Your perspective on the final shot of the film is completely accurate. It functioned as a half-hearted peace offering to the source material, as if the film recognized it had neutered the intent of the original and was trying to ‘make up for it’ in the final minutes.

Thanks for offering your 2 cents, Richard. I hope you return in the future and offer further critical thoughts.

A good example of this sort of principle is Che Guevara, who represented the logic of revolution so scrupulously (that is, ruthlessly) that, after his death, Communist revolutionaries worldwide heaved a sigh of relief, because, although they believed what he believed, they didn’t want to practice it as he practiced it.

What bothered me about the film was that, once they decided to get rid of the original’s Brechtianism, they didn’t stick to it as consistently as they should have. The final direct address fits the film as poorly as it fit the comic perfectly, and the only time the choice between and entertainment hero’s code and the amorality implied by being able to kill with impunity is presented, Angelina Jolie immediately makes the ‘correct’ choice. It would have been better to simply have committed to doing the film more straightforwardly and delivering a full-on action film, since most of its set pieces are truly excellent.

Mynock, you make great points. It is, perhaps, unfair to judge the film by its source material, especially since 1) the film isn’t striving to become anything other than what it is and 2) the author himself endorses the adaptation, loves it to pieces, actually. However, when I approached this review, I realized I could tackle it one of two ways. The first would be to review it as you suggested – on its own merits as a guilty pleasure summer popcorn flick. Approaching it from that angle I would have given it 3 1/2 stars, but the review, I think, would have been fairly boring and typical of all the other reviews out there. The second method was the one I actually chose, to evaluate it in light of it’s source material and what it could have been versus what it actually became. I dropped a half star, which in the long run doesn’t matter, but the review I came up with is, I think, much more interesting to read and a conversation starter to boot. For example, you commented on the post, and I’m guessing if I had reviewed it the more typical way you suggested, you wouldn’t have been moved to enter the conversation.

Is this fair of me to dock the film points in the pursuit of a more ‘interesting’ critical piece of writing? I don’t know, maybe not.

Regardless, you make great points, and I really can’t disagree with you. I tried to compliment the film on its strengths (the action sequences) while calling it to task for its failures, even if I was unreasonably demanding.

And Luke, I was wondering if anyone would call my bluff on that one. Essentially, I just made it up and have no proof that it’s a defensible concept or theory. I will say that Freud did hold to the tenet that man is most happy when he is instinctively seeking out his pleasures, and existentialism does posit that there is no concept of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, only the ‘truth’ of our experiences, and since the comic does embody both of those philosophies, there might be some precedent for labeling it “Freudian Existentialism,” although my ability to argue for it essentially stops there.

Other than that, great review. Maybe if I read the comic, I’ll appreciate the movie more. Or less. You never know.

I agree with the review almost 100%. Hollywood has its rules and Wanted pushes the envelope as far as a millions of dollars investment can.

I often find it to be unfair to lessen a film by weighing it against unconventional source material anyway.

Nevermind that asking any big-budget popcorn flick why it doesn’t leave you thinking about or discussing moral and sociological issues, no matter its inspiration, is a bit demanding.

I would understand if the film tried to present itself in any other way than a summer blockbuster, but it surely doesn’t.

In my opinion, Wanted knows its audience and delivers on their expectations. As to when we, the overall film going public, will expect more from our films is up to further debate.

Either way, great review…

But when I write a review of an adaptation I’m often unable to fully divorce myself from the source material (see my review of I Am Legend for a particularly egregious example). On its own, this is an electrifying, kinetic action film that will have you giggling with glee. But in light of its source material it falls short.

Don’t get me wrong on this count either. I’m not a gore hound upset that the film wasn’t violent and/or as sadistic as the original comic (the film is violent enough, trust me). I just found the comic’s willingness to push the moral boundary all the way to the edge fascinating. In going that far, it made it glaringly obvious that such a post-modern existential worldview is both fundamentally obscene and terrifying in its implications. If there is not an objective definition of right and wrong, if we can just make up the rules as we please, anarchy and sadism are the result.

The film eliminates any possibility of having such a conversation because it’s primarily interested in killing people in the most creative ways imaginable. Again, as an action flick it’s top notch, but it could have been so much more.

And really, enjoying ridiculous action scenes isn’t a big deal at all. I think we should just stop and think every once in a while about why we enjoy them so much.

Probably because he never ever experienced what justice truly was.

But that’s a different subject. I still need to write my glowing review of that movie. You’d think I’d be able to do it after 6+ viewings, but I still can’t wrap my noggin ’round it.

I’m pretty sure this is one I’m still going to catch, b/c I’m such a sucker for things like spinning bullets and millisecond reflexes. Is it bad if I try not to like it too much so I don’t have to examine my motivations?

It’s an interesting scenario, though: if Hollywood makes the film that will provoke discussion, everyone will hate it and it will flop. If the film is made that will sell, it will only entertain.

However, as one who enjoys ridiculous action scenes, is that always a bad thing?