The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
792 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Heavens, it wasn't THAT bad!
Jennifer Keenan17 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.
297 out of 365 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
17 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
62 out of 79 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
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.
20 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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
277 out of 395 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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
133 out of 184 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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!
184 out of 263 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Great, brilliant, film!!
witheld28 July 2003
Warning: Spoilers
**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)
17 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Most Excellent...
mr-gray12 July 2003
I'm new to Alan Moore and I am thoroughly impressed. I just returned from the film and heard about a number of bad reviews. The bad reviews are understandable, but keep in mind that it's coming from people who don't enjoy really good stories (OH they'll insist to the death that they do). I've even seen a split amongst the community of el geekos, but I find it seems to be an even split between the rationals and idealists (the idealists being the LXG/Alan Moore appreciators).

Although this film has all of the typical hollywood blockbuster trimmings, it is a diamond in the rough. Here's the ticket:

1. Read the reviews and have pity on their authors 2. Go to the movie with someone you like 3. Sit back and enjoy a supremely crafted story that could only be imagined by a great literary mind. 4. Don't get all tight about plausibility...

This is definitely going to be a classic. "Leagues" better than X-Men, but X-Men was made more for the candy eaters.. LXG OTOH is some good meat...

Chin, chin

mrgray
17 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
58 out of 80 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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
20 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Good fun
woofhound22 December 2006
I bought this movie on DVD months ago but kept putting off watching it because of all the bad reviews. When I finally got round to watching it I realised that the problem was that too many fanboys out there were complaining that it wasn't the comic. Well it isn't meant to be.

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

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

If you're a fanboy, avoid this and carry on reading the comics. If however you just want to waste a couple of hours of your life on popcorn entertainment, this'll do fine.
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Excellent!!!!!
Subzero711 July 2003
I don't know why some people have a problem with this movie. Are they just dumb?! I know everyone has their opinion and that just fine but reading some reviews it seems that people are just taking this movie WAY too seriously. The movie doesn't take itself seriously so why should the public. IT'S FANTASY PEOPLE!!!! You know; not real. It's not supposed to be the uplifting, heart warming, life affirming movie of the year. It's just supposed to be fun and that is exactly what it is.

With the always excellent acting of Sean Conery as well an excellent supporting cast, this movie is very fun and WELL WORTH going to see at full price. On a scale of 1 to 10 it gets a 10. It has tons of action and VERY well done fight scenes. And of course the special effects are excellent. The story IS great and moves along at a perfect pace. At just shy of 2 hours, it seems to fly by and doesn't drag at all. I was even a little sad that it was over and I wanted to turn around and see it again. Yes it's over the top but that falls under they category or DUHHH!!!! After all, it is based on a comic book. They always are over the top. That's the point.

Anyway, if you go into this movie expecting something that will change your life (like many silly critics and other people seem to have done) then you will be VERY disappointed. But, if you go into it expecting a fun, over the top, movie to get away from everyday life, then you should be very pleased. This movie is just plain fun no matter which way you slice it. So enjoy and feel good about paying full price to see it. :)
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
39 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
A great movie.
blushmoon29 July 2003
I loved this movie. Each character was terrific. I especially liked their version of Captain Nemo and Dorian Gray. Mina was also delightfully surprising. And Sean Connery, as always, was wonderful. All in all, this movie was a pleasant surprise and I would see it again and buy it when it comes out.
17 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Just enjoy it!
Crickett51428 April 2005
This is a great movie! Even if you don't believe in the myths involved, if you just sit back and enjoy the fantasy & imagination of the movie -- you will have a great time. I know a lot of people don't think of Sean C. as anyone but 007, but he has a way of taking that character & adding it to all his new ones. Well, he once again succeeded. And the others involved? Well, lets just say I was impressed. The surprise on the betrayal, the change in attitudes of some characters, and the unity in the end – very impressive. Obviously the timing is off somewhat, but who cares? I think the mix & match of it all made the film even better. I have talked to some who think the opposite & even have said that the mix and match makes it too confusing. My question is – how? This movie is about heroes and winning against the ultimate bad guy and love and betrayal. What else could you want in an adventure movie? Like I said -- just watch & don't try to be too critical.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.)
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Much better than the other crappy movies this summer
iLuVtHeMmEn9 August 2003
I quite enjoyed this movie. The characters were vivid and colorful, not to mention unique. I especially like the way they casted people that went very well with these characters. The plot was also very well done. It is original and it's cheesy or stupid like all the other dumb movies this summer ( ie: Lizzie Mcguire ). There is a well blend of action, which, by the way, is very detailed and spectacular, suspense, excitement, and touches of comedy here and there. It is unpredicitable and exciting, not boring, extremely predictable like the crap in theaters now. Overall, it was very well done and nicely put together and will leave you guessing until the end, at which point you'll want more. Unlike most of the horrible pieces of crap they call movies, I am actually looking forward to the sequel.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Wow...
troodon18 July 2003
If you've seen the first two Allan Quartermain movies, you'd be surprised at this...

Whole movie basically looks like a living comic book. Easy to suspend your disbelief, everything looks and feels real here. Sets and special effects are amazing.

Premise seems a little silly, but the movie is entertaining enough to get you to overlook it. A really enjoyable movie experience.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
77 out of 119 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
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.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Fun.
deadlegend13 July 2003
I saw the movie today with my two boys. A quick matinee, my buddy had a cameo and even though I didn't know much about the film, I thought it might be pretty good. I was surprised when I read the reviews on IMDB . . . after the fact. This is the first review I've written for this site, but usually when I watch a movie I go here and usually what I think is right around what is given to the movie, I give this movie about a 7.5-8. Not as good as Pirates, but still a fun movie, but I never read the books, or comics, but I think people seem to be taking that too seriously. They remind me of 'Comic Book Guy' from the Simpsons. I kind understand the whole book-movie ratio. It never adds up. That's why I don't read.(kidding) Anyway, I have read Spider-Man comics since I was young and can see being critical of anything that might tear that stuff up, but I really enjoyed this film, so don't be scared off by the guys taking it too seriously, it's a good fun film. Seeya
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Outstanding use of mixed imaginations
Dan29 July 2003
There were far too many literary and cinematic references used in this film to name, but if you can imagine one piece of every action adventure, mystery, and horror film ever made then you could get an idea of what thinking went into this. I have read reviews both on IMDB and elsewhere that didn't speak too highly of this movie. I disagree. I was extremely entertained. Granted, I do have the handicap of being a huge fan of Sean Connery, but one must realize there is a reason he is still making films. HE IS COOL. It begins with a mission of worldly importance for a motley group of would-be heroes/villains assembled to save the world. There are some incredible fight scenes, and great effects. This movie has some great performances, fantastic twists, and edge of your seat intrigue. I will definitely be purchasing this DVD for my collection, and would eagerly view a sequel.
16 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
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.
55 out of 85 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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