The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003) User Reviews

Heavens, it wasn't THAT bad!

[keenan-1 · 7/10 · 17 May 2004]

I've been reading the comments page in a somewhat bemused fashion. It seems to be divided between people who don't like the movie because it's not enough like the original graphic novel and people who don't like it because they've never heard of half of the characters that are members of the League. The latter seems to me to be an unutterably silly reason for disliking a film. Does nobody read the classics anymore? Nobody reads Oscar Wilde, Bram Stoker, Robert Louis Stevenson, Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle? I find that difficult to believe. As to the former--not enough like the graphic novel, in other words--just how in the heck can a screenwriter accommodate the dark and twisted visions of Alan Moore in a two-hour Hollywood movie, anyway?

I don't believe that one can compare anything written by Alan Moore to what ends up on the screen being ostensibly "based on the graphic novel". (The same applies to FROM HELL, which is another one most people pan, and one which I think is under-appreciated even though the style is breathtaking. I don't even want to think about the reaction that will ensue once THE WATCHMEN comes out!)

What seems to have been missed by most people is that this movie is about style as opposed to substance. It's based on a graphic novel. That's a fancy way of saying it's based on a comic book. On that level, the film succeeds admirably. The characters are archetypes of their literary forbears. They aren't supposed to be, strictly speaking, human. Of course the plot is grandiose, impractical, and over-the-top. Hello? Aren't most comic books like that? Good heavens, isn't most of STAR WARS?

I don't claim that this is a masterpiece. I do claim that's it's fun to watch if one approaches it with a willing suspension of disbelief. For a couple of bucks shelled out at the DVD rental shop, it takes one to a different world for close to two hours. On that level, it's worth a rental. It's also worth a rental, once one watches the movie, to listen to the commentary from various actors and to realize just how well these so-called "unknowns" do assorted accents that aren't even close to their own. Plus the golfing anecdotes are amusing. (And I don't even like golfing.)

This ain't CASABLANCA. Nor is it TITANIC, for which I eternally thank the gods. (Now, THERE was an overhyped piece of inaccurate trash that pretended to be history, but I digress.) But it's kind of fun, anyway, as long as one doesn't take it too seriously.

Surprisingly entertaining

[yeung169 · 6/10 · 26 October 2006]

Having been critically panned by both film critics and fans of the original comic book version, you'd be forgiven for thinking that the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (which is hardly a league of "Gentlemen" considering the presence of a female character) was absolute rubbish. However, despite the flagrant misuse of characters established in classic Literature (Dracula, The Picture of Dorian Gray, The Invisible Man, Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea and especially The Adventures of Tom Sawyer) there is an essentially a massively fun film to be found, made all the more enjoyable if you disengage your brain and just don't question the ridiculous goings on of the alternate Victorian universe the film is set in.

So in conclusion, if a night of brainless action adventure fun is what you'r after, then the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is sufficiently enjoyable material.

The League of SO MUCH Potential

[moviemanMA · 6/10 · 17 July 2005]

Sean Connery is a very distinguished actor. He has appeared in several great films spanning decades. He was the original 007 James Bond and has since made his mark on the American Cinema. His way or presenting a line is uncanny. Connery is a real hero. His character Allan Quartermain is no different.

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen shows the world during the turn of the century, 1900. The dawn of a new era is about to begin as the world changes into the industrial, mechanized age. New technologies are being developed and Europe is gripped with terror. The man known as "The Fantom" is toying with England and Germnay, starting what seems like a war between the two. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Allan Quartermain is picked to lead a team of select individuals on an expedition to find and stop "The Fantom". Allan is teamed up with Captain Nemo (Naseeruddin Shah), Mina Harker (Peta Wilson), Tom Sawyer (Shane West), Dorian Grey (Stuart Townsend), Dr. Jekyll (and Mr. Hyde; Jason Flemyng), and Rodney Skinner known as "The Invisible Man" (Tony Curran).

This movie features a team of famous characters of literature that suit this period. The idea for the film is very ingenious. Most movies of heroes and people with special talents center around figures from today, not from yesterday. Although some of the characters might not be recognizable to children, they don't really have to know about them. This isn't the best kids movie, with scenes of intense action and some not too pleasant graphics (Dr Jekyll to Mr. Hyde transformation). This movie could have been so much more. For some reason it just didn't click. The cast does an OK job of bringing these characters to life, but there was room for improvement. Sometimes the effects overtake the story and bring down the whole movie.

It is an enjoyable movie but isn't for everyone. It's a good adventure and a decent picture all together. It's nothing to special but it doesn't hurt to watch. Connery is good as the aging Quartermain and with the father/son relationship with West, there is more to just the cat and mouse adventure. LXG is a pleasant film that could have been truly extraordinary.

