You may have noticed, but comic book adaptations for the silver screen have come a long, long way since “Superman”. I mean, yeah. We still get the occasional “Daredevil” and “Catwoman”, but overall, I think comic fans have alot to be thankful for. The cup runneth over with fare tailored to a savvier audience.

Enter “V for Vendetta”.

The movie caters to one of my great loves: Strong characters driven by good dialog. I can go back and watch “A Few Good Men” over and over again - probably seen the thing 40 times, now. While “V” lacks a villain with the power and presence of a Jack Nicholson, Hugo Weaving is enthralling as the enigmatic “V”.

How can humanity be reflected when hidden behind a mask for two hours? It’s said that much of human communication relies on our ability to read the faces of the people we communicate with - in fact, the lack of this ability to translate subtle facial expressions is often one characteristic of children stricken with various mental disorders, including autism.

Yet, even hidden behind a mask for the entirety of the film, Weaving brings you the pain, joy, fears and hopes of “V” with incredible clarity. Thank the writers, but also Weaving’s skill as a thespian.

Agent Smith delivers again.

Poor, bald Natalie Portman also reminds us that she gets roles for a reason. While I’m not ready to forgive her for the mailed-in performances in Episodes 1, 2 and 3, she delivers a very convincing role as an apathetic citizen-turned-revolutionary. I won’t go into detail regarding this metamorphosis, as it would give away a major plot point in the film. Suffice to say, in the role she’s given, she has performed admirably.

Regarding a couple of popular gripes from “popular” reviewers:

It’s a big Bush-bashing piece: Coming from the hard-righties among us. The Wachowskis take some fairly gratuitous shots at America, the War on Terrorism and Conservatives here. I guess all I can say is… so? You can’t expect anything different from Hollywood nowadays (or anydays). Let them take their cheap shots in the name of faux-intellectualism; I didn’t take umbrage to anything here to any extent that would sully my enjoyment of the film, in the slightest.

Republicans, get over yourselves.

Doesn’t know the difference between Freedom Fighter and Terrorist: Well, it’s a truism that one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist, especially in this age of moral relativism. However, based on my own views of what constitutes terrorism, I don’t see anything here that rises to that level. I see a man attacking the military and logistical centers of a corrupt, evil, authoritarian fascist state. I see many dead soldiers and policemen, but nary a civilian injury - indeed, our Antihero seems to go out of his way, in his two major attacks, to avoid scenarios that would put innocents at risk. Indeed, he seems to be very sympathetic to the common man and his collective apathy about his own loss of freedom.

Too much dialog; the movie drags. And what’s with all his words starting with the letter “V”, anyway?: True, you have to have an appreciation for dialog-driven character development and drama. If you’re some sort of knuckle-dragging Philistine, I suppose this wouldn’t appeal to you. May I recommend “The Spongebob Squarepants Movie”, or perhaps “Waterworld”? Those would seem to be more along the aesthetic lines this type of reviewer could really appreciate.

Also, V has a single soliloquy using a string of words starting with that letter. One. And it’s masterfully written and delivered to boot. So can it. It’s not my fault you were busy passing love letters in sixth grade English.

And, I mean, it features Tchaikovsky’s “1812 Overture”.

Go see this movie.