Went to see V for Vendetta last night, which was good fun. I almost didn’t go, after reading a slagging of it by Peter Bradshaw in theguardian. Then I remembered that Bradshaw also gave Revenge of the Sith a preposterous one star and decided to ignore him – and I’m glad I did.

Some of V‘s core message – which is equally critical of authoritarian government and a population that allows it – is less than subtle, but it is well-timed.

There are some minor quibbles: the backstory isn’t well explained, leaving us watching the police investigate an apparently crucial mass murder we’ve been told little about; having John Hurt – who is typically good as the High Chancellor – also play an actor who is lampooning the High Chancellor is a recipe for audience confusion; and the Underground station used to illustrate mass Tube closures is Strand, which has been shut for donkeys years. Oh, and a very minor complaint: V’s Wurlitzer jukebox clearly doesn’t hold the 872 songs he claims – it looks like it takes around two to three hundred at most. I was concerned that V’s mask would make it hard for his personality to come across, but Hugo Weaving (previously Elrond in The Lord of the Rings and a drag queen in Priscilla, Queen of the Desert) does an excellent job of carrying the character in his voice.

Typically for Hollywood, while the villains are English, the actors playing the heroes are not: Weaving is Australian, Natalie Portman is American, and Stephen Rea, who plays the chief inspector (who, for unexplained reasons, appears to be part of the High Chancellor’s kitchen cabinet) is Irish, as is Sinéad Cusack, the only sympathetic one of V’s tormentors. Portman just about manages to pass herself off as English, although her accent, while not a Thurman or a Van Dyke, leaves a little to be desired; Rea seems to be playing his character as a Yorkshireman, but this accent comes and goes. Given that the dialogue states that his mother was Irish, perhaps he should’ve stuck with his natural voice.

It was great to see such a range of British acting talent though. Hurt’s number two is played by Tim Piggott-Smith (I didn’t recognise him at first), who is best known for The Jewel in the Crown, but was also in the Doctor Who story The Masque of Mandragora. Ben Miles from Coupling (with a really bad haircut), Rupert Graves (last seen as a far right MP in Spooks) and John Standing, whose many roles include in the Avengers episode School for Traitors.

Rea is good, and much better than in the last thing I saw him, an episode of 1970s Brian Clemens anthology series Thriller calling K is for Killing (Cusack appeared, incidentally, in the episode The Eyes Have It). The man of the match award, though, goes to Stephen Fry, whose performance as Gordon Dietrich was charismatic, nuanced and thoroughly winning.

The use of familiar London locations for the finale makes it all the more powerful. I must confess to a guilty enjoyment of the pyrotechnics when V attacks establishment landmarks – I’ll put it down to an appreciation of the spectacular effects.

It’s not a great film, and I’m not familiar with the comic so I can’t comment on the truthfulness of the adaptation, but it is enjoyable and effectively directed with no major flaws. Its message, that handing power to governments in response to fear is not a good idea, is summed up in V’s motto:

People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people.

Those in favour of ID cards and authoritarian terror laws would do well to see it.

A geeky puzzle for you.

These images show all eleven characters (one appears twice) who appear in the Star Wars “I find your lack of faith disturbing” conference room scene on the Death Star.

Simple question: how many of these actors were in Doctor Who (in the widest sense)? And which of them was in more Doctor Who stories than the others?

A lollipop for the person who gets the right answers. Two lollipops if your answers are better than the ones I was thinking of…

As we all know, it’s not about left and right these days, but nevertheless, here, thanks to BBC scheduling, is one simple question to sort the pinkos from the Francos.

At 9pm tonight, are you more likely to watch BBC One (To Kill a Burglar: The Tony Martin Story*) or BBC Two (The Plot Against Harold Wilson)?

*not Scotland

It’s great to see such incisive and detailed discussion of the education bill. Take today’s theguardian:

Michael Connarty, MP for Linlithgow and East Fife, said: “I think Ruth Kelly has done a wonderful job with a very, very bad idea, but it’s still a bad idea.”

Yup, that’s pretty much the level of debate in this article (and we’ll skim over the fact that Michael Connarty is an MP for a Scottish constituency not covered by this bill). The whole piece is about trying to predict how many Labour MPs will rebel. Is news so thin on the ground that we can’t just wait and see? Last night’s Panorama was on the same subject, following the rebels and trying to infer whether a big rebellion would speed Tony Blair’s depature. Discussion of the proposals themselves was relegated to a few mentions here and there.

Governments are supposed to lose votes, of course. Blair’s massive majorities in 1997 and 2001 insulated him and the idea of Labour trouncing all opposition on every vote became the status quo. Now that Labour are less dominant in the House of Commons, you would expect Blair to lose the occasional vote. But what’s most tedious about this “will-they-won’t-they” coverage of the rebellion is that the bill is going to pass.

The Tories, Her Majesty’s Opposition, think they have a great wheeze to get rid of Blair sooner – and they long to face to Gordon Frown. We’re being told that a bill passed only because of Tory support would be a disaster for Blair. And yet, with the Tories backing the education bill, Blair is likely to achieve one of the largest majorities for any of his public service reforms. Whether we like the proposals or not, Blair has secured a consensus amongst a significant chunk of Members of Parliament – a sign, surely, of success for a Prime Minister. If the Tories really want to hurry him out of Number 10, actually defeating his flagship education policy would surely be a better way.

From theguardian again:

The prime minister’s working majority is 69, so the rebels need 35 votes against to force a reliance on the Conservatives. One rebel campaigner said this would leave Tony Blair running a “minority administration”.

No, it wouldn’t. Because this is one issue, and on this one issue the Tories are voting in favour. That’s an administration with an even higher majority than it got in May 2005, not a minority administration. It may be a sign that Blair is implementing Tory policies – but to whom is that news after nearly nine years of his premiership? It could equally be a sign that the Tories now back New Labour policies.

Nor does relying on Tory support show that Blair has lost the support of his party. If 50% of his MPs were voting against, then yes. Even if 20% were voting against him. But we’re talking about a rebellion of around 10%. They are the ones who will be appalled if the bill gets through on Tory votes, but we already know most of them want Blair out. The vast majority of Labour MPs will vote in favour.