"V for Vendetta" is going to confuse a lot of people. Nevertheless, and make no mistake about it, this is movie making of the highest order, combining all the finest elements of great storytelling into a potent roller coaster of a movie filled with great action,intellect and above all, ideas. Its message can - and will - easily be dismissed by naysayers as sophomoric or too "out there," or "anti-american" but there is also an earnestness here that will resonate strongly, and perhaps, frighteningly, to many viewers who will not fail to see the correlation between this fictional tale and the way the world we live in works.

Filled with stereotypes and archetypes, "V" is unapologetic in its essaying of morality and in its strongly held sentiment that this tale is "for the people, by the people." Brothers and writers Larry and Andy Wachowski (of Matrix fame) have infused their screenplay with the anger, confusion and hope captured in Alan Moore's original graphic novel - and it's better looking as a result.

I truly believe that many who see "V" will be upset by it, but hopefully more of us will be inspired by its bold, blatant message and take a good hard look at ourselves and the way the world works around us and see that, with sacrifice and thoughtfulness, the world can be changed.

As Evey, Natalie Portman is cast in something of the "victim" role, but she makes us route for her, and to her credit she goes beyond that making the transformation of her character not only believable, but in the end, noble.

Hugo Weaving - the man behind the mask - gives a performance that can only be described as mesmerizing. As "V" he exposes all of the strength and weakness of a character that is equal parts savior and villain.

The physical production is beautiful in its realism as it paints a nightmarish world of the not-very-distant future (2020) and is chilling in its depiction of governmental power, socio-political corruption and, ultimately, the complacency of its citizens. Weaving's "V" challenges, and ultimately changes all of that, as he quickly unravels the fabric of civilized society, capturing the public with his bold ideas - and with the promise and permanancy of change through rebellion and political uprising.

Most chillingly, the film invokes the dread once feared in "1984" but with a renewed vigor that drives home the horrors Orwell foresaw, and still loom large in our comfy modern world. Chilling? You betcha! For those who know the novel, there is little skimping, and, given the current world situation, one must absolutely applaud the filmmakers for "going there" as far as the ending is concerned. This is film making at its emotional and challenging best.

Are there flaws? Of course there are, but ultimately "V for Vendetta" rises far above them in its presentation of a world filled with ideas that have forever been debated, and does it in a story well told, beautifully acted and full of hope for humankind. Not bad work for a movie. Actually, it's magnificent.

Alan Moore's decision to want his name off the final credits for the film adaptation of V for Vendetta now makes sense. Moore has had a hate/hate relationship with Hollywood and the film industry in general. They've taken two of his other works in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and From Hell and bollocks'd them up (to borrow a term used quite abit in V for Vendetta). Outside of Watchmen, Alan Moore sees V for Vendetta as one of his more personal works and after reading the screenplay adaptation of the graphic novel by The Wachowski Brothers his decision afterwards was to demand his name be removed from the film if it was ever made. Part of this was his hatred of the film industry for their past mistakes and another being his wish for a perfect adaptation or none at all. Well, V for Vendetta by James McTeigue and The Wachowski Brothers is not a perfect film adaptation. What it turns out to be is a film that stays true to the spirit of Moore's graphic novel and given a modern, up-to-the-current news retelling of the world's state of affairs.

V for Vendetta starts off with abit of a prologue to explain the relevance of the Guy Fawkes mask worn by V throughout the film and the significance of the date of the 5th of November. I think this change in the story from the source material may be for the benefit of audiences who didn't grow up in the UK and have no idea of who Guy Fawkes was and what his Gunpowder Plot was all about. The sequence is short but informative. From then on we move on to the start of the main story and here the film adheres close enough to the source material with a few changes to the Evey character (played with skill that more than makes up for her Amidala performances) but not enough to ruin the character. Caught after curfew and accosted by the ruling government's secret police called Fingermen, Evey soon encounters V who saves her not just from imprisonment but rape.

