Today’s Prayer Focus

V for Vendetta

MPA Rating: R for strong violence and some language

Reviewed by: Michael Karounos

Moviemaking Quality:

Primary Audience:
Sci-Fi Crime Thriller
2 hr. 12 min.
Year of Release:
USA Release:
March 17, 2006 (wide)
Copyright, Warner Brothers Copyright, Warner Brothers Copyright, Warner Brothers Copyright, Warner Brothers Copyright, Warner Brothers Copyright, Warner Brothers Copyright, Warner Brothers Copyright, Warner Brothers Copyright, Warner Brothers
Relevant Issues
Copyright, Warner Brothers

What is Islam? Answer
an overview for Christians

Persecuted church—Why and how should we pray for suffering Christians? Answer

Every time you buy a movie ticket or rent a video you are casting a vote telling Hollywood “That’s what I want.” Why does Hollywood continue to promote immoral programming? Are YOU part of the problem?

Featuring Natalie Portman, Hugo Weaving, Stephen Fry, Rupert Graves, Stephen Rea
Director James McTeigue
Producer Joel Silver, Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski
Distributor Warner Brothers

“Remember, remember the 5th of November”

Copyrighted, Warner Brothers

“V for Vendetta” is based on a graphic novel written by Alan Moore in the early 1980s, supposedly as a protest against the conservatism of the Margaret Thatcher regime. Whether that’s true or not, the substance of the story is explained by Wikipedia in the following manner:

“The series is set in an alternative-future Britain where nuclear weapons have been removed from the country following a victory for Labour in 1983, sparing it from nuclear attack in a limited nuclear war that left the country mostly physically intact. An extreme right-wing fascist single-party state has arisen, called Norsefire, that maintains control of the country through food shortages (arising during the nuclear winter), government-controlled media, secret police, a planned economy, and concentration camps for racial and sexual minorities.” (Wikipedia)

All of these elements are present in the movie as well, with the exception of the nuclear winter. V (Hugo Weaving) is a vigilante-like hero who seeks to overthrow a government described as “religious and conservative” like those portrayed in Burton’s “Planet of the Apes” and in Wimmer’s “Equilibrium” and “Ultraviolet”. The movie also repeats the cross motif that each of the other movies uses to denigrate Christianity. The particular cross in “V” is what is called a papal or archiepiscopal cross, with two transoms of uneven length. It serves as an ever-present red symbol of oppression and decorates the backdrop of a viewing platform before which goose-stepping troops march in American-style desert camouflage. This association of Christianity with an oppressive military has become a common motif in Hollywood productions, more recently in “Ultraviolet”.

V himself is the product of a viral experiment which, though it does not kill him, does in fact make him stronger and very angry. Consequently, he seeks to overthrow the government by 1) exposing the lies that sustain it, and 2) by awakening the masses from the dulled TV sleep into which they have been lulled. V accomplishes this by blowing up governmental structures representing the judicial and legislative branches, and by assassinating the figurehead for the executive branch. In short, V’s project is an anarchist one, as the ending makes clear when the populace of London turns out, dressed in V masks, and their TVs are shown in empty rooms and empty pubs as a symbol that they have been awakened from their ideological slumber.

The movie is preachy to say the least, and harps on three major themes and one minor one: 1) the evil of America; 2) the government control of media; 3) the evil of Christianity; and 4) the innocence of Islam. These themes are portrayed so frequently in American films that it’s become necessary to rebut them as a counter to V’s assertion that “Art is fiction that tells the truth.” This is the movie’s transparent attempt to claim authenticity for its own fictions.

The first fiction portrays the United States as an evil society, racked by civl war; suffering from riots over medicine shortages; and as the source of the deadly virus that conservatives in England used to kill 80,000 of their own people.

What is remarkable about such Leftist fantasies about the presumed guilt of the United States is that all of those evils are in existence today and employed by regimes which were enemies of the United States, such as Sadaam Hussein’s Iraq. Just this past week, a Russian Communist accused the U.S. of inventing the avian flu (Center for Disease Information). Yet, reality is found in the disturbing revelation of the viral weapon the Communists in the Soviet Union developed (Technology Review).

The second fiction of the movie is that of a government-controlled (or supported) media which brainwashes its populace. In reality, this is true only of oppressive regimes and socialist societies like England where the media is, in fact, already Leftist. In the United States, we have a freedom of speech that is so wide-ranging in its liberties that it permits our media to print blatant forgeries libeling our President. Although Dan Rather was fired for publishing propaganda just before a national election, he can take comfort in the fact that he got a nice severance package and was tortured only by his attempts at explanation.

Thirdly, it is difficult for Christians to take seriously the hysterical fictions of Christian totalitarianism by those on the Left who make movies like this and contribute to organizations like or the Democratic Underground. The only totalitarianisms we have known in the modern era are either secular or Islamic, precisely the ones that the United States is trying to protect the world from. It is not Christians who blow up buildings, chop people’s heads off, or issue rewards for the death of Danish cartoonists. This is another case of wishful and perverted projection on the part of the Left. The movie further portrays the Anglican bishop as a pervert who preys on young girls and who has made a fortune from drug company graft.

Lastly, the fiction of Islam as a religion of peace is directly or indirectly referenced twice in the movie. The first is with the suggestion: “What if the worst attack was not the work of religious extremists?” This echoes the fever-swamp accusations by those Americans who think our own government was responsible for 9/11 and not Islamic terrorists. The second reference to Islam is when a TV entertainer is arrested and executed for having a Koran in his possession.

In no Christian land across the world is it a crime to have a Koran or even to preach death to Christians from it, as the imams regularly do in England, Italy, Germany, and the prisons of New York ( Newsday article). In fact, in Muslim Saudi Arabia the persecution of Christians is well-documented, as when two Philippino Christians were arrested, tortured, and deported in 2002 for privately practicing their faith. There are many such instances documented at Web sites focused on persecution of Christians, including Christian Persecution.

The movie further shows the pseudo-Christian regime arresting, torturing, and killing lesbian and gay couples. But in the real world, it is Muslims like the Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani of Iraq who say that “gays should be killed in the worst possible way” (Web reference). By no means are such Muslim comments limited to him, nor are they necessarily meant maliciously. It is simply what Islam teaches.

I saw “V for Vendetta” with nine Christian college students and was struck by their immunity to issues which I found offensive. I believe the reason for their neutral response is because our media have done a thorough job of tainting Christianity and exonerating Islam. While Hollywood is busy making movies about the fictional evils of Christianity, it is just as busy ignoring the real evils of Islam to gays, women, and Christians.

What is important for Christian viewers to remember is that movies are not just entertainment; they are ideological statements. And when movies persistently portray our country and our faith as evil, even skeptical believers who think that Hollywood is too shallow or too objective (!) to make anti-Christian movies should sit up and take notice.

What distinguishes Christianity from all other belief systems is the overwhelming message of grace, forgiveness, and redemption that we have through Jesus Christ. It is a mystery that this is so; it seems fantastic and a stumbling-block to non-believers that it is so; but we live in a remarkable time when even the co-founder of string theory, Michio Kaku, can say in his new book, Parallel Worlds, that the universe is ordered according to a still-unknown theorem and that where there’s a theorem there must also be a Creator of that theorem. We live in a world of true and false statements, of good and evil deeds, and we must learn how to distinguish one from the other by the fruits of their practitioners.

“V for Vendetta” is a political speech disguised as a movie, but it affirms nothing positive, spending its time engaging in juvenile fantasies about the thrills of anarchism and the evils of Christianized regimes. Natalie Portman, as Evey, does what she can with the role of a prostitute* turned savior, but it is a morbid role with little range of expression. Even Hugo Weaving, trapped behind the Guy Fawkes mask, has more humorous statements and more range of inflections in his speeches than does Portman.

Finally, the movie has female nudity, including showing naked dead bodies, as in WWII by the Nazis, being scooped into mass graves. The viewer can catch glimpses of naked women but it’s not prolonged.

There is nothing good to say about it except that there are a number of quotations from Shakespeare and that I like the happy features of the Guy Fawkes mask very much. While it is good to have a historical knowledge of the Catholic Fawkes’s attempt 400 years ago to blow up Protestants in the Parliament Building, it is even better to understand that 400 years later it is neither Catholics nor Protestants who are a threat to our country. Rather, it is a union of leftist secularists and Islamic jihadists who have joined together to attack the values of our faith and the security of our nation through precisely the kind of propaganda and violence that V advocates.

“V for Vendetta” producer Joel Silver clings to the old canard that “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” in defending the anarchy in this movie. For these people, there is no difference between real Muslim terrorists and fictional Christian ones; between real totalitarianisms of the left and Christian ones. For them, it’s all one, and it’s all true so long as the truth is in the eye of the individual beholder.

While the English remember the 5th of November, let us in the U.S. never forget the 11th of September.

“V for Vendetta” is not recommended for viewing by a Christian audience. Instead, go see “End of the Spear” or “The Second Chance” and enable Christian filmmakers to make more and better films in the future.

I want to thank the viewers who have written their comments on my review. There are too many differences of opinion for me to address them all, but perhaps it would help if I address the central thesis of my review which is that the movie is a disguised film that is anti-American and pro-Islamic. The following is from an interview at MTV with Alan Moore, author of the graphic novel, “V for Vendetta”. Moore, who is an anarchist, is more honest than some Christian critics I have read on the movie. He outs the movie for what I called it and for what it is: “a thwarted and frustrated and perhaps largely impotent American liberal fantasy.”

