I'll say one thing for this turkey...it made me want to read the graphic novel to find out what really transpired. When driving on a wet road you look out for pot holes. With this movie you can't avoid the plot holes.
I assume that if one accepts the movie's ending of the ending of the right-wing Christian dictatorship (what a crock that is...the last and only one was in Byzantium six centuries ago, and the thought of a "Christian dictatorship coming to England, much less than to the United States, is silly)that those left on the ground, removing their masks (I guess to start picking the new anti-totalitarian atheist government)would somehow escape the anarchy that would ensue, assuming that the falling of Parliament would have a different effect from the toppling of the Twin Towers. What would happen would be the military stepping in to restore "order." I mean these people aren't going to go into lines to form a new government ("All you people who want to be the new High Chancellor please line up here.") Even The Shadow had people who helped him catch the bad guy.
Our masked boy speaks in soft, sibilant tones to all he meets, and then dispatches them to the Hereafter bloodily, as with the the TV guy, or by lethal injection. And, while wanting to put the government out of our misery, doesn't mind some collateral damage along the way.
The USA, is portrayed as a leper colony (why?) and later we see video of civil war in the Heartland. So why did the British need a Baptist dictator? The scene is one not at all removed from England today, people watching the telly, having drinks together..we even see families glued to their TV sets, and one scene that looks like a retirement home..but do these people give an indication of dissatisfaction with their lives? The movie doesn't indicate this. No, V is on his own here and can only resort to a string of assassinations and two glorious bombings. We never are taken into Parliament to see if that body is still deliberating; and if it was closed down by the dictator, why bomb it, other than the Guy Fawkes thing?
It is obvious reading the comments from people who have read the novel that this movie and the book are not, to use a phrase...on the same page. It would not be beyond the realm of reason to have the masked populace show up and lynch V so they could go about their one passion, it seems, of watching dartboard contests in Huddersfield, and come and go as they please as long as they don't wander out after dark without their IDs.
Raynald De Chatillon was indeed a very bad man, who was the pretext for Saladin's assault on Jerusalem, but Saladin was planning to divest the city anyway, and slaughter the entire populace,btw.. Being a very devout Muslim, he could not continue to allow Christian infidels to hold the city. Balian delivered the city to him because he had few men-at-arms to defend the city. Saladin did not allow the populace to just leave, but did allow them to redeem themselves. Balian defended the city, not for the sake of the people living in Jerusalem, but because of the presence of the holy sites sacred to Christians. The most sacred site in Jerusalem was the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the place where Christ was crucified (viz. The Passion of the Christ). Saladin was not an honorable man, as the film depicts. He had defeated the Crusader army and then had the captured knights brought to him to be beheaded in front of him. He had the right under Koranic Law, to make the church on Golgotha a mosque. He did not do so, but did drive out the religious orders of the other churches in Jerusalem. He allowed a small coterie of priests to continue their duties at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. When he entered the city he enslaved most of the inhabitants who could not buy their freedom. Balian would also have known where the CHS was located and would not have had to ask. The reason for the crusades in the first place was because the Muslims, who controlled Jerusalem a century before, restricted access to the city and Bethlehem by Christian pilgrims. Most people are also unaware that during this period, the Muslims went on their own "crusades" attacking Christian churches and congregations throughout their territories in the middle east. The Crusades were a greatly belated attempt to protect Christians in the Levant and elsewhere in the region. Over 1300 Christian churches were destroyed thusly. Some things never change, it seems. Technically this was a superb film. It could have been a great film, if Ridley Scott hadn't put a modern spin to the real reason for the Crusades.
inflicted on him by the church. He is better doing films like "Goodfellas" rather than religious films. The serious moviegoer is better served by such offerings as "The Gospel According to Matthew" and Zeffarelli's "Jesus of Nazareth" than this comic opera. Making good films about a religion or religious figure is hard enough, but this film, with its dreadful cast and woeful dialogue does not even come close to the pathetic "King of Kings". And the figure who is portrayed in religious films must convey the gravitas of a figure like Christ, and not the vacillating, uncertain and pathetic figure we see in this celluloid travesty.