not that good

Rating: 5/10 (3 May 2006)

Set in a Britain of the not too distant future, a lone terrorist, V, seeks to lead the public in overthrowing Sutler, their repressive dictator.
Struggling to emerge is a very good film, but any potential is swallowed by its incoherent thematic pretensions. A high-quality cerebral action film can only be beneficial to the industry, paving the way for studios to allow more genuine artists to create worthwhile films and make their profits. This dual purpose of intelligence with mass appeal does not work for V for Vendetta. Whereas with The Matrix the audience could take or leave the cod-philosophy and still have an essence of what the film was about, V for Vendetta demands the audience's participation for both aspects. This would be a welcomed but there is not a great deal to be gained from this approach. Take this just as an action film with long words and you will be left with a series of fights and explosions, which admittedly is what some want, but most will feel empty. The alternative approach is equally troublesome  try to figure out what the dubious symbolism and paradoxes mean and all that remains of the film is a patchwork of half-ideas that detracts from some spectacular set pieces. Herein lies the conundrum which doesn't seems to have a solution, leaving an overriding feeling that the Wachowskis in their script and McTeigue in his direction are so convinced that they are being clever that they neglect to allow any of their ideas to form into anything meaningful.
V's mask is initially irritating, but as you get used to it James Purefoy's actions and Wachowski favourite Hugo Weaving's speech emerge into the best performance of the film, with subtlety of voice and gesture combining to make V at least somewhat convincing as a character. Stephen Fry somehow manages to play an intelligent, gay man with an appreciation for the finer things in life who is no stranger to appearing on television. It is a shame that Fry, who is defined by being so intelligent, cannot bring himself to play characters that might stretch him as an actor. Natalie Portman and her accent both prove insufficient in bringing the necessary gravity and credence to Evey. This is disappointing from one who has established her credentials as an effective actress and with better direction would have been capable of delivering a worthy performance.
The Wachowski's films do have a ring of Kubrik about them. This will be sacrilege for many, but there are a few good reasons. Each had a liking for grandiose messages, each had a fascination with authority and finally each had decidedly mixed reviews when their films were released. The vital difference of course is that Kubrik was a far superior filmmaker and thus in comparison to such genius it can be seen why V for Vendetta appears so empty - because it is. It lacks the directorial judgement between the need for overt and subtle, and crucially the ability to present vicious dissent without descending into incoherent rant.
The Wachowskis and McTeigue steer clear of presenting too direct and simple a message, but in so doing swing too far the other way, heaping on the paradoxes and meaningful glances. What results is not much more than a two-hour version of the Architect's speech from Matrix Reloaded, punctuated by action that is, in the main, inferior to the team's previous work. All in all, a decidedly mediocre film.