Moore: I’ve read the screenplay, so I know exactly what they’re doing with it, and I’m not going to be going to see it. When I wrote “V,” politics were taking a serious turn for the worse over here. We’d had [Conservative Party Prime Minister] Margaret Thatcher in for two or three years, we’d had anti-Thatcher riots, we’d got the National Front and the right wing making serious advances. “V for Vendetta” was specifically about things like fascism and anarchy.

Those words, “fascism” and “anarchy,” occur nowhere in the film. It’s been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country. In my original story there had been a limited nuclear war, which had isolated Britain, caused a lot of chaos and a collapse of government, and a fascist totalitarian dictatorship had sprung up. Now, in the film, you’ve got a sinister group of right-wing figures—not fascists, but you know that they’re bad guys—and what they have done is manufactured a bio-terror weapon in secret, so that they can fake a massive terrorist incident to get everybody on their side, so that they can pursue their right-wing agenda. It’s a thwarted and frustrated and perhaps largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values [standing up] against a state run by neo-conservatives—which is not what “V for Vendetta” was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about [England]. The intent of the film is nothing like the intent of the book as I wrote it. And if the Wachowski brothers had felt moved to protest the way things were going in America, then wouldn’t it have been more direct to do what I’d done and set a risky political narrative sometime in the near future that was obviously talking about the things going on today? (MTV)

Also, would it help if Hugo Weaving, the star of “V,” indicated that it really is an anti-American film? If it would, then read this quotation:

“This government is Stalin’s Russia, or Hitler’s Germany, or Franco’s Spain,” Silver says. Filmgoers, however, might be forgiven for asking—in light of the script’s ominous talk of “rendition” and a protracted war on terror—whether the filmmakers also take aim at America under George W. Bush?

“I would say so,” says Hugo Weaving (“The Matrix”, “The Lord of the Rings”), who brings V’s emotions to life in the film, despite acting the entire time behind a coldly grinning mask. (MTV)

Lastly, does it matter what the director, James McTeigue, thinks? Is there really a moral equivalence between, say, George Washington and Che Guevara? Or between George Bush and Osama bin Laden? If viewers think so, that is their opinion. However, that doesn’t detract from the fact that the director thinks so and that his viewpoint informs the viewpoint of the movie that Islam is a positive religion and that Christianity is negative:

According to director James McTeigue, “It depends on the regime you’re fighting against. It depends on whether you consider the founding fathers of America terrorists. Or Nelson Mandela. Or Che Guevara.” (MTV)

These are just a few of the quotations that reveal what Alan Moore, Hugo Weaving, and James McTeigue describe as the film’s intent. Moore correctly identifies the Wachovski’s leftist and anti-American agenda. I encourage Christian viewers to learn to recognize when their faith is being attacked. Believers without a clear sense of their own identity will be unable to recognize attacks on their faith.

Violence: Heavy / Profanity: Heavy / Sex/Nudity: Moderate

* The movie doesn’t state that Evey was a prostitute (a call girl), but it infers this through her portrayal. The film begins with Evey in her underwear dressing sexily, looking at an address written on a scrap of paper, and going into the dangerous streets after curfew. Why would she need a scrap of paper and dress sexily for a GAY friend and go into the streets knowing she could be picked up and tortured? Furthermore, I am told that in the graphic novel (which I have never read) the character Evey “was indeed a prostitute and was out turning tricks after curfew when she was attacked by some of the Fingermen (the secret police of the movie’s totalitarian government) and rescued by V.”

See list of Relevant Issues—questions-and-answers.

Viewer Comments
Negative—I saw this movie with friends and before going thought it would be an anti-government, anti-totalitarian (anti-big brother) film. It was, in a very small way, just that. Its real purpose is to portray homosexuals as the poster children of oppression—the most significant victims of persecution and totalaritarianism. Aside from the main characters (“V”—well-portrayed by Mr. Weaving, and “Evey”—decently done by Portman) the only characters that are fleshed out in the first 90 minutes are a homosexual male and a lesbian female. They’re portrayed as victims forced to supress their desire for fear of reprisals from the state. They don’t dwell on the man so much as the woman, and from a profit-perspective that makes sense since lesbianism is less offensive to the masses.

I’m no proponent of homosexuality, or gender-bending in any form. I also don’t advocate violence against those live that life. But what really angered me about this movie was that it masqueraded as one thing and was quite a different thing. I was also infuriated by the idiotic mass-lumping together of so many different groups—racial groups lumped in with political, religious and homosexual groups. Idiotic. Homosexual persecution really is equatable to having a black skin—you just don’t have a closet to hide in or a choice (you believe what you want to about choice). I haven’t seen “Brokeback Mountain”, and likely never will, but I have more respect for it, as it seems (from what I’ve heard) to be what its purported to be—a pro-gay film. You can’t make a film dealing with persecution in general and then only develop the homosexual angle of it. That’s stupid and deceptive. I’ve also never seen “The Passion of The Christ”, but I have respect for it in that Mel Gibson made the film that he wanted to make no matter who liked it.

This movie was well shot, but the Wachowski Bros. — they were just spineless here. Gay is in, so they want to increase their Oscar chances. How? Add copious homosexual themes, some lesbian kisses, and vilify organized religion (not that much of organized religion is undeserving). But above all, do not offend the homosexuals. My case in point? A powerful and corrupt Bishop has a sexual vice. Of course, this vice cannot mirror reality’s headlines—to do that would be to link homosexuality to pedophilia—instead, make the Bishop have a fixation for young girls. “They’re all corrupt—those Christians!”—retarded. The old “they’re all corrupt” saw is dull. Corruption on one side by no means implies perfection at its opposite. Some things are just terrbly flawed through and through—like people.

In a world where racism and discrimination for the stupidest of reasons (750,000 died in Rawanda over a tribal distinction, Ireland vs. England, Serbs vs. Croats, Christians vs, Muslims, the Middle East, et al), the only point worth pondering for more than 20 seconds at a time in this film is “those poor downtrodden homosexuals… how could such a wonderful thing be wrong?”

The movie did have some good points and veiled allusions—governments creating disasters to gain power—and if you wanted to look further, you could say that Evey is the second human in a New World—initiated into her New Life by water, whereas V was the first man of this New World initiated into it by fire. But then, I can go nuts with symbolic imagery. So can the makers of this rot—the Wachowski Brothers. “Art lies to tell the truth”—sure it does, but whose? Symbols are subject to interpretation. I have yet to met an absolute (and yes they do exist) that was rendered malleable to human interpretation.

In short—The movie is foul. It’s a masquerade. No wonder Hugo Weaving wore a mask for all but 5 minutes of it… can’t really blame him.
Bad—Pro-homosexual fixation, too many unexplored points to be considered a political or cerebral film.
Good—Weaving and Portman. Decent action scenes.
Opinion—If you must see this watch the action scenes. That way, you’ll just lose maybe 12 minutes of your life instead of flushing away 150 minutes of your life.
My Ratings: Very Offensive / 3
William Goodwin, age 35
Negative—I thought that the first half of this movie was interesting and entertaining. However, there were early themes that were clearly trying to make a case against a conservative or Christian world view. By the middle of the movie it was clear that Muslims and Islam were being portrayed as victims of the conservatives; gays were also portrayed as being victimized by a repressive tyrannical Nazi like conservative government. The jabs at the US and the current Bush administration were also obvious. Finally the institutional “Church” was portrayed as part of this tyrannical government.

That said the film making quality from a non-morally based perspective was good, and the action sequences were very entertaining (this is definitely not a movie for kids). The movie did drag on a bit in the second half, and concluded in a way to try and drive home its not so subtle agenda. I don’t think this movie is worth paying to see, unless you are simply interested in seeing Hollywood’s political agenda clearly laid out.
My Ratings: Very Offensive / 4
John, age 32
Negative—The best part about this film is the conversation with my 17 year old son after. The villain of the film is described as conservative, strongly religious man. He locks up homosexuals and kills thousands with a virus in an effort to gain power. His symbol is a cross. Others are a priest who molests little girls and a conservative talk show host who has a drug problem, and they all schemed with a drug company to make money. One of the films sympathetic characters is a gay man who has to hide his sexuality while he protects a copy of the koran. One of the messages is that it is okay to blow up a building in an effort to affect change… do you see a connection with 9/11 here. Some good acting, good effects, and it is artistic. Too bad in the movie industry finds it acceptable to bash Christians. Nothing in the previews would have lead me to expect this. As I said it provided great conversation with my son how our beliefs are protrayed in the media and how some horrible things have been done by people who called themselves Christians. Not for kids or young teens. I would not advise seeing. Next time I’ll wait for the Christian reviews before spending my money.
My Ratings: Offensive / 4
Tamra, age 43
Negative—Overall, the film quality, action, and sound effects are great. but that’s where it ends. I’m surprised by these so called Christians giving this movie a positive or even neutral review. I suspect wolves in sheeps clothing. If you watched this movie, you’ll realize how anti-Christian it is from the very start. As you go further into the movie, it begins to push the hidden message of pro-terrorism, pro-gay, and anti-Americanism.

