Reviews & Ratings for
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 76:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

752 reviews in total

---

217 out of 267 people found the following review useful:
Heavens, it wasn't THAT bad!, 17 May 2004

Author: Jennifer Keenan from Burlington, Ontario

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.

---

219 out of 317 people found the following review useful:
An underestimated but very interesting movie, 28 August 2004
Author: realteng from Middle-earth

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

---

144 out of 211 people found the following review useful:
Enjoyable!, 21 August 2004
Author: videomaniac from United States

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!

---

78 out of 114 people found the following review useful:
A film that deserved a better fate, 14 January 2004

Author: clydestuff from United States

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

---

41 out of 51 people found the following review useful:
Surprisingly entertaining, 26 October 2006

Author: yeung169 from London, UK

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.

---

47 out of 67 people found the following review useful:
The League of SO MUCH Potential, 17 July 2005

Author: moviemanMA from Massachusetts

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.

---

39 out of 53 people found the following review useful:
Disappointing in content and style., 12 July 2003

Author: CMUltra (collectormanultra@yahoo.com)

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.

---

53 out of 84 people found the following review useful:
Turn off your mind and you'll enjoy it, 19 July 2003

Author: Wayne Malin (wwaayynnee51@hotmail.com) from United States

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.

---

27 out of 40 people found the following review useful:
Saturday Matinee the LXG way., 11 July 2003

Author: leyenda61

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.

---

34 out of 54 people found the following review useful:
A graphic novel brought to the big screen., 10 July 2003
Author: Michael D. Lynch from Houston, TX

Based on the graphic novel of the same name (as noted in the credits), it's no surprise at all to see the movie using similar lighting, colours and action that one would expect to find in a comic book. The characters are engaging enough, thanks more to the special effects than the actors and the roles they were given. The far more interesting character of a drug-addicted, wasted Allan Quartermain was sadly watered into the "tragic hero" the Connery plays so well. Other characters were seemingly better played by their CGI counterparts than the actors supposedly playing them - but one should expect two-dimensional acting in a comic book, and that's exactly what you get. The action is exciting, and a bit intense, if almost too frenetic at times. It's difficult to see all the action at the speeds it's shown, especially with the numerous cutaways to other fights. Nemo's fights would have been among the most spectacular, had they been slowed down to a speed a normal human could see. Still the violence is great and appreciable, although with comic-book-like regularity, seldom fatal. If you're a Connery fan, you may find this passable, though not much different from his role in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Fans of the graphic novel will be sadly disappointed at the startling alterations of their characters, and of course, unsurprised by the "twist" in the middle. Still, it is an enjoyable (if long) two hours, and the attention to detail of the sets, costumes and scenery make it almost worth it alone.

---

---

Page 1 of 76:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Official site	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user reviews	Your vote history