I didn't see the film in the theater, but I rented the DVD and watched it tonight (stuck in a Chicago hotel room...).

It doesn't take long to recognize it as a radical left-wing wet dream, a caricature of the Thatcher government of the 1980s (what terrible years for England).

The film adaptation was done by the Wachowski brothers, with a few modern updates so you can't miss the allusions to the Bushnazi administration.

I'm not going to complain about that but merely point out some of the interesting fallacies that find analogues in the epistemology of the modern moonbat.

1. There is this curious romanticized "Che Guevera" identification--a deep sense of justification for their opposition to the establishment. Everyone is a political prisoner.

2. The government's efforts to establish order and security is simply dismissed as a pretext for amassing power. There simply never is any real threat to our security. In fact, in a nod to the wide spread belief among the moonbats that George Bush and the Jews really blew up the Twin Towers himself, a massive bio-terror attack that kills 100,000 British was actually engineered by the government to produce the political climate in which they could consolidate their power.

3. The "crimes" the government prosecutes are of course, not really crimes. They are represented as romantic homosexual love, forbidden literature, "dangerous" ideas--nothing serious and of course nothing meriting fascist repression. Mentions of "progressive" policies that produce crack babies and soul-killing dependancy on welfare are absent.

4. The usual bigotry is evident in clearly identifying the high chancellor as a conservative Christian. John Hurt plays the character as a one dimensional madman, which is pretty par for the course--only the terrorists and Che Guevera types are presented as symathetic three-dimensional characters. Poor John Hurt--130 films and reduced to this...

5. Many allusions to eavesdropping, spies and other means used by the government to control the populace. NSA wiretapping anyone?

What is really disturbing though is the adolescent revenge fantasy that permetes the film and the left-wing. Its not called Vendetta for nothing. The main character is motivated by the terrible things "Mommy and Daddy" did to him and vows to extract his revenge at any price. He blows things up, he murders people (but as in the "True Lies, "they were all bad.") and the entire film builds to a climax of destruction with absolutely no thought to what happens afterwards (except for romantic clap-trap about a new world...).

There is some attempt to redeem 'V' and ironically his repentance comes as a result of the example and rhetoric of his protege (Natalie Portman), who in turn learns just the opposite lesson, and after the death of her mentor, the destruction of the antagonists and the victory of the "people" over the government (the Guy Fawkes masked populace storms the city, passing right through the ranks of the soldiers to fill the streets), she still sends an explosives-laden train through the tube to blow up the Parliament buildings--why?

These morons differ little from the kids who egg my house because one of my sons talked to their girlfriend--emotion driven insanity with no thought for the consequence to others.

It gets worse.

There is an incredible naivete about the human nature--the "good guys" may do some questionable things (like murder people...) but they are simply misunderstood, or motivated by more complex forces. The "bad guys" are evil personified. No doubt after High Chancellor Sutler is removed, a thousand year reign of peace begins.

P For Proganada. No wonder it bombed...