An underestimated but very interesting movie

[realteng · 28 August 2004]

This movie was badly criticised by many critics and fans... I don't believe that the movie's quality was 'low', but i detect two reasons:

1. 'what? automobiles, submarines, rockets, tanks, automatic rifles, explosions that sank Venice? all those in 1899? no way!'

OK, those people maybe don't know that the movie is based on a comic book!! The comic book is fantasy, it is in an alternate Jules-Verne-like universe where all fiction was real... That book (and this movie) belong to the genre 'Steampunk', a movement that is interested in presenting an alternate Victorian age with an extra-evolved steam driven science that never actually existed. IF you read the comic you will see that: a bridge that connects England and France, technology made by Tesla and Edison, zeppelins, airships, anti-gravity devices... some of these are indeed mentioned in science fiction works of that time, and since the comic is set in that kind of universe, then all these are real.

The book (and the movie) don't want to convince you that these events actually happened in 1899. The movie doesn't want to tell you that Venice was half-sunk by an explosion and was later rebuilt. It is just another universe, an alternate reality... it's fantasy!

there have been some Steampunk movies, and were never considered serious: for example Van Helsing and Wild Wild West. They were too much, too unreal... but if you accept that they happen in a Steampunk universe you will enjoy them

(i suggest you make a search for 'Steampunk' online.. Wikipedia is a good start)

now to the other reason

2. 'LXG is not faithful to the comic book'

no, it wasn't but they didn't want to adapt THE book into a movie! can someone who watched Spiderman 2 tell me on WHICH issue of the spiderman comic book series that movie was adapted?

Spiderman 1 and 2, (and all the comic-book movies) are not trying to adapt a certain issue of the Spidey series into a movie: they try to compress some events and characters from Spidey's universe and present them combined on screen

i don't think that LXG was less faithful to the comic book than Spiderman or Batman were to their respective originals... LXG wanted to tell a story that happened in a universe similar to that of the 'League' comic book, not a certain story of the series..

i hope that if all could understand this, they would enjoy this movie as it really should be enjoyed

a fun movie

[Carebear-1982 · 7/10 · 13 July 2003]

I found this movie wonderfully predictable. To most people that may not make sense, but I have read most of the books that these characters were taken from. While there were major differences between the characters and the books they were taken from, for the most part it was like seeing old friends, i knew what the various characters would do becuase they kept the proper personalities. I even figured out who the villian was because I noticed one of the major works of victorian literature that was missing from the movie. And you do not need to have read all of these books to understand the movie, but there is a bit of a lack of character developement that you may find, but my friends who hadn't done the reading also enjoyed the movie.

It has great visual effects, some really good action sequences, and a really nice looking car.

Oh if you know anything about these characters and other victorian books, see if you can catch the little references they toss. I recomend this movie for someone who wants a good adventure movie.

Saturday Matinee the LXG way.

[leyenda61 · 6/10 · 11 July 2003]

Well, I just came out of the theater after having viewed LXG. First off, I do not think it was a bad movie. While i would not recommend it as a must see movie, I certainly didn't find it to be a waste of my time. Sure, some plot points could have been developed more/better, but hey, I didn't walk in expecting Shakespeare. Though I haven't read the graphic novel on which the film is based, I have read that both the graphic novel and the movie take place in a reality alternate from both out history and our literary canons; which means that even though Stoker never wrote Mina as turning into a vampire, it's okay for LXG to take the license to do so. And so on and so forth.

Yes, it would have been nice to see Connery make his character a little more swashbuckling. But maybe that was the writing. I almost loathe watching anything with Peta Wilson, but i found here surprisingly interesting in this movie. In fact, other than Tom Sawyer's character seeming a bit incomprehensible, I think the other Leaguers were pretty interesting. But what was the deal with the bad guy, "M"? I thought his M.O. was even more pointless and less fleshed-out out than any of the flattest Bond villains I've had the displeasure of seeing. It was just a badly written character.

Just a word or two about the Mr. Hyde F/X, the CGI wizards of the Hulk could take a clue. Sure, both characters were CGI rendered, but Mr. Hyde's size carried a credible degree of mass and weight, whereas the Hulk often moved as if mass-less, making him seem too two dimensional.

All in all, I give the movie a respectable 6/10.

Disappointing in content and style.

[CMUltra · 5/10 · 12 July 2003]

This was one of my most anticipated movies. I love Connery and the premise of this was great. A Indiana Jones setting for adventure, six great characters from classic fiction, and a good story.

