While I probably would not give the movie a 10, I think it is close. The movie is entertaining and thought provoking with great writing and an excellent performance by Hugo Weaving. It raises the question of how to respond to totalitarian oppression, giving a different perspective than the "peace-at-all-costs" mentality espoused and revered by the likes of Gandhi. I think this is an interesting perspective that diverges from the "violence is always wrong" type of thinking and instead addresses how acts of "evil" can ultimately be for the greater good while also addressing the potential fallout that such a mindset can result in. Ultimately what makes it great are the parallels between the evils perpetrated by the government in the fictional world and what is actually happening in the real world. The film encourages viewers not to blithely accept what the government does and instead actually think critically about the policies we have enacted and where they are leading us.
It's been a long time since I've seen the movie or read the comics, but from memory I would settle on a happy middle ground, at about a
7/10. My two cents, for what they are worth: I do have the distinct impression that the comics were vastly superior, particularly with regards to their setting and characterizations. Some of the performances in the film were pretty great (especially Hugo Weaving), but I remember being disappointed by how morally unambiguous the movie was, at least in comparison to the source material. In the movie, V was essentially painted as a liberal superhero with a bit of a violent streak, whose enemies were gross, Bush-era caricatures. It was rather significantly Hollywooded up, and lost not only the expansive moral grayness that I appreciated so much in the comics, but also the well-rounded characterization of all the major players and the more complex anarchism vs. fascism political angle that was so thoughtfully presented in the comics. Indeed, I recall the film's script being cringe-worthy at times, which tends to happen when film writers whitewash comic-writer Alan Moore's big, dangerous ideas. (See, for example: From Hell, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Watchmen, and, to some extent, Constantine.) The end result is that the film is essentially equal parts political thriller and teenager/young adult-oriented action/adventure, where the politics and character arcs have been heavily watered down, compared to the source material. Still, I can't fault it too much, because as memory serves it did a lot of things right, and I think it deserves a bonus point insofar as it might serve as a gateway drug to the 'real deal' of Moore's writing, or insofar as it offers some avenues for critical thought alongside its action-oriented set pieces. And the more I think about it, the more I remember just how impressed I was with Hugo Weaving's faceless performance. Nonetheless, I would strongly encourage people who liked the film to get their hands on the collected comic series (or
graphic novel).
