I have not seen the movie “V” for Vendetta, but I have read two reviews on it, one by Steven Greydanus of decentfilms.com, and the other by Harry Forbes, the official movie reviewer for the United State Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
 
Interestingly, if I had just read Forbes’ USCCB review, I would have considered going to see the movie, as it sounds interesting and not that objectionable in content:

Director James McTeigue…has crafted a reasonably intelligent political allegory, the usual improbabilities aside, with emphasis on character development, ideas, and even a bit of romance, not mindless violence. The vigilante exploits are handled with relative restraint given the genre

 

Sounds pretty decent–intelligent political allegory, character development over mindless violence, etc.
 
Forbes continues his favorable analysis:

[O]verall, “V for Vendetta” is absorbing, and its theme of the individual’s responsibility in standing up to tyranny — while questioning the moral limits of opposition — is worthy, and stops short of imparting a universal anti-authoritarian message.
 
The film contains some discreetly handled violence with bloodshed, a hanging, scattered profanity, rough and crude language and expressions, minor lesbian-themed flashback and implied gay male character, corrupt Anglican clergyman, attempted rape, sexual innuendo, and drug use.

 
Hmmm, okay, so there are some bad things in there, but he makes it sound like they are not that bad, as they are discreetly handled and minor or only implied. And after all, the movie is absorbing and has a strong, balanced theme. So after reading this review, I would seriously consider seeing this movie.
 
But not so fast. Let’s read what Greydanus says about this same movie:

The Wachowskis [the movie makers]…drop the racial-purity theme, and replace the references to Norse mythology with vicious fundamentalist Christian stereotyping.
 
Throw in some topical allusions to the war on terror and the Patriot Act — black hoods thrown over the heads of prisoners, anti-Muslim prejudice, covert electronic surveillance of citizens — and you’ve got a ham-fisted parody of the Bush administration. It was in part due to this recasting of the story in terms of “current American neo-conservatism vs. current American liberalism” rather than fascism vs. anarchy that Moore [the author of the novel this movie was based on] dissociated himself from the film and had his name withdrawn.

 
So we learn something important here: the movie makers changed the novel to slam the Bush administration and also Christians. What about the other objectionable things that Forbes described as “discreet”, “minor”, and “implied”?

By replacing racial ideology with fundamentalist rhetoric, the film gives the theme of persecution of homosexuals — stepped up in the film by the addition of a covertly gay character who keeps up appearances by entertaining young women — an overtly anti-Christian twist. Moral affirmation of homosexuality, even identification with homosexuals, becomes the necessary alternative to active persecution; belief that homosexuality is objectively disordered, or that same-sex “marriage” is a contradiction in terms, puts you on the side of the concentration camp officials.
 
This picture would hardly be complete without a Catholic-bashing depiction of a corrupt, morally dissolute clergyman, and V for Vendetta delivers in spades, with one of the most flagrant offenders I can think of. Here the comic book supplies the ready-made whipping boy of Bishop Lilliman, a pedophile whom in Moore’s original story V murders with an arsenic-laced communion wafer. The movie offers an alternative sacramental profanation, with a disgusting scene in which the bishop reveals that he likes to “play confession” with the young girls (as young as possible) his aides obtain for him on a regular basis.

 
This is disgusting! I hesitated to even include it, but you should know that such evil is in this movie before you decide you want to watch it. Forbes didn’t mention any of that–I guess he didn’t think it was important?
 
In the past week, two of my coworkers have gone to see this movie and told me about it, both of them thought it was “good and interesting” and never mentioned any of the twisted evil in it. It is so important to know the truth about such movies and other media and news events so that we can be armed to intelligently discuss them with our friends and family, without being necessarily exposed to them in their full perversion. That is why I commend Steven Greydanus for his excellent reviews and recommend them to everyone I know.
 
I do not recommend Forbes’ USCCB reviews, for he has greatly mischaracterized movies and left out important objectionable elements to them, including misrepresenting their entire theme and portraying it as good (he did this heinously with “Brokeback Mountain”, which due to outcry forced him to edit his review multiple times and change it from an L rating (limited audience) to an O (morally offensive)).
 
Forbes’ reviews should probably be read and interpreted as a typical example how your secular friends and family would review a movie. Used in this way, you can be ready to understand how they might filter a movie through their mind but also have a Catholic orthodox understanding of it from Greydanus.