Somehow, these elements were lost in the presentation. The story is supposedly based on a graphic novel (comic book) by Alan Moore but the departures from the original story are too numerous. Sadly, not only the storyline is abandoned but the style and flair is as well.

The entire movie is far too dark. I'm so tired of "dark and atmospheric" becoming just a vehicle for covering up lousy sets and fx. The action sequences are fake and choppy as the director decides on fast editing rather than skilled choreography.

This is a period piece, set in 1899 but there are a lot of continuity errors. They refer to the car as a "car", for example, though they didn't know what it was.

For his part, Connery does fine. But he really always does. Connery doesn't really "act", he's simply himself each time. Thus you won't see much difference between James Bond and Allan Quatermain. You will see a huge difference, however, in the quality of the Connery Bond movies and LXE.

The other characters were fun at times, but they either ended up underused, poorly portrayed or just odd.

Wilson's Harker character was very confusing. Was she a vampire? If so, what of the old mythos about not being out in sunlight? She walks around on the deck of the Nautilus in broad daylight. Not sure where all the bats came from either, particularly in the Arctic.

I liked Dr. Jekyll best, I suppose. However, his character left a lot to be desired as well. He comments early after Mr. Hyde saves the Nautilus not to make a "saint out of a sinner", yet the movie does just that. Hyde is never portrayed as vicious or evil. He's either running frightened of Connery's gun or eagerly lending his hand to the good guys. Uhhh...

Tom Sawyer as an American Secret Service agent. Nah, didn't really work. Dorian Gray was a waste as well. A deep character that they didn't bother exploring at all. Nemo was terribly underused.

In better hands this would have been a much better movie. It had a lot of things going for it in casting, plot and premise... but they made it stale and flat. Too bad.

5 out of 10.

Turn off your mind and you'll enjoy it

[preppy-3 · 7/10 · 19 July 2003]

A bunch of fictional characters (Mina Harker, Captain Nemo, Allan Quatermain, the Invisible Man, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Dorian Gray, Tom Sawyer) are called together in 1899 to combat a madman who threatens to take over the world.

The plot is silly and full of huge holes (Mina Harker was NOT a vampire; Tom Sawyer working for the U.S. government?; Mr. Hyde looks like a cousin to the Hulk; Dorian Gray is an immortal?) but the movie itself looks great, there are plenty of incredible special effects (and, surprisingly, some bad ones) and it moves so quickly that you really don't have time to stop and think about it. Just ignore logic, plot and characterizations, lean back and let the movie sweep over you. There's a fight or action scene every 5 or 10 minutes or so--you won't be bored.

All the acting is pretty good--Connery is excellent (as always) as Quatermain and Peta Wilson makes a very sexy vampire. The only bad acting comes surprisingly from two good actors--Stuart Townsend is very dull as Dorian Grey and Shane West is way out of his league as Tom Sawyer. The scenes between him and Connery are almost embarassing to watch--Connery is acting rings around him.

So--is it a good movie? No, but it is an enjoyable one. Just sit back and don't think about--during or after the movie! Good viewing for a hot summer afternoon.

Worst Comic Book Film Ever.

[pjdoughnut · 1/10 · 4 July 2009]

It is no wonder that the esteemed Mr Moore wanted no more to do with Hollywood after this.

I will preface this by saying that I saw the movie before reading the comic book so I had no reason to be comparing it. I watched it expecting very little and still with low expectations I was disappointed. The story was rubbish the effects middling the action forgettable. Surely the idea with a movie like this is that it is an ensemble piece with all the different characters having a part. Yet the only one to really feature was Connery's character, who was basically not Allan Quatermain but as always is simply Sean Connery. The end fight is possibly the weakest end/death sequence I ve ever seen and was neither exciting nore adrenaline pumping. Bad guy runs away, Tom Sawyer aims shoots, kills him. Rubbish. There are many other terrible things about the movie only thrown into sharper relief when I actually read the comic book. Having read it I saw no reason why this film could nt have been made closer to the comic - there is plenty of action in it. More than say Watchmen, which was much harder being a lot longer and more complex. I expect it was the desire to make it as commercial as possible that made them alter the characters to make them bland and clichéd- one of the points of the comic was the chance to re envisage classic characters in a new way. This is interesting and would have made for a great and still exciting movie. However I realise that at the time the comic book movie genre was still primarily a family audience pre sin city and Watchmen, so naturally the Hollywood cretins skimmed through the book, took the idea and completely messed it up to make more money. If made today there is every chance that it would have been more faithful but as this movie was such a disaster it will never happen now I m sure. In an interview Stephen Norrington said that he did nt want to make a faithful adaptation, he wanted to make a blockbuster, but even in this he failed for the movie boasted not a single stand out action sequence. It says a lot about a movie when the best bit was an unintentionally hilarious line from Dorian Grey - "I m complicated." Pity the film itself was nt.

