Here's what I thought of it (my Amazon review):

Glorifying terrorism, and celebrating the Catholic Gunpowder Plot as its main inspiration, this idealogically-dated hodgepodge is over two hours of tedium, with the somewhat disturbing spectacle of the destruction of the Westminster Clock tower and the Houses of Parliament as its denouement.

The writer continually attempts to lift the intellectual level of the story by means of overlong quotes from 'highbrow' literature and tediously extended alliterative wordplay.

Characters speak with one voice: an unnatural, amateurish English lit student screenplay-speak. The screenplay is weak and often falls flat. Cultural references seem also to have a personal slant, such as V's repeated viewing of his favourite film, The Count of Monte Cristo. Irritating, ideological cant about the absolute power of words brings the question of why so many bombs and knives are necessary for V's mission.

Natalie Portman's accent grates on the British ear. The opening narration is studied and passable, but some way into the film she seems to adopt an Australian accent.

There is also a comedy montage with Stephen Fry in the middle of the film which is wholly inappropriate and which completely destroys the small amount of tension the film manages to build.

V can get through any security system, and can somehow persuade battalions of armed guards to attack him at a maximum of two at a time. He also lives undiscovered in a large underground complex. All pragmatic questions are glossed over and left unanswered.

One of the worst films I've sat through. Had I not been in company I would not have done so.

I don't disagree tbh, if it hadn't been an adaptation of a comic I love, I ight've thought it shite too to be perfectly honest.
I don't think these criticisms apply to the comic though. For comparison, the League of Extrodinary Gentlemen was a painful movie, but the comic was excellent.
The thing about moore's writing is that it's never going to translate well, it''s written to take advantage and play up to the comics medium, and as such it always lacks something when translated into another medium. V was ok, in some ways, but there's huge, and essential parts of the story which just don't happen in the film, and are totally necessary in the comic, for example, Stephen Fry's character is not in the comic, and the character he replaced, and one of the most important parts of the story are entirely absent from the film. So I wouldn't disagree with your assessment, but when I watch it, I already know what's missing, so it's hard to jusdge the film in it's own right, it's always an adaptation, and even at that quite a weak one.

V For Vendetta is a fun movie, but it really has nothing on the graphic novel. They changed the theme around and made it more of an action flick. Still fun, though.

The Watchmen movie was a more authentic adaptation, but I hate how they removed the element of atheism from the plot (a central aspect of it, I would argue) and replaced it with tons of gore that wasn't in the original. I think I might actually prefer the new ending, however. The psychic squid thing always came off to me as a bit silly.