For a rendition of a graphic novel, this is very good

Rating: 9/10 (8 March 2011)

To be honest, i loved this film.
I saw the film before I read the graphic novel, and thus, my impression of it is tainted by the fact that I judge the novel in comparison to the movie; thus, the novel clearly stands out. However, given that it is a movie adaption, reviewers of this movie that read the novel first should perhaps allow the directors and the producers some license and some freedom to do what they wish with the plot; that is what was done with Transformers, as well as Watchmen, and Watchmen was an extremely faithful adaption of the graphic novel; pity, then, that the acting within it was so woeful.
Back to the movie at hand; Hugo Weaving is, despite all of the other reviews lambasting him as awful, immaculate as our hero that is both Zorro and Thomas Jefferson. The loquacious V character was a difficult proposition to cast, and to act; the Halo movie was canceled because the writers and the movie companies found it difficult to believe a man in a mask could emote, or even show evidence of humanity. This is part of where i think the other reviewers went wrong; Hugo Weaving's role was extremely difficult; that he manages to carry it off at all is a testament to his talent.
Natalie Portman is equitable as Evey Hammond; i will agree with the criticism that she was far too old for her part, but that was a choice of the casting, and is hardly her fault. Her accent isn't too awful- granted, that I'm not British- and her acting throughout is commendable, if not amazing; the scene in which she kisses V through his mask is difficult to watch for all the right reasons.
The back up cast of Adam Sutler, Creedy, Inspector Finch and others all work well enough. Whomever thinks that John Hurt, who played Adam Sutler, was not very good in his role is being foolish; his character was subtracted from when they decided to edit his relationship with the supercomputer from the movie. This omission was not entirely the wisest of ideas; this lead to plot inconsistency, as V could not possibly have done all the things he did in the film and still have enough time to torture Evey. The computer explained everything; that omission made the story less credulous.
V in the novel is, as has been said by others, an utter anarchist, as are some of the other characters that were dropped for the movie adaption. However, this anarchist framework would not have worked out in the movie; the writers wanted to provide hope for the future, and this was done via a number of well converted speeches from the text.
The video broadcast, from when V takes over the London Tower, had more to do with our current political situation than the novel, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. This film wasn't aimed at Thatcheresque London, or Orwellesque Spain or Russia; this film was aimed in dual at America and Britain, George Bush and Tony Blair respectively, and as such the political critiques contained within are modified appropriately.
This movie can be used as a form or treatise on neoconservatism, and its aims. However, this need not be the way it is observed; it can also be viewed as a political thriller and a comic book film, although in that latter case it is so far ahead of the Xmen adaptations that they look antiquated and made for children.
Another critique offered is that the rating was not truly warranted; national boards of ratings are very rarely liberal. That this film contained mature ideas is not in dispute; there is the opening scene in which V saves Evey from being raped, not to mention the images of Evey's family being dragged away, Deidric's capture at the hands of Creedy, and the flashback, when Evey is in 'prison'. This movie deals with terrorism, and fascism, in high amounts, with a little anarchism thrown in for good measure; (yes, i know there isn't as much in the movie as the book) try to deal with what is in front of you without knowing what was there first.
Finally, i would like to finish with some criticisms. Another reviewer noted that Deidric as a homosexual with a Koran is a bit of a misnomer- the Koran is fairly strong in it's stance on homosexuality. The style of governance that finally results is not clear, but this is both a good thing as a bad. Natalie Portman is too suspicious and not nearly innocent enough for the role, and V is less an idea as a man gripped by ideas.
But ultimately this film is an emotional one; the note Evey receives in prison is beautiful and powerful. That writing was taken clear from the text, and it fills the reader with such sorrow and pride that one cannot help but be moved. The final scene, in which Evey blows up parliament, is wonderful; the symbolism of everyone removing their masks, and revealing every person filmed- including the dead ones- is so utterly breathtaking in it's articulation that, no matter what, the people will outlive a regime, and that might will always fail if the collective wills.
Yes, the book was better than the movie. But others need to judge what else there is in the range of political thrillers before they start to whine about the quality of this one, compared to the book upon which it was based.