It s also one thing to note that this is the film that sent Sean Connery into retirement and Stephen Norrington into obscurity. While I feel sorry for the loss of Sean( not even a cameo as Indy s Dad could lure him away from the golf course) I have to say Stephen Norrington deserved to loose whatever reputation he had after ballsing this film up so spectacularly.

"Leave one alive to tell the tale."

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 6 May 2006]

Set in a literary world, "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" brings together classic fictional characters in a globe spanning adventure. However the film suffers, in my estimation, from trying to be the greatest action adventure of all time. Had the film makers spent more time on character development and motivation, the picture might have salvaged it's most intriguing premise, the team up of disparate personalities to defeat a megalomaniac who threatens the world.

Interestingly, the single character that is most sorely missed and needed in the band of heroes is the great detective Sherlock Holmes. Granted, he was not a principal in the comic book series of Alan Moore, but since the man behind 'M' the Phantom was Holmes' arch nemesis, Professor Moriarty, it would only have made sense for them to match wits one more time. True to form though, Moriarty dies in the film, which he did in at least three different Sherlock Holmes movies of an earlier era.

Having seen the film during it's original theatrical run, I managed to catch it today on the cable FX channel. What made it more interesting this time around was the inclusion of deleted scenes and commentary about how certain scenes were filmed. What many would perceive as CGI at work, for example the destruction of Venice, was actually done with a miniature set built to one fifth scale. The buildings took four months to build to architectural precision, and another two months were taken for the filming of the action scenes, including the vehicle race through the (non existent) streets of Venice. At least if one has a problem with the story, some appreciation for the effort is in order.

When I first heard about LXG being made into a movie, I had a confident hope that it would do the original Alan Moore concept justice, though I might have known better. It's probably best to go into the film cold with no expectations. If you enjoy over the top action, Hulk like monster metamorphosis, vampire lore and massive destruct sequences, there's some excitement here for you. Don't get too worked up though for intrigue, suspense and mystery; there's too much in your face action going on to get in the way.

Hard to believe that Sean Connery lowered his standards to this level.

[richmachinski · 1/10 · 25 August 2003]

25 August 2003 League of Extraordinary Gentlemen:

Sean Connery is one of the all time greats and I have been a fan of his since the 1950's. I went to this movie because Sean Connery was the main actor. I had not read reviews or had any prior knowledge of the movie. The movie surprised me quite a bit. The scenery and sights were spectacular, but the plot was unreal to the point of being ridiculous. In my mind this was not one of his better movies it could be the worst. Why he chose to be in this movie is a mystery. For me, going to this movie was a waste of my time. I will continue to go to his movies and add his movies to my video collection. But I can't see wasting money to put this movie in my collection

A film that deserved a better fate

[clydestuff · 8/10 · 14 January 2004]

Many times film have such bad vibes during production that they are rumored to be a terrible mess before they have a chance to premiere. Some films that suffered this fate during filming were The Godfather and Titanic. Both turned out to be box office bonanzas and the trouble they had making it to the big screen was quickly forgotten. Then there are films like Valley of the Dolls and Myra Breckinridge which were legendary for their on the set squabbles and dissension among cast members. The end product of both of those productions were films that should have won awards for being the ultimate in cinema stinkers. In 2003, we are given The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, which had already become legendary for it's problems between director Stephen Norrington and lead actor Sean Connery. Add to that such disasters as a flood wiping out production in Prague and you have a nation full of critics ready to pounce. And film critics being what they are in not wanting to waste an opportunity, pounce they did making it one of the worst reviewed films in the past year. Add to that the fact that Fox made the mistake of pitting it against Pirates of the Caribbean in it's opening weekend and it you have the makings of a box office disaster. Did League deserve it? No, it's a film that in my opinion is fun, highly watchable, and deserved none of the over the top blasting it took from some critics. Maybe if it had come out after Gigli many would have looked more kindly on it.

