UnowPriceless hyped garbage

LouHomey From my favorite movies..

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

bensonmum2 The year is 1899 and a man known as "M" gathers together a group literary characters for a mission designed to prevent a world war. Participants include: Allan Quatermain, Captain Nemo, and Dr. Henry Jekyll (with Mr. Hyde tagging along).I have friends who love The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, but I don't get it. I've seen this film twice now and on each occasion, I was bored out of my mind. To me, the movie is a dull mess of ideas that never really work. There's too much bad CGI, too many poorly lit action sequences, and a monotonous color palette that doesn't extend beyond gray. The gathering of characters seems to be more important than the mission. It takes about half the film to get them all together. And it's all done in a smug, condescending sort of way that gets annoying real fast. I know who these characters are - I don't need an extended exposition on each one. It's insulting. And speaking of insulting, I can't believe what the writers forced Sean Connery to say and do. He has some really embarrassing moments. None more so than when he's forced to pantomime throwing the invisible man out of his room. As I said, it's embarrassing for a man of his stature. Overall, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is a waste of time with few redeeming qualities. I'm not surprised that Connery decided to hang it up after starring in this disaster.

Matthew Kresal Since its initial release, The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen has been a film with a less than stellar reputation. Receiving mixed to negative reviews upon release, it has been seen as a poor adaptation of Alan Moore's graphic novel as well as the final cinema appearance of Sean Connery. Yet looking at the film both then and now would suggest that there's more to the film than meets the eye and that it might, in fact be better than its reputation may suggest.Let's be honest up front though: this is a film with issues. If you've read the graphic novel you'll likely spot pretty quickly that the film bares only the faintest resemblance to it. Many of the characters are present within it pages but many of the incidents portrayed in the film most certainly are not. So if you're going into this expecting a faithful adaptation of Moore's graphic novel, you're in for a disappointment.The film has other issues as well. The quality of the special effects are variable from excellent (in the case of invisible man Rodney Skinner or the Jekyll/Hyde transformations) to middling (which is essentially anywhere CGI is used). Indeed the CGI used in the film looks iffy in places even by 2003 standards with it being very obvious when a CGI version of Hyde is appearing versus a more convincing prosthetic. Perhaps nothing though has come in for more criticism than the script. The late critic Robert Ebert cited the script for featuring "incomprehensible action, idiotic dialogue, inexplicable motivations, causes without effects, effects without causes, and general lunacy." He's not wrong in some places with the plot for the first half or so of the film suffering from exactly that (especially towards the middle of the film as revelations pile up and one wonders why characters have done certain things). It's not a perfect script by any means but I think Ebert did it something of a disservice. Plain and simple, this is an action film. It's interesting to watch today because really this is The Avengers in Victorian times. It's a film about a team of extraordinary individuals being brought together to fight a larger threat, the friction between them, betrayals, romances and plenty of action. The film even turns Jekyll/Hyde into Bruce Banner/The Hulk! It's a Victorian superhero movie and quite an effective one.The film's action sequences can be quite effective. The various fist-fights are all well staged while the film also features a range of other action set-pieces including chases through Paris and Venice and a running series of sequences towards the end of the film. In a way it's a shame that the film's plot isn't stronger to show off the action sequences better with the various sequences having to effectively hold up the poor structure of the film.Move past the sometimes iffy CGI used and the sets and costumes are also quite effective. Both bring not so much the proper Victorian aesthetic but what can be termed as steampunk. It's a slightly more high-tech version of that era but one that is visually appealing and which makes some of the film's events a bit more plausible. From a steampunk point of view, the film is a showcase for what the genre can do on the cinema screen.Of course there's the performances as well. The role of Allan Quatermain would be Connery's last but all things considered he could have done far worse as here is a man in his seventies holding his own with actors a fraction of his age. Connery's presence (both literally and figuratively) anchors the film nicely and Connery not only gets to show off his action chops but play both a team leader and a father figure as well. It's also Connery's skill for throwing away one- liners than makes some of the film's comedic lines work well. What is on showcase here might not so much be Connery the actor but Connery the action star in his last hurrah.The rest of the cast does pretty well given the script they're handed. Tony Curran's Rodney Skinner probably comes off the best out of the cast, playing up the comedy of the invisible man role and becomes a scene-stealer in the process. Peta Wilson's Mina Harker is the only major female role in the film and she becomes a fine foil for Connery's Quartermain as well as an effective presence in the film. Shane West makes for an effective Dorian Gray, playing up the cockiness and amoral elements of Oscar Wilde's most famous character. Both Naseeruddin Shah as Captain Nemo and Jason Flemyng as Jekyll/Hyde are underused though the film touches upon interesting elements of each character that never quite get explored in full (indeed there's a scene between them that feels as if it will that seems to be missing a large chunk out of it). Rounding out the League is the aforementioned Tom Sawyer played by Shane West who is mentored by Connery's Quatermain and is actually an interesting addition as the youngest and perhaps most reckless member of the team. The team then is quite well assembled all things considered with Richard Roxburgh rounding off the cast is an interesting role that is ill-written at times but that he does quite well with.As a film then, The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen isn't a masterpiece. It has issues with its script and production values to be sure but it is far from the disastrous film its reputation suggests (indeed it actually made money at the box-office believe it or not). It's a fun steampunk superhero movie that sees an icon in one last hurrah playing the kind of role he is best known for. As that kind of film, it's an utter joy to watch and one that's a great way of passing a rainy afternoon. So give it a go and enjoy it for what it is.