Right from the start the one thing McTeigue and The Wachowski Brothers got dead-on was casting Hugo Weaving as the title character. Voice silky, velvety and sonorous, Weaving infuses V with an otherworldly, theatrical personality. Whether V was speaking phrases from Shakespeare, philosophers or pop culture icons, the voice gave a character who doesn't show his face from behind the enternally-smiling Guy Fawkes mask real life. I'd forgiven the makers of this films for some of the changes they made to the story and some of the characters for keeping V as close to how Moore wrote him. Once V and Evey are thrown in together by the happenstance of that nightly encounter their fates became intertwined. Portman plays the reluctant witness to V's acts of terrorism, murders and destruction in the beginning, but a poignant and emotionally powerful sequence to start the second half of the film soon brings Evey's character not much towards V's way of doing things, but to understanding just why he's doing them. This sequence became the emotional punch of the whole film and is literally lifted word for word from the graphic novel. I heard more than just a few people sobbing in the theater as the scenes and story unfolded.

The rest of the cast seemed like a who's who of the British acting community. From Stephen Rea's stubborn and dogged Chief Inspector Finch whose quest to find V leads him to finding clues about his government's past actions that he'd rather have not found. Then there's Stephen Fry's flamboyant TV show host who becomes Evey's only other ally whose secret longings have been forbidden by the government, but who's awakened by V's actions to go through with his own form of rebellion. Then there's John Hurt as High Chancellor Adam Sutler who's seen chewing up the scenery with his Hitler-like performance through Big Brother video conferences (an ironic bit of casting since John Hurt also played Winston Smith in the film adaptation of the Orwell classic 1984). I really couldn't find any of the supporting players as having done a bad job in their performances. Even Hurt's Sutler may seemed over-the-top to some but his performance just showed how much of a hatemonger Sutler and in the end his Norsefire party really were in order to stay in power.

The story itself, as I mentioned earlier, had had some changes made to it. Some of these changes angered Moore and probably anger his more die-hard fans. I count myself as one of these die-hards, but I know how film adaptations of classic literary works must and need to trim some of the fat from the main body and theme of the story to fully translate onto the silver screen. The Wachowski Brother's screenplay did just that. They trimmed some of the side stories and tertiary characters from the story and concentrated on V, Evey and Inspector Finch's pursuit of both and the truth. This adaptation is much closer to how Peter Jackson adapted The Lord of the Rings. As a fan of Moore I understood why he was unhappy with the changes. But then Moore is also an avowed perfectionist and only a perfect adaptation would do.

Already critics on both sides of the aisle have called V for Vendetta revolutionary, subversive, daring to irresponsible, propagandist. All because the film dares to ask serious questions about the nature and role of violence as a form of dissent. But the granddaddy question the film brings up that has people talking is the question: terrorist or freedom fighter? Is V one or the other or is he both? Make no mistake about it, V for all intents and purposes is a terrorist if one was to use the definition of what a terrorist is. The makers of this film goes to great lenghts to describe throughout the film just how Sutler and his Norsefire (with its iconic Nazi-like symbols and fundamentaist Christian thinking) party rose to power in the UK. Partly due to what seemed like the failed US foreign policy and its subsequent and destructive decline as a superpower and the worldwide panic and fear it began as a result. V for Vendetta also ask just who was to blame for allowing such individuals to rule over them. V has his reasons for killing these powers-that-be, but he also points out that people really should just look in the mirror if they need to know who really was to blame. For it was the population --- whose desire to remain safe and have a semblance of peace --- gave up more and more of their basic liberties and rights for a return to order. If one was to look at the past 100 years they would see that it's happened before. There was the regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia, Milosevic's Greater Serbia, and the king of the hill of them all being Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Inner Circle.

Another thing about V for Vendetta that will surely talked about alot will be the images used in the film. Not just images and symbols looking so much like Nazi icons, but images from the current events sweeping the globe that has been shown time and time again in the news and written about in magazines and newspapers. The film shows people bound and hooded like prisoners from Abu Ghraib. The reason of the war on terror used time and time again by Sutler to justify why England and its people need him and his group to protect them by any means necessary. V for Vendetta seems like a timely film for our current times. Even with the conclusion of the film finally accomplishing what Guy Fawkes failed to do that night of November 5th some 400 plus years ago, V for Vendetta doesn't give all the answers to all the questions it raises. For some I'm sure this would be something that'll frustrate them. So much of people who go to watch thought-provoking films want their questions answered as clearly as possible and all of them. V for Vendetta doesn't answer them but gives the audience enough information to try and work it out themselves.

