Not even my extremely low expectations were met.

Rating: 1/10 (2 April 2006)

This was a thoroughly dissatisfying film. In addition to a sophomoric concept (the execution of which was completely devoid of subtlety), the movie suffered for its unrealistic and jarring effects. Little can be said of Hugo Weaving's performance, as he wasn't given very much to work with, but Natalie Portman was embarrassingly bad. It's evidenced in her apparent inability to close her mouth or unfurl her brow that she's been taking cues from Selma Hayek, making her character look as irretrievably stupid and confused as possible. Even more unfortunately, John Hurt didn't seem opposed to applying similar techniques, producing an effect that could just have easily been rendered by the placing of a bold and flashing text box reading "I AM ANGRY!" right along side his gigantic, bobbing head.
Stephen Fry, who one should think would exercise caution after that terrific flop, Bright Young Things, once again disappoints in a weird and unnecessary role as a gay man who, for reasons best known to the Wachowskis, is also an avid reader of the Koran.
The portrayal of a "totalitarian state" was poorly developed and I had no idea what I was looking at. It seems that the few vague mentions of curfew are intended to fully represent the impediment of these peoples' civil liberties. This whole hypothetical world, not far enough removed from the actual world to create the kind of climate that could possibly produce civil unrest on scale with that in the movie, just seems like the "real world", but with larger television screens and John Hurt's aforementioned wrinkly visage floating all over the place.
At first I was outraged that the filmmakers were underestimating their audience, but regretfully, after reading the user comments on IMDb, I must admit that they may actually have been regarding it too highly.