The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
727 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
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.
401 out of 491 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
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
176 out of 237 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
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.
89 out of 119 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
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!!!!!
66 out of 87 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Enjoyable!
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!
196 out of 284 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
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.
36 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
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.
74 out of 104 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
MR_Heraclius6 March 2020
I really really wanted to like this movie, but somehow it turned out super-boring, kind of confusing , and poorly held together.
58 out of 83 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Really Good Film
drewster-3413 July 2003
This is a really good film. I went to see it not knowing many of the details. I really enjoyed it. I believe that in order to appreciate this film, you need to have an open mind and not take it so literaly. I've read reviews of it in which the authors claim that not of the characters, or cars, or Nemos Sub, could work like they did. WELL DUH! It is a movie based on a comic book. It naturally wouldn't be for real. I wonder what these people take us for. The other great thing about this movie is the characters. Some reviews stated that people wouldn't understand this movie because the characters are not that new. That they've been around for a while and no one will remember them. The only two characters that I didn't know were Allan Quatermain and Dorian Gray. But I would like to know more about them. So that in itself is good. It makes you want to know more about the characters. Bottom line... It is a really great film. Go see it with an open mind, and not take everything so literaly. You may find that you enjoy it. Don't trust all the bad reviews. You should see for yourself. LXG is a really good film
25 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It's a fun movie don't take it too seriously though.
brad12d325 December 2003
One of the biggest complaints people seem to make about movies is it's unbelievability. I am a huge movie buff, and I can't help but to critique a movie while I am watching it. Now if I am watching a movie that is supposed to be based on a true story or is meant to depict real situations.. or really anything that is meant to be taken seriously, I will be very picky about details and how it was done. However, I understand that there are movies that are made strictly to be fun. L.O.E.G. is not Schindler's List, it is meant to be entertaining.. (eye candy as some would put it), so to say that you didn't like it because the plot or simply the things they did or had were unbelievable seems very strange to me considering that it is based on some of the most unbelievable but well liked fictional characters we have known. So it is believable that an invisible man, a vampire, a man that can suddenly change physical form to become a giant beast joining forces with a few other people included is believable,... but giving them extraordinary technology and putting them in extraordinary situations is going to far? If you don't like these kind of movies then don't watch them.... I however do enjoy watching movies with cool special effects, as well as the more serious and artistic films. The movie delivered what it was meant to deliver, and that is some very stunning visuals,... come on really,.. what did you expect? League is a fun movie to watch, it's not going to be nominated for Best Picture or anything like that, but if your looking to escape reality and experience a quite stunning fantasy world with some pretty cool characters then you might rent it. Not too bad.
13 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
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.
28 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
fun action movie
Professor Chaos12 July 2003
I came into this hoping to see a fun action movie and thats what I got. the characters were well cast, the movie flowed along at an interesting pace, i didn't know what was going to happen next, and the fight scenes were fun to watch.

its a popcorn movie, and to that end i enjoyed it, the mr hyde character was much better done than the lame cgi hulk, sure some parts could have been done better but this isnt an art film its a movie and it does what its supposed to do.. entertain. I saw kids in the theatre gasp in shock and amazement, people laughed at all the good jokes, the nautillus was impressive as well. some parts of the movie were a bit stilted, but they were few and far between.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
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.
23 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
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.
84 out of 135 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Disappointing in content and style.
CMUltra12 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.
67 out of 107 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
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.
44 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
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.
16 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
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 concept...read 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
31 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Underated
mbrennen14 January 2021
Iffy plot and some iffy CGI aside. The film is visually great with some really memorable scenes such as the tank in London or Nemo's car. Overall a silly but enjoyable popcorn movie. Give it a try. Slip you brain into neutral and enjoy!
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Extraordinarily Good Movie
arcticfirefighter18 December 2020
I was surprised at how much I enjoyed the movie, as I had read numerous reviews that were negative. I had to give it a chance just because it has Sean Connery staring in it. I think the movie was more enjoyable as I have read books and am familiar with the characters from other works. It may be a little odd to people who don't know anything about the characters and their abilities outside of the movie. I would enjoy watching the movie again and would reccomend giving the movie a chance if you are on the fence. If you are not familiar with the characters, read up on them as they appear in the movie.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
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 fate...by 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.
17 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Ultimate Boy's Movie
madmaxmedia24 November 2003
I enjoyed this movie despite its various flaws and lack of depth. It reminded me of old adventure movies when I was a boy, with exotic locales and characters, and lots of dramatic fights and adventure. In that way the movie was strangely nostalgic for me. That being said, a movie didn't need much sophistication or depth to capture my imagination when I was a boy, so take that as you will (it probably doesn't take much even now!)

I liked Sean Connery very much in this movie, it was a tall feat for him to stand out and not to get completely overwhelmed by all the CGI and action sequences (I would really like to see him in an action movie that is actually worthy of his participation!) I also liked the art/production design of the movie, with its sort-of-alternate history 1800's look. Even though there is too much of it, the CGI is not too bad either, with many large and ominous looking locales. It didn't bother me that Tom Sawyer was a character in this movie, this was the sort of movie where a little 'goofiness' like that fits right in anyways.

I didn't read the graphic novel, but if I had I might have been disappointed at the failure of the movie to really live up to the promise of its source material (judging by how many reviewers here talk about it.)
15 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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.
22 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
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.
20 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Horrible
pleh13 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...
23 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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


Recently Viewed