League has an extraordinary premise for a fantasy/adventure film. The idea of using legendary figures from literary fiction to combat a madman The Fantom who is out to destroy the world is much more original than the sequel based films such as Tomb Raider and Terminator 3 that we were subjected to this summer. (League is based on a comic book series that I have not read, nor if I had would not use as a comparison.) Our team of intrepid super heroes consists of Alan Quartermain (Sean Connery), Captain Nemo (Naseeruddin Shah), a now vampiress Mina Harker (Peta Wilson), The Invisible Man (Tony Curran), Dorian Gray (Stuart Townsend), Tom Sawyer (Shane West) and Dr Jekyll/Mr. Hyde (Jason Flyming). The cast does an excellent job of bringing each character to life. Connery has been highly criticized for his portrayal of Quartermain, but for those who cannot appreciate his presence I suggest you try watching Richard Chamberlain in the same role in his two films. That'll teach you. Peta Wilson gives Mina Harker a strong seductive personality that reeks of sexual tension. Stuart Townsend manages to make Dorian Gray the most watchable of the characters by surrounding the character in an aura filled with flair and Mystery. Jason Flyming brings a new characterization of a tormented Dr. Jekyll, who as Mr. Hyde is transformed into a creature Bruce Banner would be proud of. Shane West exudes a boyish charm as Tom Sawyer befitting his character. Though seldom seen except in covering makeup, Tony Curran manages to give the Invisible Man an unmistakable personality. If there was a flaw in the casting I would have to say it was Shah as Captain Nemo. His characterization is for the most part one note and empty, devoid of personality.

The story moves along at a nice even pace. It quickly introduces the characters so that we are able to get to know their personalities, then moves ahead with the action. Writer James Robinson and director Norrington make equal use of each of the characters abilities so that none of their talents are wasted. The production design, set decoration and art direction are all top notch, giving us a dark and brooding turn of the century look we haven't seen before. There are the usual minor plot holes and flaws one could find if they took the time to study this film, but films like this weren't made for film class. For that you watch Citizen Kane. Films like League are made for an audience to have a good time while loading up on the popcorn and soda and nothing more. And I did have a good time. After the critical blasting League took in the press I steered clear of it for quite a while. Fortunately, several months later, I gave it a chance and am certainly glad I did. I suggest you do the same.

My Grade B

James Bond (on acid) in the nineteenth century

[rps-2 · 6/10 · 10 January 2004]

Okay. It's an interesting idea for a movie. Choose famous characters from Victorian literature and weave them into a story thats part fantasy, part comedy, part adventure. And it's well done. Very well done. But it becomes tedious after the first few explosions of special effects and outbreaks of fistfights, swordfights and gunfights. Maybe it's sensory overload but after an hour I started looking at my watch. The kids probably will like it. It's almost a movie comic book and the violence is of the BAM BASH KAPOW variety with more fun than fury. You almost expect to see those little dialogue baloons over the characters. And of course anything with Sean Connery in it is worth seeing. He gets better as he gets older.

Horrible

[pleh1 · 1/10 · 3 July 2006]

This is the only movie that I can think of where after it ended, I was seething with anger at the waste of money and time on the part of myself and everyone involved in making it. No wonder Alan Moore refused to have anything to do with V for Vendetta (a phenomenal film) after this debacle.

It's not bad in an entertaining way, like Showgirls. It's bad in a way that makes you want to claw your eyes out. Plot holes the size of planets. The worst script in memory. Horrible acting by decent actors. Visuals that should be great, but somehow flop.

It could have been so good...

Enjoyable!

[videomaniac · 21 August 2004]

I was very pleased with this movie. There are some who have claimed that those who enjoy this film have a low IQ. I see no reason why a person can't have a high IQ and enjoy an imaginative and fun film. For years I have enjoyed the works of Doyle, Wilde, Stevenson, Stoker, Twain, Haggard, Wells, Poe, and Verne. I went into this film hoping it would do their characters justice. It did. Some prefer the "original" versions of these characters by Alan Moore. I prefer the way they were written by their creators. The characters are closer to their literary selves in the film version than in the comic book. I was very happy about that. I grew up with these characters and they played a huge part in my childhood fantasy life. Other girls may have pretended to be Wonder Woman, but I was Captain Nemo! I was hoping that LXG captured the imaginative world that flourished in my young mind when I read all those old beloved books. LXG delivered! This is a fun escapist fantasy and all of my favorite literary characters are in great form. I had a truly wonderful time watching LXG. It's a fun adventure that requires that you bring your inner child along for the ride. My inner child loved it. I loved it too!

Reasonably good adaptation of a eccentrically interesting story

[lemon_magic · 7/10 · 20 November 2005]

LXG (as the logo on the promotional posters for this movie would have it) is a serious attempt at bringing an interesting and unusual concept from the comics to the silver screen. It ain't "Spider-Man" or "X-Men", nor does it try to be, because the attitude and atmosphere come from an entirely different sensibility. I think that's perhaps why the film met with such mixed reactions; the strength of your favorable reaction to LXG probably is in direct proportion to your enthusiasm for nostalgia-based entertainment and Victorian-era story telling conventions. And for the mindset of Alan Moore, one of today's most eccentric and unusual graphic story authors (only Neil Gaiman comes close).

