But so did all the Star Wars trailers.

The trailer actually makes the movie look remarkably close to the comic, even though that's obviously not the case. Odd to see V clad in black rather than the puritan grey of the comic . . . and so incredibly erie to see the mask; I wish there weren't so many quick edits because I would love to have had a longer shot of V to take him in. The computer-generated V at the end looks a bit silly, though. I think it would've been more effective if they had taken a shot of the spray-painted V and faded/dissolved it into the logo that the poster has.

The geek in me must point out that the trailer has V speaking the "ideas are bulletproof" lines to Creedy when in the comic they were to Finch; so I guess we won't get the same Finch-confronts-V scene that the comic has.

Weaving's voice seems OK . . . I've read people raving about it but it doesn't particularly blow me away. I didn't get an Agent Smith/Elrond vibe from Weaving's voice. It sounds all spooky in some parts and then rather ordinary in others. I think I'll need longer previews or the movie itself to judge properly.

It looks like the movie is trying to humanize V, especially the bit where V says something like "what they did to me was monstrous"--very emotional delivery by Weaving whereas the V in the comic was unnaturally calm about everything. I can understand why they'd want to make V more human/sympathetic, but I'm not sure it's going to work when you're dealing with a guy whose face you never see....

Almost every shot with V is blurry. There's only a handful of shots where his mask is shown clear without any sort of fuzziness. It's making me REALLY curious to see how the mask works up on the screen. It's easy to believe in a comicbook where every image is static, but in a motion picture? I do like the billowy-ness of his cape. If you slow down and watch this frame-by-frame, you see V's movements are very theatrical and graceful, which certainly fits his character. But it may all happen too fast on the screen to be picked up on.

The shot of V breaking out of Larkhill standing in silhouette against the flames doesn't work for me. He's got this super-hero "I WILL HAVE MY REVENGE" pose going on. . . . Not sure if that's the intent, especially as it looks as if they're trying to make a paralell between V's epiphany and Evey's, but in context of the trailer it looks silly. I wish they'd kept the understated pose Lloyd drew . . . but as I mentioned before, they're obviously giving V more emotion so this may work in the movie; but I think it further shows that all the subtlety nuance of the comic is being largely (if not completely) ignored.

Blatantly obvious a shot of Susan looking like an overweight Hitler that I'm sure was not accidental. Yeah, this movie has no intention of being subtle. But I think it's funny when (I'm presuming) Finch says "if your government killed a hundred thousand people, would you want to know?" Governments have killed far more than that.

Curious to see how the action sequences go. Not too crazy about the bullet-time knives; the effect worked for The Matrix, but in this case it takes you out of the "reality" of the movie. I'm hoping they use it sparingly. In fact, a lot of the knife work looks CGI. Your mileage may vary on whether this works or not.

Tim Pigott-Smith Stephen Rea looks great as Finch. He's got that worn-out, beaten heaviness that Finch is supposed to have. There's a quick shot of Finch staring at one of the roses, probably on Deliah, and the look of complete defeat on his face is great.

This looks like it could be a real tour-de-force for Portman, though. They definitely put Evey through the paces and based on the clips here it looks like she pulls it all off convincingly. Also: is this is the first time Natalie Portman has received top billing?

The shot of Evey kissing Valerie's letter gave me goosebumps. If the movie manages to pull off Valerie's letter without seeming hokey, then that alone may make the movie worthwhile.

Creedy looks to be a bigger character in the movie than in the comic, but I think that works, and Creedy comes across as a prick but a menacing one, much stronger than the comic. There was a quick clip in the trailer that looks like V confronting Derek Almond; I wonder how prominent Almond will be in this version; he was a major character in the early Wachowski draft but it looks like Creedy gets the spotlight more. (Note: upon further viewing, the clip I refer to may not be Almond; it looks more like a snippet of V taking out one of the Fingermen when they try to rape Evey.)

Some of these shots are very nicely composed, as I think the screen grabs I posted show. Again, they're not exactly subtle, but I understand why the movie is taking the sledgehammer approach, even if I think it weakens the story.... The shot I keep coming back to is the woman on the couch surrounded by soldiers. Could that be Valerie...?

And what the HELL is up with that scene of Evey kissing someone surrounded by all those yellow banners??? (Note: another inital viewing error. That is not Portman in the clip. This looks like it's actually Valerie kissing Ruth. This is probably a shot of "The Salt Flats" flashback in Valerie's letter.)

The end credits read "based upon characters appearing in magazines published by DC COMICS". Firstly: "Magazine"?? Yeesh. Secondly: My kingdom for Moore and Lloyd to receive proper credit....

But, still. It looks stylish (if obvious) and the preview certainly gives you the sense that this movie has some weight to it rather than a light-hearted action flick a la Lethal Weapon. But a good preview. Sells it well as an action-thriller. I wonder what people who don't know about V or Guy Fawkes will react to it. ESPECIALLY in light of the recent bombings.

(Very interesting the preview shows V with the dynamite strapped to his chest. Wonder if that will remain in the theatrical release of the trailer. In fact, I wonder how the bombings will affect people's view of the movie.)

Just going by the preview alone, it may wind up being a decent adaptation. We'll just have to wait and see.