If you're a fan of Alan Moore's masterpiece, I wouldn't bother

Rating: 4/10 (23 July 2006)

I think the fact that Alan Moore himself would have nothing to do with this film is a fairly clear indicator that something's wrong with it.
As a fan of the aesthetically beautiful and affecting graphic novel, I wasn't short of feeling queasy when the finale of this film finally arrived.
Distorted beyond recognition, the screenplay became vacuous and bland; extra characters appeared as if from nowhere to fill up newly created plot holes, adding nothing to story except confusion. Vital and key moments of the tale are left unnecessarily unexplained (how V made his escape from Larkhill), while new features twist and change the whole mood of what should be a stark story (Steven Fry's character, the mass distribution of masks etc.) By this change of focus, I didn't care nearly as much about V or Evie's screen personas as I did about their printed ones. Although, to his credit, Hugo Weaving tries very hard with a concept that would never work in this film - complex (sometimes mad) expression through a mask. The entire ending is preposterous (bar the original ideas; blowing up the houses of parliament is a classic), and dare I say it, cheesy in the extreme. Portman's 'heart rending' speech (not to mention consistently dreadful accent) while we see the faces of 'the everyman' makes you reach for the bucket, and is a highly unsatisfying ending to what was an uninspired film to start with.
People I know who arn't lucky enough to have read Moore's original in print have raved about this film. And, I suppose, maybe it does stand up, even if you don't have the context (although I fail to see how many would find this mish-mash any less than confusing). It seems to me, however, that this had the potential to be a stark and affecting film, with massive cult potential, showing a decent representation of its source material. But once again, Hollywood bought-out.