Screenwriter James Robinson originally gained a measure of fame and a fan following for his skillful revival of the obscure DC comics character "Starman". What distinguished "Starman" (besides wonderfully atmospheric pencils from Tony Harris) was that Robinson used the character (who was an antiques enthusiast and son of the original "Starman") as a way to make the entire series a tribute to how 'cool' and under-rated the original DC characters from the 40's and 50's really were, and could still be to modern readers if only they were given modern production values and a fresh viewing. It seems to me that Robinson was therefore a good choice to adapt Moore's 19th century heroic archetypes to the 21st century movie screen.

The results? Well...they're mixed. But I am not sure an 'unmixed' adaptation would be possible, so I count my blessings.

Purists will no doubt be irritated by the inclusion of Tom Sawyer and Dorian Gray, and by the decision to turn Mina into an actual vampiress. But I didn't have a problem with it, since I realized that the producers wanted American audiences to have someone to identify with, as well as opportunities to punch up the visuals with CGI. And Sean Connery's version of Allan Q is far more vigorous and adventuresome than the frail, elderly, opium-addicted fellow of the comics, so I am all for that too.

I've heard a lot of comments that the movie simply taxes the credulity of the audience, that there are too many plot holes, inconsistencies and "oh sure" moments. To which I reply: It's a movie about Victorian superheroes! It's set in an alternate FANTASY universe! What did you EXPECT??"

But the real problem is that there are simply too many characters doing too many things, and the viewer never really gets a chance to know or care about any of them...and the plot may test the patience of some people,even fans of "Steampunk" style fantasies. And let's face it, unlike "Spider-Man" and "X-Men" (and "Fantastic Four" later), the movie is pretty cold and emotionless. But I'm OK with that as well...these characters were straight out of the pulps and adventure magazines of the day, and "warm and fuzzy" was never their strong suit...or their appeal.

The director and the actors give it a serious, professional try - the acting is what it needs to be to get the characters across as Moore - or even Robert Louis Stevenson - originally intended, and everyone gets some good lines in. (My favorite is Mina's snarky mockery of Allan Q's "A Chase such as this is no place for a woman, even one such as yourself.")

LXG is one of the movies I will pick up as a used DVD for $5-$6 and watch on occasion with a glass or two of Watney's Red Barrel firmly clenched in my hand. It isn't perfect, but it's fun to look at and it's fun to watch unfold.

Great in parts

[dollyhouses · 6/10 · 22 October 2003]

I wish I'd known more about the thinking behind this film which was extraordinary. Sadly it didn't carry over to the screen. So it had loads going for it, great idea, great cast, great visuals, but somehow it just didn't work. It was not boring but all those marvellous scenes and sounds were hung on too flimsy a story at the end of the day.

Painful to witness.

[gworra · 1/10 · 25 July 2004]

An interesting premise. A decent cast. You'd think this would add up to something worth seeing, right? No. Unfortunately, the whole thing was just painful to watch. At one point, you couldn't help but laugh AT the movie and the poor actors trying to salvage the whole mess! I guess Sean Connery is getting old, perhaps even desperate for work, to take on this stinker. The Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde character was completely over the top. It obviously had a good budget--the sets were intricate, etc., they just needed to spend more time on the writing: dialogue and plot. I rarely walk out of movies, but I almost left midway through this one, figuring it just wasn't worth the time!

Better than the reviews said

[rickert · 7/10 · 12 July 2003]

Not sure what was sticking out of the craw of most of the reviewers of LXG. It wasn't nearly as bad as they made out to be. There were certainly some pacing and editing problems in the second act, but for the most part, it lived up to most of the hype. I was certainly entertained, which is more than I can say for a lot of the films I've seen recently. The literary one-liners were fun, and the plot twists were unpredictable, which was nice for a change. A lot of the reviewers complained about the car chase and about Peta Wilson's acting, the latter seems nuts, haven't any of these people actually read Dracula? She pretty much stuck to how I imagined her character to be. Most of the rest of the characters were the same. Another major complaint was American secret service agent Tom Sawyer, which definitely was a bit of a dorky addition to the cast, but on the other hand, it could've been a lot worse. (a spunky annie oakley who falls for quartermain, for example, played by Mandy Moore).

Anyway, don't let the reviews turn you away, it's fun for both the hollywood action film fans and those with a more literary state of mind.

Such brilliant source material. Such a bad film. Why?

[pmaranci · 1/10 · 19 August 2004]

Last night I watched LXG on HBO. Big mistake.

Why?

Two reasons: I'd read the graphic novel, and my IQ is over 73.

