All this review shows is that beauty really is truly in the eye of the beholder. I found the movie profoundly moving on many levels. I've already seen it twice and looking for time for a third viewing. This is that rare movie that will not let me out of clutches, days after seeing it. Often, I couldn't tell you about a movie by the time i'm walking out of the theater, so temporary is the experience. This one was so different. This will haunt me for years to come. I hope the future it presents will not come to pass, but it will, if people like this reviewer so cavalierly dismiss its implications.

For a different take, and a bit of history about Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder plot from which V drew his inspiration, see http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com/2006/04/remember-remember-fifth-of-november.html.

Stephanie's taste in movies sure is bizarre.

"V for Vendetta" was topical, exciting, engaging, entertaining, well crafted and brave. This review couldn't see the forest through the trees.

I saw this on Saturday afternoon and I am still trying to sort my way through the film. I haven't read the comic that its based on, but I know as a film, it works only intermittently. V isn't much of a character - Phantom of the Opera with a slice of pretentious political science student thrown in. I generally loathe the "tortured artiste" as they tend to be insufferably narcissistic and I don't believe V is too far from this dynamic. I thought Hugo Weaving did some wonderful vocal work, but the character had no resonance.

Natalie Portman is different - she is undoubtedly one of the best actresses of her generation, and has been for a decade. Her accent never bothered me much - it may have strangled some of her natural vivaciousness as a performer, but it is hardly one of the worst in history and fixating on a less-than-perfect accent is often a lazy way to critique a performance. I thought whenever the character of Evey was given some juice, then Portman delivered - she is best in the film when she doesn't have to pretend like she isn't clued in and can just be a confident woman (apart from the slightly embarrassing re-birth scene in the rain, her role and acting improves immeasurably once her hair is gone). But the role is basically Neo Version 2.0 and Portman is too alert and intelligent an actress to be able to carry off the believable naivety which the part calls for (it’s why she was so believable in Leon).

The rest of the performers range about - Stephen Rea isn't directed strongly enough and he seems to disappear off screen even as he is the focus of a scene. John Hurt is decent but horribly one-dimensional, but the real stand-out is Stephen Fry - just a beautiful example of actor and role enriching each other. I think McTeague does solid, unspectacular stuff with the visuals - the Waschowski Bros may only be writer/producers, but the film's aesthetic is still on bended knee towards the Matrix. The action stuff is flat and unconvincing (whoever thought having the wooshy effects around the spinning knives in the final fight scene should have stayed quiet), but I really liked the design and execution of the lesbian flashback.

But the reason I would still recommend the film is because its ideas are more intriguing than the film that is built around them, and I guess I have to credit Moore with this. There are real issues to be discussed, but the film is too generic to really address them in any but the most cursory way - its the cinematic equivalent of those white wrist bands that people wore last year to end poverty and thought that that was enough. The film would have worked far better without the broad brushstrokes needed for a comic book action film - and would have been far more powerful if Evey, and not V, had been the central agent of the film.

Oh and No Name Given - since when has box office been a guarantee of quality? Have you seen the films which have opened at no1 this year? You're welcome to Failure to Launch, Madeas Family Reunion, Underworld Evolution and Hostel...

I saw this on Saturday afternoon and I am still trying to sort my way through the film. I haven't read the comic that its based on, but I know as a film, it works only intermittently. V isn't much of a character - Phantom of the Opera with a slice of pretentious political science student thrown in. I generally loathe the "tortured artiste" as they tend to be insufferably narcissistic and I don't believe V is too far from this dynamic. I thought Hugo Weaving did some wonderful vocal work, but the character had no resonance.

Natalie Portman is different - she is undoubtedly one of the best actresses of her generation, and has been for a decade. Her accent never bothered me much - it may have strangled some of her natural vivaciousness as a performer, but it is hardly one of the worst in history and fixating on a less-than-perfect accent is often a lazy way to critique a performance. I thought whenever the character of Evey was given some juice, then Portman delivered - she is best in the film when she doesn't have to pretend like she isn't clued in and can just be a confident woman (apart from the slightly embarrassing re-birth scene in the rain, her role and acting improves immeasurably once her hair is gone). But the role is basically Neo Version 2.0 and Portman is too alert and intelligent an actress to be able to carry off the believable naivety which the part calls for (it’s why she was so believable in Leon).

The rest of the performers range about - Stephen Rea isn't directed strongly enough and he seems to disappear off screen even as he is the focus of a scene. John Hurt is decent but horribly one-dimensional, but the real stand-out is Stephen Fry - just a beautiful example of actor and role enriching each other. I think McTeague does solid, unspectacular stuff with the visuals - the Waschowski Bros may only be writer/producers, but the film's aesthetic is still on bended knee towards the Matrix. The action stuff is flat and unconvincing (whoever thought having the wooshy effects around the spinning knives in the final fight scene should have stayed quiet), but I really liked the design and execution of the lesbian flashback.

But the reason I would still recommend the film is because its ideas are more intriguing than the film that is built around them, and I guess I have to credit Moore with this. There are real issues to be discussed, but the film is too generic to really address them in any but the most cursory way - its the cinematic equivalent of those white wrist bands that people wore last year to end poverty and thought that that was enough. The film would have worked far better without the broad brushstrokes needed for a comic book action film - and would have been far more powerful if Evey, and not V, had been the central agent of the film.

Oh and No Name Given - since when was box office ANY guarantee of quality - have you seen the films which have topped the box office since the beginning of the year? You're welcome to Failure to Launch, Madeas Family Reunion, Underworld Evolution and Hostel...