Basically put, the movie replaces Nazi’s with Christians. I think the most appropriate would be Muslims Extremists, or Socialists, but this movie is the work of a Liberal mind so go figure. In addition, pro-democracy is replaced by a terrorism. …I recommend that you avoid this movie unless you want to know how a Liberal mind ticks, how effective they are in their propaganda…
My Ratings: Extremely Offensive / 5
Kristian, age 27
Negative—…I had been waiting to see this movie, the anticipation was high, and after about five minutes I was waiting for the movie to be over, I was bored out of my mind. “V for Vendetta” first of all basically steals all ideas from the movie “Equilibrium” starring Christian Bale, and really there isn’t an original thought throughout the whole movie. I was extremely disappointed because I really think Natalie Portman is fun to watch on screen; she did okay, but this movie just plain was a waste of her time and mine. All the great scenes are in the trailers; I should of just stuck to the trailers and ignored the movie and saved my 8 bucks. I really thought this would be a great film; after all, she shaved her head for it, so it must be good if she would do that. Maybe she was shaving her head in mourning that she made this movie, who knows, but I think what a waste. …The movie is just a mess, and it’s also your basic hit piece on Christians, and in all honesty, it’s a really bad and poorly designed movie, and the words “This is really stupid,” kept replaying in my mind. It makes no sense, it’s just a bunch of scenes thrown together that don’t flow. The movie makers go out of their way to portray Christians as these murderous thugs and full of hate, and I was really surprised that Natalie Portman would have anything to do with such a malicious movie as “V for Vendetta”.
My Ratings: Extremely Offensive / 2
Dana, age 33
Negative—I went to see this film …and expected one of Hollywood’s traditional modern action movies. Instead, I ended up witnessing one of the most groutesque, biased, and incorrect films that I have ever seen. Anyone who believes that this film is not full of anti-Christian messages needs to re-watch it because it occurs right from the beginning of the film when we witness the villain of the film (although most in Hollywood would look on him as a hero), V, slashes through a Christian banner hanging on a alleyway.

The problem with this film is that there is no hero. Neither side is heroic or portrays heroic qualities. The “enemy” of the film is a government connected with sexual morality, conservatism and Christianity, but carries out its measures through violence and persecution, two methods that we were taught not to do. The “heroes” of the story are also villains as well, basically glorified terrorists who kill those who they see as the enemy and bomb symbolic buildings (remind anyone of a certain bunch of self-described “heroes” back in September of 2001?) as well as reading the Quran and supporting sexual immorality.

I strongly urge any Christian reading this who has not seen the movie yet not to waste your money. While the movie filmmaking quality is pretty good and it does have some impressive still-motion action sequences as well as a comical kiss between Portman and the mask, the anti-Christian agenda behind it is to much to take. Save your cash, I beg you.
My Ratings: Extremely Offensive / 4
Blake, age 18
Negative—My daughters were dying to see this movie. All their friends said it was awesome! My wife and I went to check it out. We should have read the Christian critique first. Sorry we went. I was telling my wife the same things you brought out in your critique. How a christian could miss the subterfuge I will never know. God bless you all, and keep up the good fight.
My Ratings: Extremely Offensive / 3
William Hollaway, age 50
Negative—The cinematic quality of this film as well as the screenplay are both very good. I found the film clever and thought provoking; much better than the usual drivel produced by Hollywood. I could recommend the film except that I am greatly concerned over the diminishing critical thinking skills found in the film going crowd. This seems to be true regardless of one’s profession of faith.

It is quite clear that the maker(s) of this film intend to associate conservatism and Christianity with hypocrisy and debauchery (the priest), oppression and totalitarianism (the chancellor), and with abuse of power and egomaniacal behavior (the television commentator).

Freedom from this tyranny, on the other hand, is associated with all that is “good”; love, the arts, great ideas, persecuted sexual behaviors and non Christian religion. Those Christians who truly know the Lord and His Word will see right through all this. Much to my dismay, conversations I have had with Christian friends of my children regarding this movie indicate that is not the case. And that is the most disheartening of all things. Our culture continues to throw every distortion, half truths, temptations, and outright lies at Believers and the culture as a whole. Those of us who really do not have hold of the Anchor, will be swept away.
My Ratings: Offensive / 4
Mark Dawson, age 56
Negative—I screened “V For Vendetta” only because numerous teens in our church youth group had been raving over this film. I already knew the movie had anti-Christian elements, but I thought I needed to sit through it in order to better point out to them the radical worldview behind the film. For the sake of entertainment, many teens and sadly adults, turn a blind eye to the underlying messages of most movies, unaware that over time habitual exposure to harmful influences can alter one’s perception.

“V For Vendetta” is repulsive, irresponsible filmmaking at best. It preaches tolerance for nearly every idea and diverse lifestyle under the sun. Charity for all, save Christianity. This movie openly sympathies with Islam, homosexuality, terrorism and anarchy. It portrays Christians as Nazi’s hell bent on forcing people to conform to a mundane life void of meaning or fulfillment. Those who oppose are tortured, beaten and murdered (over 80,000 people by the end of the film). All of the supposedly religious characters in this film (and there are many) are portrayed as hypocrites.

The only type of governments I know that puts to death homosexuals and bans religion other than their own state run theocracy are Muslim countries. So why is there this bizarre accusation towards Christians? We of the faith can denounce sin and still love the sinner. It’s what the life of Christ truly reflected. However, the real question should be this; parents, do you know what your children are viewing? Ideas may be bulletproof but they come with consequences. Big Brother is not the Christian Church but the progressive secular movement, which seems alive and well in America, deceiving and leading many astray by its lies and propaganda. Hollywood and activist groups have our children lined up in their crosshairs. We cannot turn a blind eye for the sake of keeping the peace within our homes. Films like this need to be exposed for what they really stand for. I found nothing redeemable about this movie.

Twice this film infers that God can be found in the rain. God cannot be found in the rain. Those seeking God can only discover Him in His Son, and His name is Jesus Christ who will someday rule the nations of the Earth with a rod of iron and reward each of us by the ideas and lifestyles we chose to emulate. Thankfully, He will also abolish everything this movie cherishes and holds dear.
My Ratings: Very Offensive / 3
Albert Anthony Buonanno III, age 49
Negative—Let me just say that I remember why I don’t go out to movies anymore. Trying to prove its reason for being, “V for Vendetta” had a vendetta against modern conservative politics. It was a blatant insult and criticism to anything religious, conservative or Godly. In the middle of the film, the plot turned out to be more about the oppression of homosexuals (a blindingly obvious dig at the recent gay marriage issues that have gone down in flames) than about politics. Of course, they showed that there was nothing wrong with homosexuality, with the hint that anyone who said otherwise was a prejudiced, narrow-minded, cruel person who needed to be removed from society. The ever-changing theme made me think that the Wachowski brothers couldn’t make up their minds about what they wanted the film to say; so they just threw everything into the film.

Had I known up front that the movie would have been about justifying and validating the gay movement or condemning anything of God, I would have chosen to stay at home. But, of course, the trailers gave no hint as to its true intent; if the previews had shown that bit of information, there most likely would have been a notable decline in the number of moviegoers, I think.

V, the main character, was painted as a freedom fighter—all his concern is for society, but he’s really an anarchist terrorist. He’s a figurehead trying to lead a revolution, but there’s no organization—he is just a group of one, plus the girl he kidnapped and brainwashed into his philosophy. Cutting the head off of a totalitarian (read very Nazi) state and leaving no one to pick up the pieces was how new dictators were to be established. Tragically, the reason for V bombing and murdering everyone who made him into the monster he became was more for vengeance than for any needed change in that society. I think that had the leaders not been responsible for his demise, he would have been content to let life go on as it had been.

The only “real” truth in the movie came from these lines:
Evey Hammond: You’re getting back at them for what they did to you?
V: What they did to me was monstrous.
Evey Hammond: And they created a monster.

Everything about him was monstrous. Well, that wasn’t a fair statement. He just chose to behave as selfishly as the other villains, so I can’t say he was entirely horrible. But most every decision he made came from an evil, sinful, self-centered intent, despite the “humane” characterization the writers gave him—a love of music and art and all things “beautiful.” No matter the reasons for his actions, he was still murdering in the name of justice and humanity. I don’t care how they dressed the packaging, his ideas were just wrong and fearfully like a terrorist’s point of view.

The one good thing that came from the movie was the discussion that ensued afterwards between my husband and me. We analyzed with Jesus as our clarifier, commented with God as our foundation and justified through scriptures each questionable/offending point. We went for dessert afterwards and still we were critiquing the movie, pulling in the Christian perspective. When we went to bed, we were still observing different Godly references that supported our opinion about the movie.

