Mister Anderson . . . you disappoint me.

Rating: 3/10 (15 August 2006)

In his review of this overblown and disappointing shovel-ful of lard-hype (I say disappointing, because the writer/producers' "The Matrix" was wonderfully inventive and character-driven), my man Roger Ebert asks: "Is this movie a parable about 2006, a cautionary tale or a pure fantasy?" PUHLEEEEEASE. C'mon, man. I mean, how overt does a roll of celluloid have to be before you give it the sledgehammer award for heavy-handedness? For me, this film was a huge disappointment because my expectations were so high, based on how much I enjoyed "The Matrix" and "Bound," both written and directed by the Brothers W, who screen-scripted "V" and evidently left their second man James McTeigue hanging out to dry as director on this one. There was nothing subtle about the contrived and preachy analogies between the totalitarian bad guys in "V" and the targeted real-world counterparts and conservative ideologies in the West. The problem with the politically motivated axe-grinding that shows up in films like "V" is that any efforts to produce a more encompassing, honest, and human depiction of characters and events are subsumed to the desire to propagandize and preach. With the passage of time, a film like "V" becomes more trite and embarrassing, while a film like "The Matrix" becomes more established and entrenched in our hearts and minds. Artists who eschew that which is most universal and central to the human condition in order to rail against personalities/parties/fill-in-the-blank of the ephemeral and always shifting political landscape give away so very much to preach points that are already tiring and lame by the time they hit the screen. I will always love the Wachowski Bros' best works, but this one isn't worth the time it takes to view it.