Skip to main content

Wanted (Comic VS Movie)


I watched this movie 2 months ago, and didn't write a post about it only because I thought nothing much of it. It was scene after scene of action held together loosely by a thin plot. I thought to myself, "meh, thumbs in the middle, it kept my attention". Last night, I finished reading the graphic novel by Mark Millar of which the movie was based on. I've decided to re-evaluate my conclusion on the movie by cranking that thumb 45 degrees south for a thumbs down decision... the graphic novel was too great.

The movie could have been so much more! In the original comic, there were so many colourful and wacky characters; aliens, robots, superheroes, supervillains, and all that stuff. Instead the movie opted out of that idea, and instead presented the mass public with a dumbed down generic-action piece that loosely resembled the comic.

The story from the book follows Wesley Gibson as he trudges through his mundane life to join a fraternity of supervillains of which his long-lost father had been employed. The key in this are the supervillains. According to their history, in 1986, there was a great war between the superheroes of the earth against the villains. The villains decided to team up in a global concentrated effort to take down the heroes, and with great success. The heroes were eliminated, and the memories of the war were wiped from all humans by use of alien technology.

At present day, the villains have divided themselves into 5 families organized around the world. They have found their "peace" with the world... doing crime in a more behind-the-scenes basis. However, there are some within the group who feel they should go back to their roots, putting crime right back into the spotlight.

Wesley is caught up in the middle of all this. Being a fast rising young villain, he is taken under the wing of the Professor, the head of one of the families. We see the underbelly of the criminal world through his eyes. He is the protagonist in the weakest sense of the word.

What I enjoyed most about this comic was all the different cool characters that filled the pages. My favourite was a villain named Shitface. He was a shapeshifting blob of a monster that was comprised of shit... specifically, the shit of the 666 worst individuals in mankind's history (which includes Hitler, Ed Gein, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc.). What made it more amusing was that almost every character was based off of other established characters in the comicbook universe. Some were more obvious than others (check their wiki for a listing, here).

Now for the movie. The beginning was similar in showing Wesley's disdain for the everyday life. Instead of a fraternity of villains it is of assassins. This takes away a certain element to the story. Assassins are typically neutral characters... usually; they are neither good nor bad... they just do what they have to do, and in this case it was the carpet machine who decided what is to be done. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they are villains. However, they didn't really hammer that point in, if so. The plot focused a bit more on Wesley's relationship with his dad thrown in with a bunch of twists, swerves, and other nonsense. The plot just seemed like an excuse to ring in the next action scene.

In going from the comicbook medium to the silverscreen, I think what makes a successful movie is capturing the spirit of the original material. If you look at the recent successful transitions, it's clear the director intentionally captured the spirit (eg. the Batman reboot, Iron Man, 300, and Spider-man).

Looking into the near future, there aren't many comic book movies I'm looking forward to with the exception of The Watchmen. Will it capture the spirit? We shall see. But from everything I've read and seen, all indications point to a yes. Later geeks.

Comments

Beka said…
Ha! However weird, I love the idea of Shitface. Pretty creative and unique idea for a villain. And compromised of the 666 worst individuals - clever. I like.
Matt said…
Yes. I was rather unimpressed with Wanted. Although, my basis does not have anything to do with the comic. I personally found plot falls and it just flat-out wasn't enough to maintain my interest.

Popular posts from this blog

Dreamers, Achievers, Believers

It was quite a week last week. It started off on a more heavy note last Sunday, but as the week wore on, things became better and more clear. So let's do a little recap. This is going to be kind of long, so if you find this kind of stuff boring I've inserted pictures of funny cats for your entertainment. So... 1.5 Weeks Ago About 1.5 weeks ago, my friend Jon from Living Room gave me the contact info for his uncle. His uncle is an engineer and apparently was looking for new grads and new hands to hire. That week, I gave him a few calls but he wasn't there when I called him and when he returned my calls, I wasn't here either. We were playing phone tag that week *insert schoolgirl giggle*. Sunday Morning So last Sunday morning, his uncle gave me a call at 9 am (The morning! My weakness! HISS!) and we talked about stuff. I was telling him a bit about school as well as elaborating my work/coop experience as he didn't have my resume yet. So he goes on to tell

The Science of God

Not too long ago, two of my friends had posted their thoughts on evolution and creationism. Both friends shared similar sentiments on the topic (you can view Skylar's here and Keith's here ). Coincidence or not, shortly before they made their postings, I purchased a book called The Science of God by Dr. Gerald Schroeder, which was based on the same topic. Unfortunately, at the time of my friend's postings, I had not finished the book, but now I have. In The Science of God , Schroeder attempts to debunk the dichotomy that exists between science/evolution and creationism. He tries to show that there can exist a duality between the two and that discoveries in science actually prove the story of creation in the bible. The book can be roughly divided into three categories that being the concepts of time, the second with the biology of evolution, and lastly the concept of free will. In describing time, he focuses on the 6 days that are explained in the beginning of Genes

MAX PAYNE was oh so PAYNEFUL!!!

What a failure this was. An EPIC FAILURE~! And I'll tell you why. This movie had everything going for it which was why it made the failure seem so huge. It had star power. It had a very competent director. The visual style was there. It had a simple storyline... a storyline that was basically fuck-proof because it's so basic. The effects (when there were any) were also pretty great. So where did they go wrong? Pacing. If the first two-thirds of the film was like the last third, I think it would have been a fine film. Not great by any means, but fine. I mean, there was hardly any action in the first hour. It was all talk and build up. Every 5 minutes I was saying to myself, "okay, something cool is gonna happen now". But it never came. I think had they added 2 or 3 big action sequences during that hour, that it would have helped the film breathe and flow better. I mean, didn't they realize that the source material was an action game? Max Payne is