CherryBlossomBoy ...because the subject is actually so cool it deserves a much better treatment.And yes, this 2003 edition (currently the only one) is a complete crap. Apart from the concept, no redeeming values whatsoever! If there was a court martial for big budgeted cinematic atrocities, the authors of this film would deservedly have found themselves in the dock. Specifically James Robinson, the screenwriter, Dan Laustsen, the director of photography and Stephen Norrington, the director. Toss in the producer, the art director and the editor, just for a good measure.It's incredible how an interesting idea, with all the colorful characters from the most popular 19th century novels, can get developed so poorly and be given such a shabby storyline. The villain the League is pitted against is way below their special skills and traits. That's why they're given very little to do other than bicker among themselves. The way their dialog and exposition is written is frivolous, offhand, tedious and inane, trying to be both goofy and smart. It made me cringe every now and then. The screenplay obviously never made it beyond the first draft and they probably patched it on the set as well.It's even more incredible how bleak and muddled the picture looks. When I think of Victorian era, I think of splendor and vivid colors. The fact that the story is set in a war time and that many of the characters emerge from horror novels doesn't mean that the picture has to be ruined to convey the atmosphere! Here it's mostly gray/black, with occasional yellow overtones during the scenes in Africa, and with one of the worst orange-and-teal filters I've ever seen, when they are at the sea.Even if the picture was alright, the shots have been poorly framed. The camera, for one, is simply too close or too zoomed-in most of the time. Overall experience watching this was claustrophobic. The director couldn't make use of the sets to save his life. Furthermore he hasn't got a good grasp on how to direct action in an epic blockbuster. We're talking about the guy who directed "Blade". What he did in "Blade" doesn't work here because this is not hi-tech sci-fi flick and the backgrounds are not dark. Too many cuts and illogical camera angles during fights add to confusion and put a strain on the eyes in this setting. It was especially jarring in contrast with the rest of the film when nothing happened and they just walked from place to place and exchanged silly conversations.For those who wonder how an interesting premise could bomb so colossally at the box office, look no further than these basic aspects. There is no elaborate reason here. I'm sure the general public wouldn't mind a nice Victorian fantasy. Maybe not everybody knows who Dorian Gray or Captain Nemo are, for instance, but everybody likes epic adventures. "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" was not a victim of a missed concept or public ignorance. It failed because the basic laws of making a watchable film were ignored.Obviously, it was clear to people in charge in Hollywood, because none of the people I named earlier found any meaningful work ever since. And, if rumours are true, "The League" does have a future, and maybe the next film crew does it justice.

Mark Pharsen This review is by somebody whom has NOT read the comic/novel!!When I read the title and the summary on IMDb while just browsing, I just had to watch this. I came in with the expectation of seeing something along the lines with "Watchmen", but one thing I never could have seen coming, was that this was the worst superhero movie I would ever see. The film starts out like any other "We must assemble a team of the best" but soon becomes a cliché mess, as Connery becomes the "I'm retired" guy. The rest of the cast is mediocre at best, with most having little to none back story. The bad guy in this movie is just horrible, while having NO back story, is also just a vague parody of bad guys from other movies. The movie also has a plot twist that revolves around The Phantom, but it was so bad, that I began to think that this movie was directed by M. Night Shyamalan. Now, the only reason this movie does not get a 1 out of 10, is the sometimes awesome fight-scenes, and special and visual effects. The special effects are very inconsistent. They can at times be way ahead of their time and other times look like something out of a poorly made 1980'ies B-movie. The script I think is the worst part of the movie. It seems like every line of dialog has to start with a one-liner in this movie and that gets very annoying after a while. I would NOT recommend this movie to anyone but action-lovers, as some of the fight-scenes was very well done. (I am sorry for any grammar issues, I am not from an English speaking country)