I would suggest that you learn from our mistake. Avoid this “slap to the face” to God. I know that “Everything is permissible for me, but not everything is beneficial.” This movie, as far as I can see, is just not beneficial to the goal of any Christian—to praise and glorify God.
My Ratings: Very Offensive / 4
Shalee, age 34
Negative—Why don’t these guys come out and say they are going to charge you 20 bucks to proselytize you for two hours on every cliché, idiotic conspiracy theory, and gripe the left has produced in the last few years in their advertising? …I wasted an entire Friday night watching this stink fest and I want my time back. And it was boring. Hugo’s character was hard to understand due to the everpresent mask, maybe that was the only redeaming quality to this stink fest. I have lost respect for everyone involved. From the sex-crazed priest to the homosexuals being rounded up in death camps, it was a political statement made poorly, and it was uninspired. Save yourself some time and money and go to a Micheal Moore Web site. You will see everything there you can find in this film.
My Ratings: Extremely Offensive / 1
popeye, age 29
Negative—First off, I came into this movie expecting a huge action movie. Was I wrong about that; second the movie I thought I was going to see was about a government that oppressed its people and was more of a pre-war Iraq when it was under the rule of Saddam. It was not that at all, what I found after seeing this was that it was a total push for homosexuality, and for us as humans to start thinking for ourselves and accept the homosexuals’ immorality in this world and embrace [it] for our own. But the one thing that got me flaming was the comment the one homosexual said in the movie, while they were dragging all these gay people out of bed and arresting them she said, why do “they” hate us so much. Think about this, the government was run by Christians, the symbol for the country was two crosses on top of each other. This movie is pointed at us as Christians. Please do not support this…
My Ratings: Very Offensive / 5
John K., age 17
Negative—I have had some minor problems with the reviewer before, but in this case he is right on target. The movie is not only anti-Christian and liberal, but I am very curious why no one seems to comment on a hero who TORTURES Evey into submission? She even THANKS him for what he did! How can liberals seriously take V as a hero simply because he opposes a “religious and conservative” regime, however evil it may be. V says at one point “ideas are bullet proof” but I was asking myself, “what ideas”? He doesn’t have any ideas—just “I hate the bad guys.” This seems to be the message of the far left—“I hate Bush”—but they have no agenda of their own and no solutions. V, if he were a real character, would not have made England more free or just. In fact, he would merely be creating more of the chaos which the film portrays the manner in which the “conservative” party took power. Indeed, the villain at one point says “We want to show them why they need us,” by which he means that he wants to create chaos so that the government can “save” them, but V’s goal is to create choas, so isn’t V really just helping the government he opposes?

The only good thing I can say about this movie is that it is so bad that the hyperliberalism didn’t bother me that much. It just shows how silly the far left is. Cinematically, they should have stuck with Nazis. At least then their bad charactures of the villains would be seen as campy.
My Ratings: Very Offensive / 3
David C, age 39
Negative—“V for Vendetta” is an extremely silly film: although some of the ideas it presents resonate with current events in in Blair’s Britain, it has neither the guts to attack the current Government (much nearer to the nightmare Government it was meant to warn against, during Margaret Thatcher’s tenure), nor the moral authority with which to launch such an attack. The scene in which Natalie Portman appears dressed as a little girl for the bishop’s lascivious attentions was played not for the shock value that such a person would indulge such lusts (we know some churchmen do), but to actually titillate the “dirty old man” brigade (hardly surprising when one considers the predilections of one of the Wachowski brothers). In all, a grave disappointment that merely confirms in my mind that the original “Matrix” movie was a flash in the pan.
My Ratings: Average / 2
Gary Davis, age 44
Neutral—I personally felt the movie was portraying that when governmnet and religion become one, that the people lose because freedom of choice is lost. Hitler mixed religion with government and religion lost to the will of government. I felt the movie was saying that the government should never be controlled by religion or vice versa because they will distort the people, forcing them to believe a certain way, which God does not want, that’s why we have free will. They happened to pick Christainity to be the bad guys but it could have been muslims or hindus. People will always be oppressed if the government is run by cliche that is why we vote for several different people for lots of offices. So I believe one should watch the movie in view that religion and government do not mix because, as what happened with Hitler’s reign, the government will distort the religion. People need to be able to choose their faith. So when viewed in this manner the film is positive, but I know that was not the intent of the film.
My Ratings: Offensive / 4
Travis, age 20
Neutral—First of all let me say that I grew up in a very strict religious home. As a child, I was raised with the belief that the bible is inerrant, and that it alone should be the source of all our decisions in life. As I grow in the Lord, I continue to have an interest in expanding my knowledge of the bible and how people think in general. Especially liberal minds! Having said that, I can now say that “V for Vendetta” is an awesome movie! With terrific moviemaking quality, it now hails on my list as one of the few “standards” of how a good movie should make you feel when you leave the theater.

However, there are many moral dilemmas that come along with this movie. As a Christian, I think there is no exuse, or reason why one may want to go to this movie. There are at least twenty instances of the Lord’s name, both God and Jesus, taken in vain. Several times God is combined with d—n. Along with half a dozen f-word’s and another half of s-words, including numerous accounts of the British curse word, bullocks. As for the language, I think it would be wise to simply get the edited version at a later date. Additionally, there is some pretty gruesome violence near the end of the movie. Also, there are several unnecessary scenes of sexual activity. Only the most mature of Christians should view this film, but in a critical manner. Yes, there may be some great things to ponder after watching this film, however the bad far outweighs the good. For a Christian to try and find a reason for viewing “V” would be a stretch. The quote, “God is in the rain,” may sound nice and holy, but the spiced up script with sayings such as these only amplify the bad.

Like “The Matrix”, I think the Wachowski brothers have brilliant ideas and know how to put them to script, but in the big picture, they’re just mashing a bunch of different worldviews together to get this enthralling storyline. Maybe they are serious about the issues they bring up, or maybe they’re just borrowing some property from other religions. Whatever the truth is, I can say that a priest spouting f-word like there’s tomorrow is definitely offensive, even to me. I think the moviemakers are just toying with a God that’s much bigger then them. I only pray that one day the Wachowski’s may get it right! Now that would be Awesome!
My Ratings: Extremely Offensive / 5
Lucas, age 18
Neutral—V for Vendetta is an amazing film, no doubt about it. You can’t expect anything less from the Wachowski brothers. Hugo Weaving and Natalie Portman gave great performances (as did the rest of the cast). Weaving was absolutely spellbinding in his portrayal of “V.” He really must have put a lot of work into portraying the character. Portman also was great. Her character was very believable, especially during the whole imprisionment sequence. The special effects were great, and it didn’t feel too out there in regards to the future in regards to technology and such. It looked and felt almost like today in many aspects.

The film is very gripping and throught-provoking. It really kept my attention. I was on the edge of my seat during most of it. I even found myself wondering if something like that could actually happen in the not so distant future. Although, I doubt it, the movie definitely was done in a way that it seemed very plausible, although a lot of it was somewhat extreme.

The movie is great, but it has many moral flaws. I know that the reason for the “R” rating mentioned strong language, but I wasn’t expecting the “plethora” (if I can use that term) of obscenities used throughout the film. The Lord’s name is taken in vain several times, as well as scattered use of the s-word and even some uses of the f-word. Of course there is also usage of “hell” and “damn.” “Bollocks,” a British slang term for male genitalia (it seemed to be used like a swear word), is also used many, many times throughout the film as well. There is also a sequence that kind of glorifies female homosexuality (it doesn’t involve Portman’s character though), it isn’t very explicit, except for mouth-to-mouth kissing.

There are some more Holocaust-like shots but you don’t see that much of it. Nothing too bad, except when they show corpses that aren’t clothed. As for sexuality, there is very little, except for the scene in which a priest has been having teenage girls brought in to him for pleasure. Evey (Portman’s character) even poses as one, in order to help “V” get in to kill the priest. The priest even uses the f-word.

The movie is violent, especially near the end, where it gets pretty bloody. “V” also mercilously murders several people who played a significant role in his dark past.

Politically, it doesn’t really seem to blatantly reference or attack that is going on in today’s world. I feel that is a good thing. Although the use of violence and murder to overthrow a government is never a good thing, it was still interesting to watch it all unfold before my eyes. The whole chain of events was a little hard to follow at times, but overall the pacing of the story was excellent. The film didn’t seem rushed at all. It seemed to be just the right length.

Bottom line, I really liked this movie, but I wish it had been a little better morally without harming the story. I don’t recommend it from a moral standpoint. But if you feel you can handle it, I highly recommend it from a filmmaking perspective.
My Ratings: Extremely Offensive / 5
Matthew Rozier, age 19
Neutral—Given the quality of the film making I enjoyed this movie. It grabs your attention right from the start and never lets go. For the most part the plot twists and turns flow quite well. The dialog is superb. V’s alliteration is especially well written. The fact that the bad guys are a right wing party doesn’t really offend me. One could easily substitute a left wing government for the one portrayed in the movie. And, although I count myself as part of the Christian right wing, this movie serves as a good reminder that not everyone in the right wing necessarily has the best intentions at heart.

In a movie of this type violence is par for the course. If you don’t like violence you won’t like “V for Vendetta”. There is plenty of swearing including taking the Lord’s name in vain but no f-words that I can remember. Basically, the language is kept in character with story telling of this type.

My biggest gripe with this movie is its homosexual agenda. While homosexuality is not the main object of the movie, it shows the evil right wingers going after the homosexuals. This is nothing more than a way for the Wachowski brothers to score political points at the real right wing’s expense.

Also, the symbol of the totalitarian government is a red cross with not one but two bars. You could see this as a slap at Christianity (which it probably is) or consider that an evil right wing might use imagery of this type in order to gain the confidence of its followers.

Politically, this is a thought provoking movie about how a free society succumbs to a repressive, fear based, authoritarian regime and (in this case) the willingness of one man to stand up to the system. We might question his methods but he is portrayed as a product of the oppresive regime.

Were it not for the homosexual promotion, I would give this movie a thumbs up with cautions noted for violence and language. One thing V says which I whole heartedly agree with is, People should not fear the government, the government should fear the people. To that I say, Amen.

While this movie will cross swords with Christian views, it is really all about making a political statement regarding the consequences of our politics. It’s a statement that wouldn’t hurt Christians to consider.
My Ratings: Offensive / 5
James Taylor, age 35
Neutral—First of all, let me say that I loved the film because of the movie making quality, acting, directing, etc. etc. However, I had problems with the profanity and the fact that there is a disgusting man acting as a bishop who tries to take advantage of a young woman (and he also uses profane language).

