A surprisingly effective social satire within a Hollywood film? It is not perfect but it is very enjoyable for what it does

Rating: Null/10 (11 December 2006)

Evey Hammond is heading out after curfew when the Government's Finger Men catch her and decide to enact their own form of justice on her. Her only rescue comes in the form of a masked man in a cape. This man then proceeds to show her the destruction of the Old Bailey. The Government spring into action to spin the story, control the people and find the terrorist. The police track Evey from CCTV and head to her work place (the Government controlled television station) to detain her. "V" arrives before them and uses the emergency station to broadcast his own message of unrest, elevating his "terrorist" stance against the Government in a year long war that will culminate on the 5th November one way or the other.
It probably helps to be in the UK to really appreciate what this film does well. I don't mean that in a snobby way but it is a success of the film that it produces a vision of the UK that is both futuristic but yet recognisable as our current condition. It does this most easily by visually mixing the design of homes and people's lives with all the trimmings of a totalitarian state but it also does it by making the links to our current political state of control and Government intrusion in the name of "terrorism control" and protection. Although it is only a year old, the film still shows a lot of foresight when viewed with hindsight and in doing so it produces an effectively bleak attack on our current political climate. It is effective mainly because it doesn't ever feel that far fetched thanks to the details but mainly thanks to the overriding themes of fear and control being used by a Government.
The surprise and joy of finding this level of social commentary in a what appeared to be a Hollywood action movie helped cover up some of the weaknesses. Some viewers have complained about the lack of action in the film; personally I do not see this as a weakness because this is more to do with how the film was sold rather than how it was made. The weaknesses are minor and include the asks the plot makes in regards the ability of V to do what he does and how far-fetched some of it is etc but, like I said, these are covered by how relevant and interesting I found the story. The cast are mostly good. It took me a good twenty minutes to accept Portman's accent but after that she won me over. She is very much in the shadow of Weaving, who shows what a great voice he has by producing a wonderful character without a glimpse of his face throughout. Rea is a bit dour but he does convince as a worn-down public servant faced with the truth about his masters. Fry wasn't that good but does what he had to do in a small role. Hurt and Pigott-Smith are both very good; Hurt particularly convinced as the sort of person who rises to power and delivered convincing lines in a convincing manner  it is telling he has little screen time but a large impact. McTeigue direction was surprisingly good and he delivered the whole affair with a real downbeat air while I'm sure some pressure must have been on him to deliver a big budget action movie for the summer season. He is well supported by the designers behind the visuals.
Those seeking action to compare with the Matrix (or even action) will feel let down and I can understand why  the trailers have talked up this side and talked down the social commentary side (and this is a damning verdict of how public tastes are viewed from Hollywood) but credit to the makers for producing a film that surprised me by how relevant it was. Over the coming years this will either become a thing of its time or more relevant than ever (I hope the former) but right now it is an effective story, told with the unreal air of graphic novel but with enough to link it to the present to keep it relevant. I was genuinely surprised by how good it was and how engaged I was by it.