In light the political and societial climate in the beginning of the 21^st century this movie offered a voice to an American audience that felt disenfranchised and alienated by it’s government. At one point in the film the protagonist says that: “The building is a symbol, as is the act of destroying it. Symbols are given power by people. Alone, a symbol is meaningless, but with enough people, blowing up a building can change the world.” Quite the radical thought after 9/11. But the original story was written about a dystopian future in England, not America, it was inspired by Margaret Thatcher’s and not George W. Bush’s regime. This story was originally one of Anarchy vs. Facism and defanged only a little into being one of liberalism vs. neo-conservatism among other things.

Natalie Portman’s acting is impressive, I found her especially believable when she is refusing to cooperate with that she perceives to be agents of the regime, but then this is the same young girl who stole my heart as she declared her love for Jean Reno in Léon the Professional. Hugo Weaving’s acting suffers from not being able to see his face and his voice is much too clear considering it’s supposed to come from behind a mask.

Alan Moore, facing his disappointment in both From Hell and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, refused to view the film and subsequently distanced himself from it. When producer Joel Silver said that Alan Moore was “he [Moore] was very excited about what Larry had to say.” Moore took offense and demanded an written apology for the “blatant lies”. He later received a personal call from Silver, but no written apology was ever printed.

I love this movie for what it is, and don’t judge it for what it isn’t. It isn’t the graphic novel, and nor should it be. The graphic novel would have been a couple of extra hours longer and not done nearly as well at the box office. It just a shame that Moore refuses to receive any payment over it.