Just seconds into the film I was already shaking my head. Both in small details and large, they'd managed to completely botch the job. Painful dialog. Embarrassing special effects. Incredibly annoying characters. A script obviously written with dull-witted seven-year-old boys in mind.

I'm trying to envision the Hollywood idiots who sat around a conference table and destroyed Alan Moore's witty and intelligent graphic novel. But then I cringe, because by all accounts Sean Connery was one of them. He must be quite a bit dumber than I had hoped.

I can't remember which scene first made me say "Good lord, that's even worse than I dreamed possible!", but I know I said it more than once.

Oh, and "Venice". I've been to Venice, and Senator, that's no Venice. The one thing EVERYONE in the world knows is that Venice has no streets, only canals! So what do they do? Have a car racing all over huge, completely non-existent streets in Venice.

Why? What were they thinking?

So many other things to insult the viewer. A "graveyard" in Venice. The enormous Nautilus cruising easily though canals that in the real world aren't 1/100th wide or deep enough to fit it. I can't go on. It's just too awful.

Do yourself a huge favor and read the graphic novel instead of seeing this turkey.

Good fun

[woofhound · 6/10 · 22 December 2006]

I bought this movie on DVD months ago but kept putting off watching it because of all the bad reviews. When I finally got round to watching it I realised that the problem was that too many fanboys out there were complaining that it wasn't the comic. Well it isn't meant to be.

The acting is good, as you would expect of the cast, the plot perfectly fine, the action entertaining. On the downside the CGI is pretty ropey.

Sure if you want historic accuracy you need to look elsewhere - but here's a point: Allan Quateman did not really exist.

If you're a fanboy, avoid this and carry on reading the comics. If however you just want to waste a couple of hours of your life on popcorn entertainment, this'll do fine.

One of the worst commercial movies ever, ever made in the entire history of man

[Nightshade85 · 1/10 · 6 December 2006]

Im a huge movie fan. I've seen maybe 3000 movies in my life (voted on 450 on IMDb at this moment) and this movie is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Sure it has some good/talented actors, and some good SFX/CGI (from time to time) but the story is just... DUMB! I've never read the novel it's based upon, but I guess it must be a novel for small children, so I can't really say if it is any better or worse than the book. But I can imagine that they are both extremely repulsive to any sane adult.

"But it's imaginative" you might say. Yes, imagination is good, without it we wouldn't enjoy any books/movies at all, and I have a huge imagination myself. But at some undefined point, imagination fades into stupidity and later insanity/delusion. And "the League" has greatly passed this undefined point and gone straight through the roof of insanity/delusion. Even after a few minutes watching the movie I was thinking: "What the heck is this?", and later on me and the people I watched it with where starting to ask ourselves if this movie was a joke and "when will the real movie start?". Sitting there in the sofa I twisted myself in agony for a little over an hour before I had to shut the movie down - I just couldn't watch anymore of it.

Any, I repeat: ANY, 7 year old could come up with a better story/better characters than this commercial. I can't see how people see the author of the novel as a "brilliant person". What exactly is so brilliant about stealing characters from other novels, and mix them together in a chaotic and dumb story. Ladies and gentlemen, "The League" is THE prime example of commercial Hollywood stupidity - Don't watch this it!

Superhero movie for the literary lovers . . .

[Rcs51998 · 8/10 · 2 May 2005]

OK, first of all, to defend the movie against the first comment, Dorian and Mina had met before their first scene together; they had a past relationship . . . obviously . . . (scoff).

I loved this movie. Sure the CGI's were obvious and the fight scenes may have been over-the-top, but come on! It is a movie full of these wonderful protagonists that all have defining qualities that add something special and intriguing to the group.

Stuart Townsend, um could he have been anymore Lestat? Funny seeing his character act that way and play opposite a vampire.

Connery was his usual brilliant self. The Tragic Hero.

Shane West was great. Could have lived without his character, but West perfected it.

Captain Nemo and Hyde/Jekyl were brilliant! Without their brains the whole group would have been in serious trouble. Hyde would be the Reluctant Hero here.

And Mr. Invisible man himself was freaky enough for the freaky lot of them. I loved his character. He had you guessing from the beginning. Where is he? Who is he? Anyway, I know this movie received bad ratings, but I totally fell in love with it and its characters. I know there is room for a sequel, but don't think there will be one . . . sigh . . . but alas, I will always have this one.

Makes me want to go read all the books involved in this brilliant compilation of great classics.

