I wrote the short review on TSN, but I've been waiting too long for this movie to come out not to share more in-depth thoughts. This post will contain spoilers, so I'll put it behind the Extended Wall.
Like I said in the TSN review, this is about as good a movie as I can hope for. They took a rather hefty piece of work and whittled it down without losing much of the basic plot.

If I have a complaint about the movie, it's not what they took away but what they added. In some cases, translators have to add things to smooth over the parts too involved for them to put in. Understood, but I question some of the things that they did.

Understandably they didn't use nuclear war as a backdrop and using the plague was as good a substitute as any. But I really wish that writers would get the whole "the-government-made-the-crisis-so-that-it-could-become-more-powerful" plotline. It's no longer clever. In fact, it's become so part-and-parcel with these sorts of movies that it is, for lack of a better word, utterly cliche. I didn't gasp when they released that little nugget to the audience - I all but groaned. Sometimes catastrophe just happens and the wrong people take advantage of it. Hitler did not invent the poverty that brought him to power... he just siezed upon it. As it was with the Norsefire in the original V.

And it made more sense that way. The new plot now relies the concentration camps pre-dating the plague. If the Conservative Party had really garnered that much power, was the havoc wreaked by the plague really worth it? Once you start carting people off for extermination, what (domestic) power is their left to accumulate?

The answer, I think, comes down to contemporary lefty politics. The same reason they stuck the Nazi insignia by the "Coalition of the Willing" poster. I actually had less of a problem with the latter, however, as it did hinder the plot. Unfortunately, there are some canards that the left is unwilling to ever concede. Among them is that external threats are rarely more than invention by right-wingers to make them scared of the world. I've no doubt that the right would run similar continual themes, but for better or worse they're not the ones making the movies.

That being said, unlike others on the right I did not consider "V" to be particular lefty.

As such, I disagree with Cromulent Pete's assessment: "Despite the fact that V for Vendetta has been bouncing around with different studios for some time, there’s no denying that the finished product was created with the war in Iraq and the ongoing domestic debate concerning wiretaps and shrinking civil liberties in mind. In that respect, it’s one of the first major Hollywood films to take such an overt anti-Bush stance. Certainly there have been a number of documentaries and subdued flicks like “Good Night and Good Luck” casting their stones at the Bush Administration, but the parallels between the Orwellian future onscreen and today’s chilly domestic political climate can’t be denied, and the Wachowskis are far from delicate in their rhetoric."

Now I come at this from a stance that any society that is openly debating whether or not the government should be forced to subsidize art that harshly critiques it is so far from totalitarianism as to be laughable. I consider the notion that totalitarianism - of the serious nature depicted in V and 1984 and other dystopian fare as opposed to "totalitarianism" as defined by high school kids rebelling against a school dress code - is right around the corner to be laughable. As such, I consider any comparisons between Sutler's Britain and Bush's America as something of a lack of perspective. If I ever pretend anything different under the next Democratic President, please smack me.

Then again, the original piece was intended partly to critique Margaret Thatcher's Britain. Then again, it's been my impression that Alan Moore is utterly insane. Artists of his exceptional quality generally are.

In what was also probably in an effort to make the story more "relevent" they also somewhat changed the nature of the regime and painted a much more religious picture. The comic Norsefire was more a nationalistic sort of fascism whereas there was more a religious element in the movie. Sort of the difference between Saddam Hussein and the Talaban. The theocratic elements would have worked better in a more American dystopia. When the Anglican Church is the religious authority, theocracy is likely not palatable to the people.

But enough complaining!

I enjoyed the movie greatly. Good performances all around, most especially Stephen Rea's portrayal of the grumpled Inspector Finch.Though not looking much at all like his inspiration, he nonetheless embodies the part through his mannerisms. It is a testament to his acting ability that when I looked him up on IMDB, I fully expected him to specialize in playing detectives, which turned out not to be the case. Finch's part was cut down a bit for the movie, which was a shame. Most particularly that they cut back on his epiphany at the end, but all things considered it probably had to go as it might have proven distracting..

John Hurt was a good evil dictator. He was much more charismatic than his counterpart and considerably less sympathetic. I suppose it is a testament to the unsubtle art of film that this was the case. He looked excellent on his big screen. In fact, the whole council thing was visually very stimulating. It worked magnificently. I did find it interesting that Hurt was the only fascist bigwig that they chose to rename. In the comic book his last name was Susan, which they changed to Sutler. I suppose Susan was too feminine. The feminine name worked with the subdued comic character, but it probably wouldn't have as well with the bombastic film version.

Creedy was awesome. I thought it a bit odd that they named the character Creedy when his steely demeanor had much more in common with His predecessor, Almond. The actor looked like neither, but played the part of the "spider" in an understated tone that contrasted well with Sutler.

The other two members of the high council, Heyer and Dascomb, were not particularly important in the movie. I think I actually preferred the slick movie version of Dascomb over the creepy comic version. It was more suitable to a PR/media character. It was a tragedy that Fate played no role in the movie, but I don't see where it really could have fit.

And, of course, there was V and Evey. Hugo Weaving was great as the head honcho of it all. With his role with the Matrix and Lord of the Rings trilogies, he is now a knight of geekfare. I thought it would have been neat if they had slipped his face in the movie without identifying him (such as in the Larkhill scenes). A sort of hat-tip to the geeky fans. I also did not like that they let too much of V's face show, in the figurative sense. I liked the mystery in the comic book that you didn't know if he was disfigured and if so, how much. What they did show reminded me of Spawn... and not in a good way.

Natalie Portman was good, though not great, as Miss Evey Hammond. Artistically I didn't care for the fact that she worked at the TV station, though plot-wise that was probably it made things move a lot swifter. The detention center scenes were handled particularly well. I know that more than one comic book geek was probably disappointed that she was clothed for the raining scene. I was a bit disappointed that they left less to the imagination as far as her feelings for V and vice-versa, but I suppose Hollywood will be Hollywood.

The movie was visually quite good. The government emblem was wonderful in both its simplicity and its force. The army of V's (a concern among the comic fans) actually worked to the movie's benefit. Some people are complaining about the mask, though I'm not particularly sure what they could have done about that. Maybe I was conditioned by the comic to accept it more easily.