I still am confused on how and if terrorism can be used to overthrow a terrorist government. Of course, V (Hugo Weaving in an Oscar worthy performance) says that this is an idea and people will catch on to it, etc. etc.

At first, I thought the filmmakers were blaspheming the Christian faith, however, after the end of the film, I didn’t think they were mocking it. Rather, they were illustrating that dictatorships misuse faith to do their dirty deeds. I would give the film an “offensive” rating instead of “average” due to blasphemous language and using God’s name in vain, however, I give the film a neutral rating because it does have positive aspects to it (the good guys win in the end).
My Ratings: Offensive / 5
Shannon H., age 24
Neutral—As I exited the theater, I began to think back over the movie I had just watched. I knew most Christians and conservatives in general would take offense to it. And most liberals would adore the message, if not the film as a whole. But I seriously had no opinion on it. Its message seemed weaker after being hammered into my skull through the two and half hours of the film than it had been in the trailers that proclaimed “People should not fear their governments…” and after the credits began to role, I seriously didn’t feel anything. Was I entertained? Yes. Was my mind engaged and my emotions triggered? To an extent. Did I continue to contemplate the deeper meaning and underlying messages as I drove home? Not at all.

Luckily I chose to read up a little on it on the Internet. And everywhere I look I see one of three things. Those who love the anti-government, anti-Christian themes. Others saying its degrading to conservatives and Christians as a whole. And other people who are like That was great! I don’t agree with any of these people. Their reactions caused me to start thinking about the movie again, reevaluating it for myself.

The message that most liberals will point to in the film, and most conservatives will whine about has three problems. For one is that the overly reiterated Governments should fear their people statement is only partially true. Surely in a perfect world neither entity would be in fear of the other. Possibly there are better ways to put it such as Its better for a government to fear its people, than for people to fear their government. or Some governments should learn to fear their people. But to point to the president of the United States (not Bush, just whoever happens to be the president) and say he should fear us is ludicrous. We elected him. We put him there. He should respect us. He should be honest with us. He should protect us. But should he fear us? He is an extension of the people as much as the government. We elected him to be our leader to take us where he sees fit. Not to be our servant and use his fear of the masses to order around and tell him what to do. When V blatantly speaks that phrase don’t assume it leaves the audience with no choice but to believe it to be true and to believe V himself would feel the same way under any other government. But that goes without saying that if I were in V’s shoes, Id probably feel the same way.

The second problem with the seemingly anti-Christian or anti-conservative message is the violence used by V. He is an extraordinary hero no doubt, but also an extraordinarily flawed hero. His methods are far beyond being questionable. In the real world he would only be considered a hero if he fought a villain as evil as the regime in the film. In fact, there was a ruler in the real world a few years ago much like the one in the film by the name of Saddam Hussein. The violence used to combat him is strongly under attack by liberals. But I digress. My point is that at face value the film is only of merit in a world where such an evil rules. Unfortunately, this film will never be shown in countries with a government like the one depicted. If a person were to put on a cape and a mask and start blowing up buildings in the United States as it stands today, by no means would he be considered a hero even by the those who think of V as a real hero. Of course to this most would say the film is a metaphor. To which I would like to point out the third problem with the message.

Metaphors rely on the audience to decide what represents what. Unless the tales fabricator tells us exactly what the symbols symbolize, or the characters walk around with labels on their chests (like political cartoons) the message is up to us to determine. But such an act would take away an essential ingredient of story telling. The greatest stories relate to all generations, all races, all religions, and all free thinking people by never placing their protagonists or adversaries in such small boxes. So to take this story at face value, is degrading to the story itself. To say that the authors are calling for people to start blowing up stuff if they don’t like the way the country is going is not the least bit accurate. Anyone with any grasp of the English language can tell you that is not the message of this film. Its to take a stand for what you believe, against anything that stands in your way. V does this with violence and other lunacy, but we should do that by more practical means. To which I raise this question: if the violent and monstrous hero can symbolize a peaceful and more realistic hero in our day and age, why can’t I interpret the genocidal fascist media-controlling villain as something more relevant to the way I view dangers to our culture, such as MTV or the left-wing media conspiracy? Its totally possible. Like the populace of England in Vendetta, the majority of people my age believe whatever they see on the television completely unaware of the medias agenda to promote anything besides a moral lifestyle (of course, I don’t think the media always realize that’s what they are doing). And if the right-wingers have control of the media today, they seriously don’t know what their doing. Just about any news coverage or late night comedian is fast to attack the president and any of his cohorts as well as anyone of the Christian faith. You must understand this is an allegory, where everything has been taken to its extreme to point out something smaller and more relevant…

The movie is enjoyable, but far tootalky. I enjoy thinking, but this presents far too much to think about in any given 2 and half hours without losing ones mind. I think the excess amount of back story and philosophical monologues from many different characters makes the whole film a little off balanced. Like the movie slows down far too much and far too long when it gives us that information. The action scenes were great (few and far between, but great). The movie also has many emotional moments, such as Eveys emersion into the rain contrasted with V surrounded by fire, and several scenes with some heart (if not sometimes overrun by message) such as Evy and V sharing breakfast, listening to music, dancing, and watching the classic Count of Monte Cristo. And if you get past the seemingly conservatives are evil and violence is cool messages, the story has other messages the film makers most definitely intended to get across. There are no coincidences in life, is a theme that shows up throughout the piece. This is something else in the story that Christians can find truth in if they chose. Another more obvious message is that freedom is more important that safety. The two usually go hand and hand. Just look at most of the middle east, the people are anything but safe and also anything but free. But recently, with terrorism a more real danger in America, weve had to begin asking ourselves what is more important? I believe the film is right on this point. Don’t get me wrong. Safety is important. But it is only by freedom that we are truly secure. If you disagree with me ask the heroes of the revolutionary war which was more important to them. What was it that William Wallace screamed as he was beheaded at the end of brave heart? Freedom. Not safety. Freedom. Just like V screamed his entire time on screen. Though we may not agree with Vs methods, we have to agree with his purpose. Freedom.
My Ratings: Average / 4
Brent Hand, age 23
Positive—“Remember, remember the fifth of November” Opening words of a movie I thought was going to be a disappointing addition to the action genre. I was wrong. This movie is a poignant look into a dark future that could happen if the people, so frightened and blind by the world around them, put on the mask of a democratic socialist regime and allow that regime to control their entire existence. It is a story of a people who are so desperate for an answer to why the world has gone wrong that they will elect anyone who has a loud enough voice and a solution that promises change and then delivers it, no mention of the means. And when the deed is done, when the safety and security the people are so in need of has finally come, they wake up one day and realize that they live in a world controlled by monopolistic companies, a “Hitler” like chancelor who “preaches” control, safety, and morality in the name of the greater good. A greater good that everyone knows they need, everyone wants to believe they have found, but one that is farther away than they could believe. The British population of the movie has accepted the prison, the mask, of their choosing and making, and now lives their dull, routine-laden lives without a worry or a second thought allowed to surface.

Enter V and Evey, two products of this society’s fall into totalitarian squalor, whose paths cross in a nighttime encounter with the “Gestapo,” an encounter which sets this girl on a path which will lead to this society’s confrontal of its own mistake, of society gathering on the memorial of the 5th of November, when a lone man tried to blow up Parliament to send a message to the British government. A path which leads this society to tear of its mask, symbolized by the mask of V, in the final, powerful scene as the Parliament building is destroyed in a cataclysmic explosion symbolic of the downfall of the totalitarian government the people elected and the people tore down.

Rated R for violence and language, I felt the blood that was visible in the movie was needless and took away from the overall story, a common shortfall of movies in the present. This movie also accepts homosexuality as a birthright, something people wear a mask to hide for fear of society. Most parents should take note of this and make sure their older teenagers understand this. However, the movie does convey an important message: No man has the right to judge the actions of another, and no man should harm another for that man’s wrongdoing. The whole “He who is blameless cast the first stone…” idea. It also is a very thought provoking movie, with excellent writing, cinematography, and music, leading to an overall excellent experience. Be prepared to think as you leave this movie.

My Ratings: Very Offensive / 5
Brian Guthrie, age 28
Positive—M for Magnificent. My friend and I, both of us Christians, went to see this movie… The one thing that stands out to me is how well the movie was made. The movie depicts a futuristic Britain which is under a facist government. It is set in a time when “faith” is the only thing keeping the country together, the government uses Godlyness to keep the country under control. There mottoe is “Strength through unity / unity through faith.” They justify the exterminisation of undesireables such as homosexuals, Muslims and anything “un-Godly” as being essential to keeping the country from destruction. We also get a very good look into the mind of someone who is willing to commit terrible acts of violence to get his or her way, and we must decide if this is right or wrong. V, the protagonist, was a victim of a concentration camp that was established during a time of uncertainty during the war that precedes the film. The line in the film that puts is so well is,
Evey—“Your getting back at them for what they did to you”
V—“What they did to me was montrous”
Evey—“Then they created a monster”

Essentially, we are dealing with two very different contrasts, but they are both essentially the “bad guys”. We also see that even though we see V as a terrorist, he is also shown to have great compassion for Evey, but also goes as far as torturing her to get to realize that she can live without fear, essentially, similar to what they did to him.

While faith based society would be a great thing, it shows that a society should never cross the line. I believe that as Christians, we know this lesson, we stand strong in our beliefs, but also know that God is a loving god, and that we must never go that far.

