Despite the well-known animosity between Alan Moore and...well really, anyone in the movie industry these days who touches his work, Moore's Vendettapartner David Lloyd (illustrator) thinks that the film is, in fact, pretty darn good. Lloyd admits to being concerned when he first learned of the project and had a chance to read the script, but claims that "the changes they made were quite valid, and I think they kept the core of it completely," citing time concerns as a major and understandable reason for these changes.  He also says that the "spirit" and "integrity" of the story were kept intact in the transition to film. Lloyd saw an early screening of the film back in November, and called it "absolutely extraordinary." He highlights one scene in particular, which he was particularly fond of in the novel, as translating exceptionally well.  He likens the film to a political cartoon, saying that broad sweeps and brush strokes have been made to represent more refined thoughts, feelings, and ideas. Lloyd says "I think cinematically, it's a terrific transition."

Well, this is a nice break from the traditional "Alan Moore hates this movie" information, although I'm not entirely sure how to take it. In particular, Lloyd's support of the need to seriously abbreviate, eliminate, or change things to make it all fit into a movie seems a bit suspect. However, I think my standards may have just been raised to unfair levels after the masterful adaptation of Sin City. Is change bad by its very nature? No, I understand that you can make changes and still stay true to the nature of the story- I'm just not sure if I buy idea that you had to do it for time concerns.  That argument works with a thick novel like Lord of theRings, but Vendetta frankly isn't that large.
categories Cinematical