movement prevalent in the America of our present, not so different American televangelists of our present. It's brilliant - but the book still outshone it, because somehow the movie refused to touch racism. In the book, the wife of one of the fingermen confides in a friend that a Sikh family that helped them get through the nuclear war was seized after the right-wingers took power - and they did nothing. Clearly, Alan Moore crafted his novel to reflect the dangers of Thatcher's right-wing regime and the underlying racial tensions in 1980s Britain, when Asian immigrants flooded the country. The movie did a good job updating his themes, but still fell short.

Blockbuster action, I don't think I need to say much about that. V moves like "greased lightning" (description is from the graphic novel) and many of the action scenes are artfully crafted in slow-motion. Very enjoyable and not overdone, to which the director must take credit.

Human pathos, then, is where the movie really shines as compared to the book. In the movie V seems a lot more human. He even has witty lines ("I would like to comment on the paradox of you asking a man in a mask who he is.") - in comparison, he is not much more than a ruthless killing machine in the graphic novel. Indeed, as many reviews have already pointed out, Hugo Weaving brings to V humanity and emotion despite being behind a mask for the entirety of the film - humanity and emotion the V of the graphic novel did not have.

All in all, however (and this is where I go into a full-blown comparison between book and movie), the movie is a lot more simplistic than the book. What I've always said about the graphic novel is that it is an excellent work that would have been even better had I understood it. Unfortunately, I happen to understand the movie perfectly - it is a straight fight between good and evil. Revolutionary with only knives vs evil dictatorial murderous regime with lots of guns and advanced internal security apparatus. Unarmed citizens in masks and wigs vs soldiers with automatic rifles. And guess who triumphs?

Indeed, what surprised me somewhat was that the movie had a happy ending. Unarmed citizens overthrowing the evil regime, with the final destruction of the Houses of Parliament to the joyful final strains of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture the motif for the collapse of the British dictatorship. The book did not even have a proper ending, as Evey assumed V's identity, mask, wig and all, to continue his struggle.

Overall, the graphic novel was a lot darker. V, as I have already mentioned, is far colder and less human, the regime does not fall at the end and there is no clean resolution like there was in the movie. The Chancellor (in the book, simply "Leader") is far more one-dimensional - evil, power-hungry, crazed, the works. His contemporary in the graphic novel is a lot more lissome, obssessed with a computer system called "Mother" (I still can't figure that out to this day). He is a complex character in his own right, not the raving power-crazed lunatic of the film. The Chief Inspector, however, is done well - faithful to his counterpart in the graphic novel as a part of the regime who does not really believe in it.

And, of course, there is Evey. Natalie Portman gives a credible performance (certainly, it was a lot better than "Anakin, you're breaking my heart"), although her accent is wobbly and she seems to give up completely on it towards the end. She submitted to having her head shaved on film, which is admirable, and she did well in portraying Evey's shock, horror, internal conflict and final fearlessness and realisation. However, I still think the Evey of the graphic novel was better - a lot more understated; she did not rant and rave at V for torturing her in a prison mock-up. I'm glad, though, that they kept the rooftop scene where Evey stands in the rain - it is one of the most dramatic panels in the graphic novel and looks good on film too.

Remaining general comments: I'm glad they kept Lewis Prothero, although in the book he was literally just a voice, the "Voice of London", and the effect of the people realising that they are being hoaxed when a different voice comes on over the radio the day after his death is lost because here, he is a thumping zealot on live television whose death is announced as being of natural causes. They also had him killed in his bathroom instead of in a train, as it was in the book - which I think would have made a far better action sequence. Larkhill is shown only in brief flashbacks; I don't think it got enough screentime, and the Chief Inspector's (in the book, detective) visit to the Larkhill site is only briefly shown. In the graphic novel, it is a voyage of self-discovery and terrible realisation. That is not reflected here, which is unfortunate.

Perhaps though, it is unfair to hold the movie to standards as high as those that Alan Moore sets. His graphic novels are always filled with references, incredibly witty inside jokes and subtlety. Every panel, every sentence is lovingly constructed and serves a purpose. It would be manifestly unfair, as few share his genius, to expect all who try at adapting his works to be able to do the same.

On that note, I do recommend this film. Try to catch it, and read the book too. It's worth your time and money.