V for Vendetta left me with a nagging question: How fair is it to compare an adaptation of a piece of art to its original incarnation?

Putting aside for a second the different characteristics of, say, comic books and film, should an adaptation capture the spirit of the original work or take the story in a new direction?

If you ask Alan Moore, who wrote the V for Vendetta comics, he'd tell you it should be the former. Moore, also displeased with the film adaptations of his works From Hell and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, has disowned this film adaptation. Comparing it directly, it's easy to see why: Directors the Wachowski brothers (the Matrix trilogy) have turned a nuanced work about a terrorist in a fascist society into a big-budget movie with vague social themes. But does it stand on its own as a less-ambitious action film?

The story follows the struggles of V (Hugo Weaving), a mysterious anarchist wearing the mask of Guy Fawkes, the English solider who attempted to blow up Parliament in 1605. V attempts to free a society enslaved by a totalitarian government. The leader, Adam Sutler, is a Big-Brother figure usually seen looking on from a giant screen. (Clever casting: Sutler is played by John Hurt, who played the protagonist Winston Smith in a film adaptation of 1984.)

V befriends a woman, Evey (Natalie Portman), who works for the propaganda-pushing television network (in the book, she was a prostitute). Evey eventually helps him in his quest. As the movie progresses, layers of conspiracy about the corrupt government are revealed, as is more about V's backstory.

As an action film, V for Vendetta succeeds. V is an original character, and appropriately theatrical. He speaks in literary allusions and has an opening monologue in which he uses alliteration of v-words -- maybe a nod to the comic's chapter titles. V doesn't just go around fighting bad guys; he hijacks the television station to broadcast a statement to the people of England, attempting to motivate their own action.

But sometimes the theatricality is over-the-top, and scenes that should have been serious got the laughs. In one scene, Evey is watching television and hears about the death of a prominent reporter, for which V was responsible.

"V, did you have anything to do with this?" she asks. "Yes," replies V, "I killed him." A surprisingly blunt answer, and the intentional moment of levity gets a laugh. Later on, a similar line -- when V confronts an elderly woman -- also elicits a laugh. The original scene in the novel was a quiet, sad moment, which was lost in the translation. One can see why Moore was upset: A nuanced scene becomes a one-liner in a dumbed-down action film.

As for Portman's British accent, ugh. Put it this way: It was bad enough to offend me on behalf of actual English people. Grating for the entire movie, to say the least.

How you feel about the movie depends on your expectations. As an action film, it's energetic and unique. But anyone who's read the comics will see why Moore was disappointed and wish the film had taken more chances to say something of more weight. I was entertained for the whole movie, but I'd urge everyone to take the time to read the original work.

As the saying goes, the comic book is always better than the movie. Grade: B-