Rating: 
Summary: Very bad movie
Review: This movie is in my bottom 5 of all time! The acting was horrible and the story line was not far behind. Sean Connery has no business being in a film of such low quality. Please spend your money on something else!
Rating:
Summary: Are you serious?
Review: This stinker is getting 3 out of 5 stars? It should get none! This was one of the most cheesy, overblown films in the last 20 years. Questionable acting, incoherent plotline, a script totally devoid of surprise or suspense, terrible cgi effects and a boring "cliffhanger" climax that led nowhere. This is very much a "You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll kiss 10 bucks goodbye" movie. I'd sue if I could get these two hours of my life back. Do NOT make the mistake of watching this gargabe. Connery has been in far better films. This was the sludge of the '03 summer "blockbuster" season.
Rating: 
Summary: I liked it
Review: yeah i liked this movie. the assorted variety of like people is pretty kool. one problem, the movie went by TOO fast, but there was alotta action and Sean Connery is the man so thats kool
Rating: 
Summary: Actually a decet, fun movie. Give it a shot.
Review: This film receives a lot of criticism, but I actually quite enjoyed it. It's loaded with flaws, such as messy explanations, confusing turns in plot, and character developments that don't quite go anyplace...but it's nonetheless exciting, well-designed, filled with tremendous visual effects, fast-moving, and crammed with wonderful characters from classic literature. As a home viewing experience on a Saturday night, it's certainly worth your time. Based on Alan Moore's classic graphic novel, "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" tampers a bit with Moore's original idea, toning down its violence and adding in the Tom Sawyer character (probably to increase appeal to Americans, and American teenage girls in particular, but still stays true to the fantastic idea of linking all of the later Victorian hero characters into a sort of early Just League of Great Britain: we've got Alan Quartermain from H. Rider Haggard's "King Solomon's Mines" (perfectly played by Sean Connery), Dorian Grey from Oscar Wilde's "Picture of Dorian Grey," the extremely sexy vampiress Mina Harker from "Dracula" (Peta Wilson in a very steamy, repressed performance), Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde, Captain Nemo and his Nautilis from "20,000 Leagues Beneath the Sea," and a character who sort of resembles "The Invisible Man" (but for reason of copyright isn't actually H. G. Wells's invisible man). There's also a surprise villain tucked inside. Heck, it's messy, but it's fun. There are some exciting action sequences, such as a shoot-out in an African plantation, a blazing fire-fight in a library, and a confusing but eye-popping attempt to stop the destruction of Venice. The finale goes all-out, and even if it doesn't always make sense, it's exhilarating nonetheless. And Sean Conne...well, he's just got the right moves for this sort of character and this kind of picture. He's a joy to watch. The extras are okay, nothing superb. The documentary is a bit patchy and oddly put together, but gives some interesting info on how the film was constructed in the Czech Republic. (It contains, however, nothing about the conflict between Connery and director Norrington, which would have been interesting to hear about). More data on the Victorian sources for the movie would have helped the viewer who hasn't read many of the original books. "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen," despite what you may have heard, is really a fun time. No smash hit out of the park, but a solid double. And maybe it will get you interested in reading some of the source material. (I highly recommend "King Solomon's Mines" by H. Rider Haggard if you've never read it.)
Rating:
Summary: Three stars for trying
Review: As a fan of the original graphic novel, when I heard that it was being adapted into a film I knew that it would never work, simply because there was too much rich material that couldn't be crammed into a two-hour film without it seeming hopelessly muddled. However, I have to give some modest amount of credit where credit is due and say nice try. If you've never read the graphic novel, I would say forget the movie, get a copy and enjoy it. If you have, the film probably rubbed you the wrong way too but it was filled with all sorts of might-have-beens which, instead of being frustrating, were just disappointing. I can't stress the original graphic novel enough. I think that having known it well, it helped me with filling in the gaps the movie has, even though the film is substantially different from its source. Sean Connery acquits himself well, as does Peta Wilson. The other characters are all pretty good, but I really liked Jason Flemying as Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde. He stood above the rest with his dual-role. If nothing else, fans of Alan Moore's work will use LXG as an example of why the Watchmen graphic novel should never see the light of day as a film. Both it and LXG would most likely have been better served as mini-series on the Sci-Fi channel.
Rating:
Summary: If you don't read books, don't see this
Review: I have read all the negative reviews that others have left for this movie, and I'm glad I didn't let them stand in the way of me buying, and thoroughly enjoying, this wonderful fantasy adventure!
As I was watching it though, I did understand the reason why so many reviews are negative. If you are under the age of 30, and you have never read the following books; "The Picture of Dorian Gray", "Dracula", "Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde", "The Invisible Man", "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea", any of the Sherlock Holmes tales or any of the Alan Quartermaine adventure stories (think a sort of early version of Indiana Jones from literature), then you WILL NOT have a good understanding of any of the main characters or their actions and motivations in this adventure fantasy film. So don't buy it. Anyone who HAS read those books and therefore knows who the characters are, you WILL have a good time watching this movie. I thought it was great fun and I regret not having seen it on the big screen. You do NOT have to be familiar in any way with the graphic novel of the same name. I had never read it or heard of it until reading about it in some of the negative reviews, and having watched the movie I can say with certainty that I didn't need to read it to understand and enjoy the movie. I don't think this movie is appropriate for children as it contains some very violent scenes, but any adult who has enjoyed the classic books that these characters come from is guaranteed to have a fun time watching it!
Rating:
Summary: An ok movie with unreal effects
Review: The movie its self wasn't to bad but it did lose me very once in a while because of the unnessicary chatter. It had some ok effects but some were very over done. For example the Natualist in the cannel to much for me.
Rating:
Summary: Wish I could give it 0 stars!
Review: This was a horrible movie. Such a disappointment. The story was stupid and very long. What a waste of money and Sean Connery's talents!!!
Rating:
Summary: Is this a cartoon....?
Review: Half of a city is bombed to rubble, but Connery and his sidekicks escape without a scratch. They use swords and furniture as weapons to defeat men armed with fully automatic guns. Mr Hyde has the ability to become a Hulk like muscular monster. Plus many more "extraordinary"(illogical) scenes. Don't be fooled by the strong ads relating this to the movie Blade. There is absolutely no comparison between the 2 movies.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting...
Review: As a fan of the graphic novel, I awaited the League movie with some trepidation. Would it be another crap re-telling of a beloved comic (can you say "Daredevil"?) Well, yes and no. There is an inordinate amount of chat in this movie, which is deadly for a movie presenting itself as an action movie. The addition of Dorian Gray and Tom Sawyer is questionable. And still, it caught my attention and involved me from beginning to end. And that, my friends, is all I can ask for from an action movie. It ain't great, but it ain't bad.
| 
