But this is not to say that the film is a total dud. It is not. It contains an interesting tale of a man who calls himself "V," (played by Hugo Weaving from The Matrix and The Lord of the Rings films) who stands against a totalitarian Great Britain of the not so distant future. He wears a mask reminiscent of Guy Fawkes, who on November 5, 1605 attempted to blow up King James I and the Houses of Parliament. Therefore, V means to blow up similar landmarks of Great Britain on November 5th in order to get his point across - that totalitarianism sucks, and freedom should reign supreme. In the meantime, he seeks out his revenge on his enemies who have wronged him in the past.

     Crossing paths with V is Evey (Natalie Portman), a woman whose family was persecuted because of this new regime, but for some reason stills lives an ordinary life - up until she meets V, that is. From that point on, V helps her cope with her past and ultimately side with his ideals. Unfortunately, her character does not offer more than that. Good thing Natalie is a good actress (aside from her poor attempt at a British accent), or there would be nothing going for this character at all. It seems that her character just gets us from A to B, with nothing really all that exhilarating in between.

     Much has been said about this movie being anti-George W. Bush or anti-conservative. This can be looked at in two ways. On the one hand, it appears to be nothing more than just be a reflection of Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein and their ideals, since the leader of this future Great Britain, Adam Sutler (John Hurt), is labeled as a conservative (in the same sense Hitler was and Saddam is, which is more extreme), and this totalitarian state he governs seems to reflect similar ideals - especially with a scene or two in the film where people are killed, stripped naked and piled into a ditch like the holocaust.

     On the other hand, the people who he persecutes and/or censors are not Jews or Kurds. They are Muslims and homosexuals. Even though James McTeigue claims this film is "an allegory of all governments," it can come off as more of an allegory of the United States and its conservative leaders, because our current conservative leaders are mostly Christian, and the Christian faith teaches that other faiths and homosexuality are wrong. This is not to say that Christians commonly persecute Muslims or gays, but it is understandable how this film could be viewed as a vision of what could happen if leaders in government became extreme in these ideals like Hitler and denied people the freedom to believe and live as they wish.

     Is it really a reflection of Bush, conservatism and/or Christianity (or what the Wachowskis think of these ideals)? Or did the creators simply pick out minorities at random for subject matter? This is really up to the individual viewing the film. But one thing is for certain: the whole idea of this film is to preach freedom. So while the ideas presented in this film may seem extreme, our right to even speak out on such ideas in our country is a privilege to treasure.

     Political differences aside, this film does get its point across and delivers some exciting moments. Hugo Weaving brings a delightful (and sometimes humorous) performance as V, and we’re treated to some great visuals and action sequences when the film gets exciting.

     But sadly, the film‘s exciting moments are few and far between, as uninteresting characters are given more screen time than the much more intriguing V character. And like what was said before, we are given too much dialogue and not enough show. The Wachowskis still have not found their way back to the proper balance between show and tell, and could take some lessons from the Wachowskis of 1999 who made the first Matrix film. Seeing this film was not a regrettable experience - just a forgettable one.