The cinematics and overall storyline are excellent. It is truly a welldone movie that will keep you interested through the whole film. I called this review “M for Magnificent” because the movie is so well done, its just a great movie, and will leave you a lot to think about.
My Ratings: Better than Average / 1
Nathaniel, age 16
Positive—…I have to say it is one of the best films I have seen in a while. Well done with terrific acting. I absolutely loved the dialogue. One thing I must disagree with in some of the reviews I have seen is how Christianity is depicted in the film. I did not see it as depicting Christianity as evil and oppressive, but as an evil and oppressive government doing evil in the NAME of Christianity. A government that justified its actions by manipulating the teaching of Christ. I believe that my religion is a good thing, but there are many people that would use it as a means of control and a way to further their own goals.

If you are not turned off by a little blood, violence, and a tad bit of nudity (nothing really sexual) than I would say you should definitely take the time to see “V for Vendetta”.
My Ratings: Average / 5
James, age 18
Positive—…one of the best movies made so far this year. I saw yes, Christian bashing, but it did bring up something that I think Christians fail to see 99% of the time: even christians are not perfect and can make mistakes. If we look at our world history we see that the Catholic church was very similar to this in the middle ages. Hunting down and killing people who didn’t agree with them, etc. They did terrible things to people just for disagreeing.

I thought that was what God’s love was about, free choice. As Christians I think we should take this movie into mind so that we can avoid this in the future. …The message in this movie to me, was that when people in religious authority gain too much power, they can abuse it because they’re merely humans. There was only one perfect person and that was christ. We need to imitate him, but we cannot be him. Imitation means that we need to be loving toward everyone. Love the sinner but not the sin. …
My Ratings: Average / 4
Spence, age 18
Positive—I disagree with reviewer Michael Karounos in just about everything he said regarding this movie. There were things in this film that I did not care for, but I did not regard it as an attack on Christianity rather it served more as an attack on those who profess to be Christians who use a veneer of faith to justify the evils and sins they themselves commit. Yes, the villains are members of a evil dictatorship that claim to be conservative Christians in order to justify the things they do, but no one with any sense could watch them commit the lies, atrocities against their own citizens, the murders and the torture and believe that they actually were Christians. Is it fair that the filmmakers made a film in which evil men commit evil acts using Christianity as a thin excuse for their actions? It would only be unfair if it were impossible for such a thing to happen; which it is not, and we have people in history as far back as the Crusades and as recently as David Koresh to prove it. This movie is certainly not a Christian film, but it does present a truth that is found in 2 Peter 2:1-3.

Some other points: I do not recall anytime in the movie when the United States is described as evil except when it was said by men who were themselves truly evil. When a raving, homicidal lunatic dictator calls America evil, it seems to me that this could almost be considered a back handed compliment. Certainly every time one of our modern terrorists refers to America as evil because we oppose their own cruelty and hate I tend to regard it as such considering the source.

In the context of the movie V is opposing a thoroughly evil, totalitarian government which in nature reminded me greatly of Nazi Germany. If it is fair to reference V as an anarchist or terrorist then how should we reference the brave men and women of the French and German resistances who in real life also blew things up in order to bring down the Nazi government? I’m not saying V was a good man; some of his motives for opposing this regime was to prevent them from doing to others what they had done to him and the men and women who had been the subjects of unethical medical experiments in the prison camps, but he also admitted himself that he was also seeking revenge against his tormentors whereas Christ calls for us to forgive those who torment us.

It is hard to believe that anyone who had actually watched this movie would state that “Natalie Portman, as Evey,…” [portrayed] “…the role of a prostitute turned savior…” At no point in the movie was there ever any indication that Evey was in any way a prostitute. Her character was constantly shown as a low level administrative assistant at a news station who inadvertently and unwillingly, at least initially, was pulled into the underground opposing the dictatorship running her country. At one point in the movie, when Evey mistakenly thought V was one of the bad guys, she pretended to be a prostitute in order to get close enough to one of the real bad guys in order to warn him that V was coming to kill him and to also get away from V herself, but at no time was she herself portrayed as sexually promiscuous or willing to sell herself in exchange for either money or favors.

Finally, one of the characteristics of every totalitarian government is that they have to have a “hate” group to focus the public’s attention on so that they will not focus on what the government itself is doing. The communist had the bourgeois rich; the nazi’s used the Jews and in this movie the dictator’s of V’s world used homosexuals. I was not comfortable with this myself, as a Christian I believe the Bible is God’s Word and it clearly states homosexuality is a sin, so I wish the filmmakers had used a different group as this governments “hate” group rather then portray homosexuality in a sympathetic light. (In the 1983 television mini-series about the formation of another totalitarian world government, ironically titled V, but with no connection to V For Vendetta, the filmmakers used Scientists as the “hate” group.) Still, while I do believe that homosexuality is a sin I also believe, with all my heart, that no true Christian would stand silently by while homosexuals were thrown into prison camps, tortured and used for medical experiments by any government; even one that cloaked itself in a disguise of Christianity. In fact, while homosexuality is a sin, it might be worthwhile to remind people that while the Jews were the primary “hate” group of the Nazis two of their secondary “hate” groups were gypsies and, yes, homosexuals.

The bottom line to me is that V For Vendetta was not made as a Christian film, and I do not know what was in the hearts of the filmmakers who created it, but it does have a valuable message about watching for the false prophets that the Gospels warn us about. Because the time has been predicted in the Bible that “…many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold,…” Matthew 24:10-12 And ya know; I wouldn’t be surprised when that time comes if the government of the false prophets doesn’t look a lot like the dictatorship in “V For Vendetta”.
My Ratings: Average / 5
Eddie Hodges, age 49
Positive—First off, this is just a movie, and as all forms of limited media they cannot change the entirety of a culture by simply exsisting. Rather this movie plays on the thoughts and ideas already captive in our psyche. Now, as a Christian, I cannot agree with everything that was put forth in this movie, such as the justification of homosexual relations through the appeasment of government interference, but the ideal of limited government still resonates through and through. As you may have heard our goverment wasn’t always the way it was, much of the power belonged to the people, and over time we have given much of this power away *coughFDRcough*. And now we are seeing the consequences of such an pandemic of action. “V for Vendetta” has just brought to the surface many ideas that are already common place in many societies. And as a Christian it presents the opportunity to share how God sees government and its role in our lives.
My Ratings: Excellent! / 4
Andrew, age 19
Positive—WOW. What a movie, the best so far this year. This film has action, story, great acting, and a message to it. This is a masterpiece pure and true, a must see for all film lovers. I was just blown away by it, it’s amazing to see how great films have become now a days, when I was young, they never had the power of some of the films today. I will definitely see this great film again.
My Ratings: Average / 5
Jeremy Stolks, age 48
Positive—I have to say that I disagree with the main reviewer on the morality of this film. The reviewer makes references to present horrible regimes that exist, and claims that this movie is only an attack against America. I think it’s more of an attack against any regime that uses violence to further its goals. This movie could just as easily apply to present day Iraq or Saudia Arabia as it would a future fascist America or Britain. I left the movie with ambivalent feelings about V’s actions. Obviously he did a good thing in helping to bring down a fascist government. But his own violence could be seen as excessive.

This movie isn’t criticizing Christianity or a supposed Christian regime. It’s criticizing something that could really happen: people with power might abuse Christ’s name and use it to further their own power and agenda. This is something that has frequently happened in the past. As Christians, I think that it’s very important that we realize that we are not immune to this happening again. This is partially what the movie is about.
My Ratings: Good / 5
Dan, age 23
Positive—What I found amazing about this show is how accurately it actually shows what can happen under the guise of “false” faith. The movie was not anti-Christian. It showed what can happen when anybody takes total control of the liberties that we are blessed with. It reminds me of a quote “People who will trade in their liberties for security deserve neither.”—Benjamin Franklin

The movie had a very valid point to it. There are those that exist who use God and Religion to acheive their goals. With no true Christian foundation to it. There are people in this world who would appear to be the most moral of the moral, the most conservative of conservatives; who under the guise of Christianity cause the most damage to true Christians. Just remember the next time you hear any politician say “Trust me I will bring you peace and safety,” The Word says something different. 1 Thessalonians 5:3—While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.
My Ratings: Offensive / 5
Terry, age 29
Positive—Let me say in response to the negative reviews above, primarily those who objected to the government being labeled “conservative” and saw the government’s use of religion as “Christian-bashing,” I think you’re mistaken. Why? Because you’re failing to take into account the film’s target audience. The audience is not a bunch of Afghan Muslims living in the mountains north of Kabul or working class Saudis living in Medina. Its audience is the (extremely nominal) Christian west whose form of government is representative democracy. Would any one of us have believed (and been moved to fear by) the future painted by this movie if the Chancellor had not been a white man spouting religious platitudes, but instead a bearded, olive-skinned ayatollah in a turban railing against women exposing their ankles, the evilness of infidels or the need for conformity to sharia law? I doubt it. Also, because the “swipes” at America and conservatives are never really as excessive as they could have been. They are used to establish the film’s political motif, nothing more.

True, I didn’t appreciate the red double cross everywhere or the pro-homosexual message or the fact that the bishop was a pervert. And the swipes at Christianity are more severe and obvious because of the total lack of any counterbalancing, positive Christian character. But this leads me to think that perhaps Evey would have been a better antagonist to V had she been a woman of substance and values instead of a vacuous nobody full of fear and confusion needing V to bring her to maturity. Instead, imagine what incredible dialogue we would have been treated to had Evey been a Christian woman with an understanding of theology, pyschology, philosophy and the Christian doctrines of civil disobedience and just war theory! WOW!

