In the near future of an alternate Great Britain, freedom fighter V (Hugo Weaving) uses terrorist tactics to fight the oppressive society. He rescues Evey (Natalie Portman) from the creepy policemen.

The general state of affairs is too confused early on. Other than the crazed ramblings of a madman, there isn't much explaining. It's all generalities and high minded language. It would help to set aside a small segment to explain this universe a little better at the beginning. They really should have either concentration camps, unending wars, book burnings, or goose stepping. Instead the setting feels like today's world slightly shifted. It's not enough. The thing with George Orwell. He created completely new worlds. There's so much they could have done.

V's voice is distracting. Speaking thru the mask is problematic. It leaves conversation with him cold and distant. It would be better to cut those scenes down. The pacing gets very slow in the middle. The police is chasing him down, but there's never a close call. It grinds down as they slowly reveal the history. It's way too slow, way too late. They should have done this earlier, in a shorter prelude section. This is what the 1st act is for. And if this is such a police state with control of the media, how the heck did that program get on the air in the first place? If Evey's torture is all V's doing, how much of the stories we're shown can be believed? Or are they created to convert Evey?

DC Comics has a rather poor reputation lately. Despite having some great superheroes, the films based on their characters often have sucked. However, one of the best and most worthwhile films based on their comics is WELL worth seeing..."V for Vendetta".

The story is placed in a dystopian future. According to this future, the United States has been torn apart by civil war and disasters. And, the United Kingdom has gone from a constitutional monarchy to a repressive fascist dictatorship. But the government is far more evil than just repressing free speech. It seems that much of the chaos that led to this government was actually created by the man who now is in charge. To create a climate of fear and chaos, the government has created fake terrorists...and used the deaths of 10s of thousands of Brits as an excuse to control the country with an iron fist.

The only hope Britain has is a weird nehilistic superhero, V. V (Hugo Weaving) is determined to bring down the government and give the country back to the people. But how? And what part does Evey (Natalie Portman) play in all this? See the film.

This is a very exciting and intelligent film. It definitely kept my interest...much of it because the whole thing (aside from the near indestructable anti-hero) seemed possible! Well worth seeing and exceptionally well made.

By the way, if you like this film, try the 1960s Italian film "Danger: Diabolik". Both have very, very similar themes and both are wonderful movies.

Words alone cannot convey how utterly loathsome I found this movie to be. I'd heard all the hype beforehand – how it was the 'next big thing', how it's even garnered a place in the Internet Movie Database's Top 250 films of all time (above Hitchcock and Scorsese, no less). I think it's fair to say that I was expecting a decent film when I finally sat down to watch it one evening. What a let down. V FOR VENDETTA is nothing more than a liberal's idle fantasy writ large on screen.

From the word go this is a monstrous mess. We're thrown into yet another Big Brother-controlled futuristic society (yawn) where individuality is condemned and the sinister government watches our every move. Our heroine is supposedly a tough, streetwise Londoner, and somebody decided to cast butter-wouldn't-melt Natalie Portman in the role. Oh my god! Not only does her English accent sound stupid – not fitting the character at all – but her acting is unbelievably poor, and frequently laughable in places. Not that she's given much acting to do. This is a film written by a GCSE English student who thinks sub-Shakespeare standard dialogue is the height of literary brilliance. Can you say PRETENTIOUS? The second 'V' arrived and began spouting some absolutely inane gibberish I knew this was going to be bad, but I had little idea of just how bad it was going to turn out.

It's an offensive, violent mess, in which the sprawling action scenes are choreographed to uninteresting boredom. The film toys with Nazi symbolism throughout, to the extent that we see concentration camps with inmates being buried in mass graves. Wow, taking real-life history and using it to add controversy to your money-making film? That's pretty low – and far more objectionable than the many low budget exploitation horrors I usually watch. And, sigh, it turns out that Christians are bad as usual. Why not pick another religion? Oh, I know, there would be an outcry and a fuss, that's why.

At least Hugo Weaving gets to hide behind a mask to spare his blushes for the film's duration. Not so Stephen Fry, who looks distinctly embarrassed to appear in this mess, or a slumming John Hurt. Worst of all is Stephen Rea, who has lots of scenes as the detective investigating 'V'. He's saddled with one of the most boring characters in film history, and is given WAY too much screen time. No wonder he looks like he's asleep for most of the time. I'm sorry, and I hate to say it, but this film's absolute junk.