In final analysis, V for Vendetta accomplishes in bringing the main themes of Alan Moore's graphic novel to life and even does it well despite some of the changes made. It is a film that is sure to polarize the extreme left and right of the political pundits and commentators. But as a piece of thought-provoking and even as a politically subversive film, V for Vendetta does it job well. It is not a perfect film by any respect, but the story and message it tries to convey in addition to its value as a piece of entertainment mor than makes up for its flaws. V for Vendetta more than continues the current crop of seriously done comic book fillm adaptations (Batman Begins, X2, Sin City, and A History of Violence) but it also shows that Alan Moore's work can be adapted well to the screen when given to the right people. It may not be perfect and it may not make Alan Moore happy, but it comes close and more than makes up for LXG and From Hell.

The brilliant Hugo Weaving excels and Natalie Portman redeems herself (Princess Amidala, anyone?) in this all-too-relevant film. This film deals with many of the issues relevant to politics today and brilliantly skewers many characters who will seem very familiar from current events - politicians who exploit fear, blowhard talk-show hosts etc. Set in England after the demise of the US as a superpower, the film deftly refers to current political events as background to the rise of totalitarianism and ethnic cleansing. The central theme of the film is the trading of civil liberties for security, and the difficulty of undoing such a pact once it has been made.

The film also tackles many ethical issues such as vengeance and torture with what may be for some people uncomfortable conclusions.

Much has been written about Alan Moore (the original author) removing his name from the credits of the film, a decision which was based on the Wachowski Brothers (of Matrix fame) departing from the original text in their efforts to update it. However, the Wachowski's have created a masterpiece that adheres to the spirit of the original book whilst holding up a mirror to contemporary politics. Most importantly, the character of V (dandy, intellectual, mysterious) is largely untampered with.

Unsurprisingly for a film that is based on a comic book/graphic novel, the main characters almost border on archetypes, and this lends an appropriately comic-book feel to the film, and in this respect although it has no animation it has some similarity to films like Sin City.

The plot centers around the interaction of Hugo Weaving as V and Natalie Portman as Evey. Carefully-placed reveals allows us insight into the events that (literally) moulded V's worldview and show his conversion of Evey from timid obedientarian to revolutionary. Of particular note is Hugo Weavings ability to emote from behind a glossy, permanently-grinning mask. The mask (and I am not going to give any spoilers here) is of a character called Guy Fawkes, a would-be revolutionary who long ago was foiled in his attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament in England.

Natalie Portman gives a convincing portrayal of the personal journey that Evey is persuaded to undertake, and John Hurt excels as the megalomaniacal Chancellor Sutler. All similarities between Hurt's Sutler and Adolf Hitler are of course completely intentional, as are the ruling party's insignia and oppressive behaviour both of which have definite Third Reich similarities. Hurt's performance would seem over the top if it were not for the fact that we regularly see the same hate-spewing histrionics from political pundits and talking heads. I would guess that Hurt modeled his performance on talk-show hosts every bit as much as the crack-pot dictators of the Second World War. It is no accident that when Hurt addresses the public, or even his political allies in private, he does so over a giant TV monitor.

To call the supporting cast excellent would be an understatement. Of particular note is Rupert Graves' brilliant portrayal of Dominic, the 'Voice Of London', a twisted, hate-filled talking head whose concentration-camp crimes are rewarded by a cushy job spewing vitriol over the airwaves on the government-controlled TV channel, a man so in love with his own persona that he even rants along to recordings of his own shows whilst in the shower. His diatribes are punctuated with catch-phrases such as "I'm a God-fearing Englishman!" and "England Prevails!". Also notable is Stephen Rea's portrayal of the beaten-down Inspector Finch, a man who has risen in the ruling party despite his not-quite-ethnically-pure family background and whose disillusionment with the party enables him to play a defining role in the plans of V and Evey.

Perhaps inevitably, despite providing the catalyst for societal change, V is ultimately consumed by his vengeance.

This film is not afraid to take on issues that many vendors of popular culture would shy away from, and that inevitably will invite criticism. However as the poet Hardy once said "If way to the better there be, it exacts a full look at the worst". If you haven't already seen this film, get yourself a copy.