Exciting and stimulating adventures and colorful science fiction movie

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 7 June 2005]

An adventure in a League of Its own being developed in a fictitious Victorian Age , around an alternate European world war . In Venice there's a worldwide congress , the leaders are threatened and a motley group of literature heroes are called to avoid it ; thus , there appearing : Allan Quatermain (Sean Connery) of the book , King Solomon's Mines (H. R. Haggard) ; Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (Jason Fleming) of Robert Louis Stevenson ; captain Nemo (Naseeruddin Sha) of 20.000 leagues of underwater journey by Jules Verne ; Mina Harker (Peta Wilson) of Dracula by Bram Stoker ; Dorian Gray (Stuart Towsend) by Oscar Wilde , Tom Sawyer (Shane West) of Mark Twain and even a Ismael (Terry O'Neill) of Moby Dick (Herman Melville) and Dr. Moriarty of Sherlock Holmes' books by Arthur Conan Doyle . The power of seven become a league of one ! . A Rogue. A Scientist. A Spy. A Hunter. A Vampire. A beast. An Immortal . Waiting To Be Impressed? You're About To Be. This summer, Join the League !. This summer, the bad will fight for good !. A hunter... Live for the chase. An invisible man... The unseen assassin. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde... The devil inside. A vampire... A killer with a kiss.

From the Director of Blade prepare you for this extraordinary film based on a comic by Alan Moore and Kevin O'Neill where the same personages show up but has been added Tom Sawyer for being an American production , although it has been also produced by Sean Connery who has got the greatest role , of course . Apart from the 19th Century characters used in the film, this goes for some Golden Age comic book characters . The motion picture blends suspense , action-packed , tension , emotions and a little bit of violence when the struggles happen , but it's a pretty bemusing movie . The ending confrontation in the fortress amongst the protagonists and the nasty enemies is breathtaking and overwhelming . The pic is very spectacular with numerous special effects (FX) and groundbreaking scenarios . Trevor Jones music is atmospheric and adjusted to the unstopped action movie . The film was alrightly directed by Stephen Norrington (Blade) . Rating : Good and nice . Well worth watching.

I am Thoroughly Angry and Insulted

[lhseaglerunner · 1/10 · 16 July 2003]

I will be the first to admit that a good movie doe not need to be intellectually stimulating (see last week's review), but then again, one should not expect to go to a show (in this week's case, `The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen') and then emerge 100-some minutes later significantly more on the stupid side than he/she was before the movie started?

In the months before the dawn of the 20th Century, the world is facing a massive war, brought upon by terrorist attacks by a masked villain/arms dealer named the Fantom (not a typo). To combat this, a functionary in the British Empire called M (Richard Roxburgh) has assembled a team of individuals culled from Victorian Literature to head off the Fantom's plans.

The roster reads: Allan Quatermain (Sean Connery), expert hunter/adventurer; invisible thief Rodney Skinner (Tony Curran); inventor Captain Nemo (Naseeruddin Shah); vampire Mina Harker (Peta Wilson); unstable Dr. Jekyll/Mr.Hyde (Jason Flemyng); immortal Dorian Gray (Stuart Townsend); American Secret Service Agent Tom Sawyer (Shane West).

In a fantastical series of explosions, chases and drawn-out scenes of tedium, the so-called `League of Extraordinary Gentlemen' travels from Paris to Venice, to an industrial complex in Mongolia, in hope of adverting war.

Coming into the movie, I was familiar with all of the characters (except for Quatermain and Skinner--but he is explained PDQ) through their original medium (not the graphic novel from which this was adapted), and, to be succinct, I was appalled by the butchery of these great literary figures that was committed within the movie. The biggest atrocities come in the characters of Dorian Gray (who, in Wilde's work, was NOT immortal, just morally corrupt and youthful) and Mr. Hyde (more of a psychological transformation, according to Stevenson, and to be sure, Hyde did NOT miraculously grow to the size of a small house).

Perhaps I could be more forgiving if logic had not been tossed out the window. In the first half of the movie, one can see: an automobile race through the streets of Venice (and there really are NO major streets in that fair city), a 5-story submarine negotiate the Venetian canals (which are certainly not deep enough for the Nautilus), the same submarine, which, on the outside appear to be blade-thin, but, according to the film, is large enough to approximate a cruise liner on the inside (I bet the crews of the Ohio-class submarines would appreciate this type of reality distortion). I could go on and on, but then I'd get too worked up and succumb to a stroke or something and leave this column unfinished.

Perhaps as a concession, I can say that the acting is decent, but looking back, I can safely assume that this was one of Sean Connery's last appearances as the lead in an action film-the dude is getting old and it shows.

I can put up with most movies, but when one that is mediocre to begin with assumes the temerity to insult my intelligence, THAT is unforgivable. Director Stephen Norrington should be severely chastised for this effort (or lack thereof). This movie, for being insulting and seat-twistingly bad, gets a big fat ZERO. (And no, I am not bitter).