I think you could still have had V blow up parliment in the end (the climax of the story, after all), and even continue his killing spree against those responsible for Britain’s oppression (they were mass murders, after all) just as Dietrich Bonhoeffer believed he had a moral obligation to try to blow up Hitler (for which he was martyred). In fact, through the dialogue Evey could have convinced V his cause was just only IF he gave up his lust for vengence! Imagine if Evey had succeeded in leading V to the Lord—after which he carries out his plan and blows up Parliment! This would be much less a leap given that V, even in his vengful state, is portrayed as more of a freedom fighter and much less as a terrorist, primarliy because he does not target innocents.

Do you think a big budget movie with such an amazing turn of events would be controversial? You bet! But would the controversy be positive and challenging? I think so. How many Christians do you think would think if V got saved he should then give up his fight? And how many would understand his actions were not only just, but justified given the evilness of the regime? Wouldn’t we Christians have a lively debate over such a film! I’d love it.

That said, and while the movie’s shortcomings and unfair swipes at Christianity and conservatives are obvious, annoying and should be pointed out, we should also acknowledge when a movie gets it right. One of the most moving scenes of the whole movie is when V appears at night to kill the woman doctor responsible for the virus which later killed 80,000 people, She says to V (with apologies, from memory), “Is it so wrong to have wanted to do so much good?” V replies, “You are not being [judged][killed] for what you intended, but only for what you did.” THAT is a clear and accurate swipe at liberalism and the movie should get hi-5s from Christians for that line alone!

Then the doctor says (again, from memory), “Is it [pointless][futile] to say, “I’m sorry?”” To which V replies, tenderly (but not regretfully), “Never.” For me, this scene was in some ways almost reminiscent of the repentance scene in Les Miserabe. With the obvious theological shortcomings, of course. So, although it was far from perfect and the totalitarian set-up was contrived and trite and the movie missed numerous opportunities to be truly great, all in all, I enjoyed it. And more so the second time.
My Ratings: Offensive / 5
Tom, age 46
Positive—I for one, really liked this movie. Yes, it does contain violence and some hot button issues. If you do not want to see violence or blood, do not see it. However, I felt this movie was emotionally moving, and it really made you think. I think some Christians are so influenced (myself included) by the few of us who have mainstream access to the public, that we take their opinions as our own and don’t always think for ourselves. This movie represented opinions that our different than our own, but it was done in a very artistic and entertaining way. Have they changed my mind about anything? Not really. But they have made me take down some walls that I had built up towards others who are different. I do not believe homosexuality is right, but I also think we need to love them into the kingdom rather than shout hate speeches at them. I also agree with the viewer above that said this was not a representation of Christianity, but what evil people will do in the name of it. No one who loves God would torture people and kill them because they are different.

As for the acting, I absolutely loved it. I thought Hugo Weaving did and excellent job behind the mask, and Natalie Portman was also phenominal. I love the character of V, because they made him a vulnerable, flawed human being. He even questions his own motives. And really, even though all of us know that Jesus wants us to turn the other cheek, it doesn’t mean that everyone will do that. V was not a Christian (at least we are never told), and he was wronged in the worst possible way. There is something inside of us that is like God. God is a god of justice, and we as human beings want justice when we have been sinned against. This man was doing with his feelings that which he only knew how to do—to demand that people be held responsible for torturing him and killing others. As Christians, we are called to leave that in God’s hands and forgive. However, many in the world turn bitter and hard—including V. This was his way of dealing with that trauma. It is not right, but we can’t expect everyone to be like us. I also enjoyed the love story between Evey and V. It gives him a redeeming quality. Anyway, I know this is not organized very well, but in whole, I loved the movie.
My Ratings: Average / 5
Amanda, age 27
Positive—I would just like to point out a thought. Yes, the movie portrays the United States as a morally bankrupt country responsible for the worlds suffering and in great turmoil. Perhaps, that is not the reality. The only view of the U.S. we as viewers receive is from the government controlled media and from the character’s limited (and flawed) understanding of history. We know for a fact who was responsible for releasing the virus by the end of the movie. Maybe it was nothing more than propaganda to further scare the people into submission. Just my though, maybe the movie wasn’t digging at the U.S. directly. Rather, it was simply using it as a vehicle to further the plot.
My Ratings: Average / 5
Gary Richardson, age 22
Positive—A pretty good movie—not spectacular, but solid. My complaints would be its flat visual style, and lack of subtlety with its characters and themes. I gave my “Average” rating because as Christians freedom should be important to us—even if people choose lifestyles we don’t agree with. Nobody deserves to be rounded up and treated as those shown here. Yes, there is some graphic content (holocaust imagery and some violence) but I felt it was necessary to the story and nowhere near levels of other films that are well regarded by believers.

On the issue of its messages and so forth—sure you can read into it everything that you’ve heard… but I didn’t. I saw the government as Nazis and in the context of the film, agreed with it’s need to be brought down—similar to “Star Wars”, “Zorro”, or any story that tries to bring freedom to the people. Whether V is a little too vengeful in his methods can certainly be debated. …
My Ratings: Average / 4
JJ, age 26
Positive—I went to this movie with a few of my Christian friends, and wasn’t really knowing what to expect. I’m glad that I did see this movie, because it shows that the government can be corrupt and rule through dictatorship or fear. V (played by a masterful Hugo Weaving) is rebelling against the government through terrorist measures, especially on the 5th of November, where he attacks “fingermen” and blows up buildings. He stumbles upon a girl named Evey in his terrorist action (played by an excellent Natalie Portman) and tries to drive out all of her fear.

This movie was not only based on the legend of Guy Fawkes, but also loosely based on George Orwell’s 1984 (with all the dictatorship stuff, the pictures of the leader in everyone’s house, and the fact that “Big Brother” is indeed watching you). It was gripping and powerful, and in many times, emotionally pulling. The scenes where Evey is shut up in the cell is powerful, and the action is intense and cool.

1. The excessive use of profanity… I lost count after a while.
2. The homosexual scenes flashbacks of a girl whom Evey reads her autobiography. There are scenes that show two girls kissing, which made me cringe a lot. There is also a brief scene of two males in bed with each other before the police arrest them.
3. The nudity with the mass grave scene. It is very brief, and (as far as I know) it didn’t show everything, but that still doesn’t stop our fertile imaginations from filling in the blanks.

Overall, however, it is a powerful and thought-provoking movie that takes a good swipe at politics and corruption. I would reccomend this movie, but only if you are a mature Christian.
My Ratings: Average / 4
Dave, age 20
Positive—Although I am not specifically Christian, I ask that my comments on this movie be as they are and not as an attack against any group of people. There are many—including the commentators here—who viewed this film as an exclusive attack on Christianity; such a viewpoint is simply shallow and short-sighted at best, and a complete reversal of the actual point at worst.

First, for the sake of clarity, let us dispel any myths that this film is anything less than a political statement—more specifically, one that is intended to be viewed by mature adults, not impressionable children. It is good to understand that this movie is not intended to be an accurate portrayal of Christian beliefs or even an accurate portrayal of what it would be like to live under a “Christian” government. (Although it is purposefully similar to some of the historical black eyes of the Christian faith, specifically the Catholic Inquisition. It is also important to point out that the historical events of the “Gunpowder Treason” are also used purposefully here, if only to point out the ridiculousness of two Christian groups using violence to attempt to oppress one another.) The movie is clearly hyperbole, an examination of extreme possibilities—possibly/probably even a straw man—and is in that way similar to the dystopian futures depicted by Ayn Rand in her novella Anthem or George Orwell in the classic 1984.

That said, when wondering whether or not the movie is a specific attack on Christian values, the answer is no. Admittedly, it does espouse several values that do not coinicide with traditional Christian values, most specifically the use of violence to solve problems. It requires a belief in a very false dichotomy to assume that the sympathetic treatment of certain things which aren’t specifically Christian (violence to solve problems, homosexuality, etc) somehow constitutes an attack on Christian values. There is, in fact, a continuum of beliefs stretching from strictly Christian to absolutely anti-Christian, and only children would find it necessary to reduce the world to the absolutes on the end of this continuous scale, assuming that a piece of art falls into on or the other. As said before, while there are elements of “V for Vendetta” which do not sync perfectly with Christianity, this does not place the film in the category of “anti-Christian.”

So then, what is the message here? What is so important that some random non-Christian feels that people of all faiths should pay attention to it? The film is an attack on demagoguery of all types. In this case, religious demagogues are used as the example, but the basis could have been any form of ideology, secular or sectarian. More specifically, the film points out the types of masks that politicians, dictators, and even religious leaders are willing to wear in order to “justify” their own fanatical agenda. Stalin used the masks of “egalitarianism” and “socialism” in order to create for himself a secure, unchallenged seat of power. Hitler used the Jews as a scapegoat and “national pride” in order to create an unquestioning populace and an army who was willing to commit heinous crimes in his name. Ayatollah Khomeini hid behind the teachings of Islam to delude the population of Iran and create a radical anti-American (probably terrorist) state. And in “V for Vendetta”, High Chancellor Sutler uses the population’s fear of more attacks and the assumption of “Christian” values in order to create a dictatorship.

