Who Watches the Wachowskis?

Rating: 4/10 (5 April 2006)

I liked this movie better when it was called Serenity, or Equilibrium, and had actual fight sequences instead of just one guy with knives who uses the ancient Chinese martial art of "being fast." Seriously, both those movies dealt with opposing a repressive totalitarian government (albeit with better plots) WITHOUT CONDONING TERRORISM.
Let it be known Alan Moore has disavowed any connection with this movie. I haven't read the comic book version of V for Vendetta, but his other work The Watchmen is the greatest graphic novel of all time, and I saw how the intended script for that movie totally destroyed Moore's brilliant writing and plot.
We've all seen totalitarian dystopia movies, especially those resembling or based on comic books, a million times before. Heck, that's the only form of government comic book authors seem to recognize. V for Vendetta is tolerably acted, and Hugo Weaving's voice is perfect for the role, but the story as portrayed is far too simplistic and comes across as simple Bush-bashing without any of the comedy or action sequences that would otherwise make simple plot movies enjoyable.
Then there's the whole condoning terrorism dealie. It isn't just that V is a (n intended) sympathetic anarchist, the problem is that V ISN'T a real terrorist but will be identified as such. Real terrorists target and murder innocent civilians for the purpose of effecting political change. All V ever does is pursue a personal vendetta against 4 specific targets who have done him (and thousands more) wrong in the past and thus deserve to be murdered. The only time he hurts innocents is when he threatens to blow up a government-controlled propaganda news station with what appears to be a fake bomb, and thereby holds 10 innocents hostage for a movie time of 10 seconds (a crime that's never really examined). But by equating the far less evil V with real terrorists, V for Vendetta is making a (n unfair) pro-terrorism argument no matter what the stars say in press releases.
Nor does the movie ever show any of the real consequences of anarchy. For all the chaos V causes, the worst ever attributed to him is that a criminal holds up a grocery wearing one of his masks (but no one is hurt). The building destroyed at the end is unoccupied (apparently), and we're expected to believe that the UK somehow reconstitutes itself without a single loss of innocent life after every all the important government members are dead.
The movie makes the argument that there's an either/or choice between Anarchy and Totalitarianism. V has hard evidence of the key government members' many crimes, but when he gets his chance to take over the news, all he does is threaten people. Why didn't he just broadcast his evidence? I guess the real answer is that Hollywood is still sore Iraq. Well, fine, but toss in some kung fu scenes or SOMETHING.