Critic Reviews

30

Metascore

Based on 36 critic reviews provided by Metacritic.com
80
Wall Street Journal
Succeeds the same way the original comic books did: by making the conflicts and dilemmas basic enough for a five-year-old, while giving the heroes and villains glamorous outfits and layers of complexity, to thicken the broth.
50
It depicts the world of a century ago in a way that comments on the anxieties facing the world today, and it does so, at least for a while, with cleverness and a sense of fun.
42
Entertainment Weekly
The movie is based on a 1999 series of comic books by Alan Moore and Kevin O'Neill, but the original tone of deadpan historical audacity has been replaced by a kind of wax-museum literalness.
40
Has the sweat stains of wasted energy; it's dreary, yet frantic.
40
These guys have dumbed down a comic book.
38
The murkiest-looking movie since Ben Affleck's "Daredevil" and about as lacking in charm.
30
It just doesn't work...This isn't a blend of modern and classic so much as a collision.
25
Chicago Sun-Times
Just when it seems about to become a real corker of an adventure movie, plunges into incomprehensible action, idiotic dialogue, inexplicable motivations, causes without effects, effects without causes, and general lunacy. What a mess.
25
Except for Connery, who is every inch the lion in winter, nothing here feels authentic.
10
It's not brazenly bad or heroically bad or stridently bad. It's bad in all the old, dull ways of being bad: poor performances, absurd story, dreary special effects, witless dialogue and the excessive length of someone taking himself far too seriously.

More Critic Reviews

See all external reviews for The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003) »

Explore More About The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen