The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
796 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Heavens, it wasn't THAT bad!
keenan-117 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.
322 out of 396 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Highly Under-rated movie
piell4507 June 2015
It is so sad to see this movie not extending into a sequel. The movie had an interesting story line, good graphics, excellent fight scenes, and an awesome twist. People who reviewed this movie and gave it a "low" score or review were terrible at reviewing and analyzing anything. I also want to point out that Sean Connery did not retire because of this movie (as some critics claim). he was talking about retirement a few years before he did this movie. And to prove all these critics are wrong, it grossed over 178 million dollars (worldwide). I own this movie and would have loved to see a sequel. I recommend this movie to anyone who loves fantasy/sci-fi. 10/10!!!!!
11 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Superhero movie for the literary lovers . . .
Rcs519982 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
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.
30 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
James Bond (on acid) in the nineteenth century
rps-210 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.
8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Commands a knowledge of the characters
tennyocelestia17 March 2005
To fully enjoy this movie, it really takes a previously established knowledge and respect for all the players involved. Having read all of the stories that are pulled together, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. There were two big problems: It went much too fast, even in the beginning, and M was not depicted as being cool, calculating and maniacal enough.

So, if you enjoy reading and would like to look at this movie with a better view, read: The Allan Quartermain books, the Sherlock Holmes books, Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, A Picture of Dorian Grey, Dracula, 20000 Leagues Under the Sea, and The Invisible Man.
16 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Surprisingly entertaining
yeung16926 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.
67 out of 87 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
LXG was an entertaining movie
fredgrvn-117 July 2003
I found this movie to be entertaining however slightly rushed. I have a feeling that we missed out on a couple of minutes of film due to the PG rating. This movie was one of the better comic book adaptations I've seen this year (i.e., Hulk, Daredevil, and X-men). I enjoyed the dialog with the understanding that a movie must develop a character. Hopefully, LXG2 will get right into the plot instead of spending too much time on each person. Surprisingly, I enjoyed the Mr. Hyde character the most.
12 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A film that deserved a better fate
clydestuff14 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
142 out of 196 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An underestimated but very interesting movie
realteng28 August 2004
Warning: Spoilers
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
280 out of 400 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
a ripping yarn indeed!
lotsafun28 July 2004
I loved LXG! Oddly enough it seems to have confused some people. They couldn't figure it out at times. I had no problem following this flick. I love fun comic book styled stuff and LXG entertained the crap out of me. I also love the works of Verne, Wells, Haggard, Doyle, Twain, Wilde, and Stevenson. You can see why LXG really flipped my switch. I'm not sure why some people couldn't follow this. Some didn't know what to do with the info that Nemo had been a pirate. It's all been covered by Mr Verne folks. I'm not sure why some didn't know what to do with the info that Mina and Dorian had been an item. That was news to me too, but I didn't find that to be confusing at all. Can't we just learn things about these characters and not have every detail represent an even deeper meaning? This isn't extremely deep stuff folks. Some people seem to need to rip everything to shreds instead of enjoying the experience. This is not the book of Revelation or Citizen Kane. This is a good time escapist flick. LXG is cool, likable, and fun. Works for me.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
a fun movie
Carebear-198213 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.
23 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
videomaniac21 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!
187 out of 269 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
This is a summer treat that begs for a sequel
eivom5318 July 2003
I thoroughly enjoyed this film from beginning to end. I had been look- ing forward to the film because of the participation of Peta Wilson in the cast. She was great as LA FEMME NIKITA. I am also a fan of Sean Connery. The entire cast excelled in this fantasy film and I plan to see it again and of course will buy the DVD when it's available. I hope it does enough business to merit a sequel. Overall this was a great fantasy for summertime viewing. CGI was also impressive. Also loved MR. Hyde--CAPT Nemo and the NAUTILIS and that car they had was better than the BATMOBILE.
16 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Go League!
harrygg218 July 2003
When I first saw the trailers for The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, I was both excited and apprehensive. Being an avid fan of the comic book (by Alan Moore) upon which League is based, I was curious to see whether the film would remain true to the spirit of the comic, or whether Hollywood would just totally run roughshod over it. I have now seen the film and am not just relieved, but elated. Yes, there are departures from Moore's work, but that's to be expected and is certainly not uncommon (look at the Spider-Man and X-Men movies if you don't believe me). However, the general spirit of the comic is retained, and the personalities of the characters in the film are, with only a couple of (understandable) exceptions, dead-on in line with those of the book. Not only that, but the movie does a perfect job of capturing the "old-fashioned futuristic" feel of Moore's work, from the settings to the technology. In fact, my only complaint is that a little too much screen time was devoted to Quatermain (Sean Connery) at the expense of the other characters--a pity, as each one of them (with the possible exception of Sawyer) truly is extraordinary and very much worth exploring in-depth.

Overall, I found this film cool, quirky, and utterly enjoyable.
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The League of SO MUCH Potential
moviemanMA17 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.
62 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Its not the graphic novel and thats a good thing
matalaba30 September 2006
If anyone reads the original graphic novels after seeing this movie, please prepare for a shock. While the setting is more gritty, the characters were quite disturbing. Alan Q is an insecure loser, the invisible man is a brutal rapist, Mina is also a roleless loser and sex maniac, Nemo hardly moves and only Mr.Hyde is a bit active. Even though many hate this movie for making the whole concept more family oriented, it is the main reason that this movie is so hated at times. It certainly would not have been a success, commercial or otherwise, if they stuck to the disturbing original. The modified characters are much more likable and relateable rather than the originals who would make you sick. Gentlemen in the movie they are, Gentlemen in the graphic novel they are not.

On other grounds, this movie still does a lot to impress with fairly good special effects, action and settings. There isn't too much of a story but it is extremely enjoyable nevertheless. This movie is one of the most under-rated movies of all time.
15 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Unexpected originality....
TheQuaid2K14 July 2003
For those of you who agree with me in that your main stream critics are basically worthless, a person with a thing called "imagination" is required.

I had my reservations about this film from the beginning. Was this going to be another Highland part III?

But to my astonishment this movie turned about to be great. Here are a group of characters who you would never see together. These characters have a well defined existence in the root of many of our classic novels and such.

Each of them at-odds with own demons, yet working together for a common good.

I recommend this to any body who has imagination and who doesn't "literally" take a movies premise word for word from its original reference.
15 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Sean Connery and MI5
Azrael2691 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
In the dawn of a potential global catastrophe at the hands of a maniac, the British MI5 recruits a group of talented yet misfitting people from around the world to save the world. Sean Connery leads in this interesting action film that goes from betrayal to betrayal. So it's full of clichés. So there's nothing unpredictable about it at all. So you can't watch it twice in the same semester. The acting is good (hats off to Sean Connery), Mr Hyde is quite impressive (although the Van Helsing version of Mr Hyde was far better), Peta Wilson makes a luscious vampire Mina and the Nautilus is an absolute optical miracle. Plus the action is good. The storyline is rather disappointing though, declining lower and lower until the finale is rather miserable although quite symbolic and self-purgatory. Bottom line, good film.
12 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Great, brilliant, film!!
witheld28 July 2003
Warning: Spoilers

Ignore the other posters. This was a great movie, head and shoulders above all other action fare for the summer.

First, the most surprising angle, at least for me. When was the last time you saw a movie with an attractive woman and the sex angle wasn't played up?/she kept her clothes on? Mina Harker is important as a character, not as a sexpot. Points to the director.

The same actually extends to other characters. They are people, rather than just cutouts used to further the plot (with the exception of the invisible man--but, then, they cut his role because to expand it might have meant following Alan Moore closely and making him a rapist--a move that they just weren't quite ready to go for in a PG13 movie, apparently). Hyde is genuinely creepy. Nemo is authentic. Far more authentic than any other movie adaptation of 10,00 Leagues Under the Sea. Dorian Gray is terrifically portrayed (although the whole 'face the painting' non-continuity really was poor; why not just have her stab the painting?)

But, bottom line: all the characters were true to the books. The dialogue wasn't forced, nothing was forced down your throat. Some people complained that the plot was 'hard to follow;' do these same people complain when an action film beats you over the head with its plot? Finally a director who understands subtlety and how to lead a plot so it comes out naturally, and they complain! Bah!