The warning is clear: never trust the masks of the politicians, and never, as a population, fall asleep at the wheel when it comes to our duties to keep a government from becoming a dictatorship. In essense, we should never trust a leader simply because they claim to be looking out for us, or because the claim to be Christian, etc.; we should examine thoroughly their actions as well as their words. In the case of this movie, the Chancellor used “Christianity” as the basis for his regime, yet it was quite clear in examining the actions of his regime that Christianity was not at all the inspiration for his actions. Ironically, although the knee-jerk reaction has been to call the film “Left-wing propaganda,” the fact is that such visions of anarchy and the desire to all but do away with large intrusive government is inherently Right-wing.

Hopefully, I have made the point of this rather lengthy submission clear: this film is not an attack on Christianity or Christian values. It is a political statement meant to be taken seriously by all people regardless of their chosen faith, and anyone who refuses to see this is, I believe, selling themselves short. Please do not avoid this movie because of the anti-Christian hype.

In terms of its overall moral standing, as I said before, this is not a movie intended for children. Christians might be offended that the film is sympathetic towards homosexuality, however, this is not in any respect the main focus of the movie. I would think that anyone who is looking that the movie through a Christian worldview would be far more offended by the fact that the movie, as a political statement, promotes the use of violence as a method of conflict solving. In the end, adults should be able to view this movie as it is and understand its message whether or not there are things they find disagreeable.
My Ratings: Better than Average / 5
Mason, age 25
Positive—As a Christian of nineteen years and a film studies teacher, I found myself overjoyed after watching “V for Vendetta”. At no point does it demonize our faith. All it does is examine how it can be misused, nor does it hold Islam as the perfect faith it just highlights the demonisation of all those of a different skin colour in the mass media.

A typical reaction of Christians to a film such as this is to not really look at the message of the film, the film is concerned with the abuse of power, and if you actually watch the film you will find that all the evil characters in the text use Christ’s name in vain, whereas V claims there is no such thing as “luck” and acts as a modern day messiah—you will notice he does not raise from the dead and like many great Christian figures before him dies for justice and the future of an enlightened society. The film examines how politicians are destroying countries, not because they want to spread Christian ideology, but because they want to control natural resources which our creator gave us to share, not hoard and float on the stock market. It is easy to view a film and take it at face value and rant and rave; it is much harder to view the film as an interesting, and rather brave, examination of how God’s name is used for all the wrong reasons. The film is outstanding cinemagraphically and is well acted, especially Weaving. May I also add that the heroine of this film, the future for the nation is named Evey—i.e. Eve suggesting, maybe, that we have a second chance as long as we take it and fight the good fight.

I recommend this film to any forward thinking Christian who is tired of our faith being used as a political sling shot! I mean no disrespect to our brothers and sisters who are conservative in their approach, but I feel that as film studies teacher God has given me a platform to help others see the virtue in films and TV which initially appear offensive or critical of our creator. The world has changed, and if texts such as this can provoke discussion and debate in the young people of the modern world then maybe God is working in ways we do not recognise? Yours in Jesus, Jane Thomas, Manchester England.
My Ratings: Excellent! / 5
Jane Thomas, age 31
Positive—What many people seem to be missing with this movie is that “V for Vendetta” IS all about faith and where the common man should place it: in the hands of those promoting faith for their own causes, or those promoting faith in mankind as a whole. Obviously, V promotes the unification of this post-nuclear society under a common faith. Christ as a symbol was forced to go against society to restore a true, uncorrupted faith to mankind; V leads the people of England away from the corrupted regime (based on a false faith) and towards a true faith in mankind. The movie preaches the idea of redemption and the ability of the common man to overcome oppression through faith alone. V may be a “terrorist” of sorts as a human, but Jesus was a pauper, a poor man, as a human. It is the unhuman or symbolic power of both V and Jesus that made them powerful; it requires faith to trust in these inhuman identities. The people of England unite under the idea of the Fifth of November and the mask of V, but not under the terrorist human that he embodies. The focus in this faith is on the spirit and not the man; V’s undying lust for revenge as a human is shown quite negatively, especially towards the end of the film.

In the end, it is quite obvious that V recognizes that as a man, as a terrorist, he represents violence, and thus could not take society to a better place. But he knows that as an idea, as a symbol, he has the power to unite a shattered people under a supreme faith in FREEDOM: and freedom is what Christ portrays in his gift to humanity. So, in opposition to what many others have said, I think this movie is highly Christian in its values (though definitely in an unorthodox fashion). Christ loved his people and was willing to die for their freedom, and so is V. He is a Christ figure for the passive, inactive Christians of today who have lost faith in the ideas of Christ and continue to follow Christ’s human image.

I found it relieving to see a movie in which such a dark and unfamiliar character could be portrayed in such a Christ-like way. This should help to remind America that Christ is represented not by looks but by his ideas alone. We should trust in the moral right, no matter how wrong it may look (and anyone can imagine how wrong the moral teachings of Christianity probably seemed in the early days).

This movie is about faith and therefore I recommend it to everyone. It may not be the best movie ever or anything, but I really enjoy its dedication to providing a fresh and insightful view of faith and how America is losing it. I am far from being a fundamental Christian, but I recognize that everyone must have faith in morals higher than himself, and that is exactly what V as a symbol embodies.
My Ratings: Good / 4½
Andrew Beach, age 18
Comments from young people
Positive—The Wachowski Bros. have done it again, and I’m not refering to the 2nd and 3rd “Matrix” installments, but the original. In this perfectly crafted tale of a not so distant Orwellian society where fear and censorship is the ultimate form of control, one man’s journey of revenge becomes a catalyst to the awakening of the conditioned masses. I don’t care what the corporate controlled, main-stream media has to say about this film, I knew as I left the theater that critics would find a way to bash this truly relevant film. Not since Darth Vadar has there been such a powerful performance by an actor who’s facial expressions are concealed by a mask. Kudos Hugo Weaving. As the title of this review suggests, A MUST SEE!!
My Ratings: Better than Average / 5
Noah Cabalona, age 15
Movie Critics
Positive—…Obviously, “Vendetta”’s makers are targeting the Bush administration, including the Patriot Act and how it deals with dissent. …
Randy Myers, Contra Costa Times (The Mercury News) (3/15/06)
Negative—…clearly meant to have more than a passing resemblance to our current political environment …this film sags when it should zip, weighted down with self-importance and some dubious thinking…
Manohla Dargis, The New York Times (3/17/06)
Negative—…a dunderheaded pop fantasia that celebrates terrorism and destruction… The Wachowskis clearly wanted to weigh in on current politics, so they threw in references to the Bush Administrations political use of Christianity. There’s also talk of “rendition,” and the secret police repeatedly throw black hoods over people’s heads, Abu Ghraib style. …
David Denby, The New Yorker (3/20/06)
Neutral—…Coming out of V for Vendetta, a friend of mine called it “radical” and “subversive.” He was awestruck with disbelief that a film with a harlequin terrorist as its hero could actually be released by a major American studio. I was awestruck at his naivety in a world where fight-the-power anarchy is now marketed as a fashionable identity statement by the corporations that helped raise a generation on bands like Rage Against the Machine, by the armchair-leftist bloggers who flog the same righteousness day after day. V for Vendetta has a playful-demon vitality, but it’s designed to let political adolescents of every age congratulate themselves. It’s rage against the machine by the machine. …
Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly (3/15/06)
Negative—…vapid …mind-numbing pretentiousness…
Duane Dudek, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel (3/16/06)
Negative—…Any connections made between world leaders past or present are strictly intentional. …With a terrorist hero spouting lines such as “violence can be used for good” while blowing up buildings (which apparently have no custodial staff or other hapless collateral victims to fret over), V for Vendetta engages in lots of speechifying about the importance of ideas and the freedom to question them. Ironically, though, the movie doesn’t really seem to have any ideas of its own. …
Tom Maurstad, The Dallas Morning News (3/17/06)
Negative—…V makes blowing up buildings look very cool and very justifiable. It’s hard to measure or predict the impact such images and ideas might have in today’s culture, where blasting buildings to make political statements has become a raw reality. The film also contains a veiled condemnation of the political and evangelical “right” in America today. Vendetta not-so-subtly implies that our current government is on course to end up like the one in the film. To make its point, it ropes in issues such as homosexuality, terrorism, electronic eavesdropping and the mistreatment of political prisoners. …
Adam R. Holz, Plugged In (3/06)
Negative—…the talk that emanates from behind the grinning mask, courtesy of unseen actor Hugo Weaving, is sophomoric bong-hit blarney about “freedom” that would get him booed by a coffeehouse full of vegan anarchists. In its final moments, “V for Vendetta” devolves from stupid to insulting. …
Joe Williams, St. Louis Post Dispatch (3/17/06)
Negative—…“V for Vendetta” says that terrorism’s OK as long as no one really gets hurt, and to believe that, you need the wishful thinking of a child. Unfortunately, the world has grown up since Alan Moore set pen to paper. One wonders if the fan-boys ever will. …
Ty Burr, Boston Globe (3/16/06)
Negative—…a big snooze. Think of it as great photography with a dark, neo-noir atmosphere encapsulated in a sleeping pill… It’s simply not involving. …
Randy Cordova, The Arizona Republic (3/17/06)
Negative—…P for Propaganda. …Very strong humanist, anti-religious, politically correct worldview that is pro-terrorist and includes many anti-Christian elements… a very scary and dangerous movie because it is liable to incite more political terrorism by Muslim fanatics and left-wing ideologues…
Justin Loudermilk and Dr. Tom Snyder, Movieguide (3/17/06)