The story is set around 2035 some years after Norsefire's rise to power. All the blacks, gays, Muslims and immigrants have been murdered or expelled during a period known as the 'reformation'. This period was triggered by a terrorist biological warfare attack upon England. The hero - "V" - is a former inmate of a concentration camp where he was used for medical experiments for developing germ warfare agents. He escapes and hatches a plot to blow up Parliament in order to bring down the regime. He also plans to kill all those who ran the camp where he was interred and where so many innocent lives were lost. Along the way he accidentally becomes allied to a girl - Evey (Natalie Portman). A detective Finch (Stephen Rea) is attempting to hunt down V & Evey before the secret police get to them. His detective work leads him to believe that the Terrorist attack (that lead to the Reformation and rise to power of Norsefire) was not all that it seemed. Therein lies the political dynamite in the plot. The Norsefire regime, of course, label "V" as a 'terrorist'. Yet he is the hero of the story. Whereas Spielberg's "Munich" chose to question the wisdom of State-sponsored revenge assassination of so-called terrorists, "V for Vendetta" tackles the issue of "what is a terrorist" head-on. The movie also clearly illustrates the process whereby democracy can easily be turned into dictatorship. Events leading up to Norsefire gaining power clearly parallel Germany in the 1930's. Even more obviously the events have parallels to World events in 2005 when the movie was made. Proof, if any was needed, that we are condemned to repeat history if we don't learn from it... Pearl Harbour, Gulf of Tonkin, the burning of the Reich Stag, the Twin Towers. It's is all the same. Any Government can engineer events, and the subsequent public fear, to give them the power they desire.  The reactions this stirred in some people were bizarre. I saw one IMDB forum member express how outraged he was that such a pro-terrorist movie got made. Now there is someone who has completely missed the point of the movie and has an extremely simplistic view of the World. Wake up people. The definition of the word "terrorist" is a 'word used as a slur to defame the enemy's combatants'. Pure and simple. Using terror against civilian population has been to single largest weapon of war used by democratic western Governments for over one-hundred years. Just because the combatants in such a war don't wear a uniform doesn't invalidate the actuality of their actions. Wearing the Uniform of the USAF does not NOT make you a terrorist.
The other bizarre piece of nonsense spotted on the forum was one clown who declared that such events could never happen in the USA because they have a Bill of Rights. It is far more likely to happen now, in America. If anything, it already has. The words are all the same, only the faces change. | 