And the plot is complex, believe me. More complex than it appears. The way it is naturally expanded and the way it flows may fool you into accepting it as simple, even dead; but it is not. The richness of the deception, the horrible betrayal (which should be obvious to anyone with more than a passing knowledge of the classics from which these characters come)--it all comes together to suddenly make sense. Suddenly scenes that were strange, scenes that seemed heroic, even the slightly romantic scenes become different. Creepy.

The action is terrific, and the music is haunting. My only complaint is that the movie was too short. Another ten minutes establishing M, another ten minutes of interaction between these complex and rich characters...alas.

My only hope is a bevy of sequels. Characters and universe's this rich and complex deserve sequels.

9 out of 10 stars (only because it was too short and they toned down the darkness a little bit for the PG13 audience)
21 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Get over it people...this is a fun movie
sithvol13 July 2003
Ok, I've read the negative reviews and I must say this....alternate reality....anyone heard of this concept? You do realize these characters never really existed right? This is a fun movie that doesnt have to have every single plot point explained ad nauseam. Bravo to the filmmakers for not spending 3/4 of the film explaining back history on these characters (NOTE If you are having trouble with this a book!) This film was ten times the movie that the overhyped Matrix Reloaded and the god awful Hulk was....oh and by the way; Mister Hyde was a much better Hulk than the Hulk was as well. A very enjoyable movie that I would score 8/10
25 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An extraordinary film for out of the ordinary people
diztorted17 July 2003
Well, as I saw this film last weekend I realized something... Guys theses days don´t know who Dorian Gray was, for them he was just a girly stupid foe, not to say that they had no idea who Alan Quartermain was nor Mina Harker. The awful truth is that almost no one reads these days, well at least not beyond Maxim´s hottest girls of the year.

This film based (although not completely) on the graphic novel (a nice way to call a more sophisticated form of comic) by Alan Moore and Kevin O Neal is great. Is a delicious visual and information feast for those who have read and like the works by H G Wells, Bram Stoker, Jules Verne and Lois Stevenson...not even in my wildest dream I had ever thought to see such wonderful characters united, a league that would make Dr. Xavier sweat. Of course, if you have the culture to know what all these Victorian winks mean.

Sthephen "blade" Norrington, brings us this fantastic extrvanganza, for the likes of some and the hatred of others, but as I say, if the people who come here trashing this film are the same who came out loving Xmen2...then why bother listening to them.

Well the first Blade was a major success but in the end it became just a cult classic, this one has the same the time it gets to DVD it will become one of the most expensive cult movies of the year. But I would like to think that the people who buy it, are the intelligent cult people who can recognize something good when it is in front of them.

Now, not all of it is joy and roses, there are certain changes that did not help either the plot nor the development of characters...I´m aware that if Norrington would have stick up to the original comic plot, he wold have ended up with a R rating, so they lowered down some things, added up some action and even included characters and situations not seen in the book. The book is far more compelling than the movie, but still it works as a summer fun extravaganza. That said, enjoy, read a little, and you might understand each of the characters.
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The most unfairly trashed movie since "Daredevil"
Yin-Co11 July 2003
I don't know why critics are being so hard on this movie. While there's nothing extraordinary about it, that didn't stop me from enjoying it. It's a fun, action-adventure movie with solid characterizations. Everything is pretty straightforward about it (except for a few things that actually, caught me by surprise, mostly because of all the fake rumors out there) - the character motivations, the plot, etc. I'm sick of critics bashing something just because they seem to be the only ones that don't "get it." I doubt they've even read the original story it's based on.

As for the comic book fans, despite all the differences, there's actually quite a few things they stayed true to.
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Pretty good - definitely worth seeing
rosearow11 July 2003
I've been waiting for this movie to come out for months now, and I wasn't disappointed. Sure, it had its flaws - in-your-face camerawork during fight scenes, for one. But the actors were well chosen, the fight scenes pretty good, the set design lovely (I'd kill for Dorian Gray's library). And for once, Sean Connery was only required to say one line with ham and cheese (vs the great lot of cheesy lines he's had in almost every movie since Raiders 3). All in all, it was a fun flick that I'm definitely purchasing once it comes out on DVD.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Turn off your mind and you'll enjoy it
preppy-319 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.
78 out of 122 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Saturday Matinee the LXG way.
leyenda6111 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.
40 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed