Rating: 
Summary: Forget the comic
Review: I loved Alan Moore's League of the Extraordinary Gentlemen, both volume I and II in fact as Moore crosses over famous literary figures. I think this is some of his best work, definetly up there with Watchmen, V for Vendetta, From hell and Top Ten. Many expected to see a straight comic to movie adaptation. Unfortunately that is often impossible. Movies and comics are separate art forms. In fact the only thing the comic and movie have in common is really the premise. Personally I view the movie and the comics separate. I liked it alot and thought it was very well done. Many people especially the mainstream audience that saw it for the summer blockbuster were dissapointed. It got brutal reviews but who listens to the critics anyway. In order to "get" the movie you have to know who the characters are.I didn't like that they added "Sawyer" but its was still a great movie. The script was written by Comic writer James Robinson ( if you haven't read Star Man you are missing on of the best comics ever written). Even Kevin O'Neil (the comic's artist)liked it. Anyway it was certanly better than From hell (another movie based on Moore's work.
Rating: 
Summary: The Gentlemen are extraordinary, but not the film
Review: I was surprisingly displeased of this movie. I was hoping for an rousing, epic-long extravangaza. But this film is somewhat of a dissapointment. It has 'extraordinary' flaws even a viewer can spot. It's frantic action from one scene to another provides us without a sense of logic for its characters. The characters, I should say, is lead by ageless Sean Connery. He commands a group of superheroes to fight a villian who wants to conquest earth. Some of the interesting heroes include Captain Nemo, Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde and a stunning vampiress. They're postively good, but don't have that much screen time. That's one of the flaws here. Again, the fast-paced action muddles throughout the film. The script, which makes a great movie, is a fault which the film can't correct. It just focuses on the action! The cast is almost a waste. Connery can't seem to break out and have fun. I guess his confrontations with director Stephen Norrington was a reason. He has no motivation. The visuals are somewhat fair. It was just uninspired. A good thing about this movie was the early 20th-century production design. The climax also is ineffective and leaves too many answers. Even though I haven't read the comic books, fans probably won't like this. I giving this 3 stars because of the relivent flaws, but the good production design helped me from giving this film 2 stars.
Rating: 
Summary: The League of Extraordinarily Sanitized Gentlemen.
Review: Are you one of those people who are sick and tired of "fanboys" who run down theatrical adaptations of comic books? Well, if you are, I'm going to have to burst your bubble yet again. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is another addition to the long line of comic book film flops that include Howard the Duck, Tank Girl, Judge Dredd, and Batman and Robin. The film deviates from the comic book in both form and spirit. I expected a little more input from Alan Moore, who gave us masterpieces like Watchmen and V for Vendetta. Anyone who has read the comics version of The League of Extraordiary Gentlemen knows that it was not meant to be made as PG-13. If anything, it should be rated R or possibly NC-17. In the graphic novel/miniseries, The Invisible Man is an amoral rapist and serial killer without any redeeming qualities whatsoever. He not only stole a police constable's uniform, he literally beat his brains out too. In the film, (if you can overlook the fact that he's a thief and the fact that the studio was unable to procure the rights to the real Invisible Man) he's an all-right person. Secondly, there's Tom Sawyer, who totally defeats the whole concept of The League. Sawyer is a completely heroic character with no moral ambiguities to speak of. Going back to the comic books, TLoEG is not about heroic literary characters who stand for what is right and true. It is about a group of characters who sometimes use means that are just as unsavory as the villains to achieve their common goal. A milquetoast like Sawyer wouldn't last 5 minutes in the real League. My final complaint with the characters is Mina Harker. In the comic form, she is a conservatively attired frumpy intellectual lady who does NOT use any vampiric powers. In the film, she is a voluptuous martial artist bloodsucker who wears low-cut and tight dresses. She also has an uncanny ability to roam about freely during the daytime. Can you figure out which is the more marketable? Maybe the producers and the studio were trying to get merchandising deals (toys, videogames, backpacks, lunchboxes, etc.) aimed toward the Harry Potter set. Moore should be ashamed of himself for letting them do this to the League. Another flaw is the pathetic action sequences filled with more than a few gaps of logic. The fight scenes are so congested it's impossible to tell what's going on. At least an action scene in a Jerry Bruckheimer prodution is filmed with a semblance of clarity. I guess the trick is to wait until the fight,or the mess of limbs flailing around that is passed off as a fight, is over to determine the outcome. There is also the infamous scene that takes place in Venice. Here we are supposed to believe that Tom Sawyer can drive a car without any lessons. Even worse than that is how Nemo's Nautilus can easily negotiate the canals. And if I may go one step further, how did Mina Harker manage to summon what appear to be millions of bats from out of nowhere? And phony looking CGI bats to boot. Like I said earlier, there are entirely too many deviations from the comic book and scenes lacking plausibilty to make this a worthy adaptation. They should have known from the get-go that this had TURKEY written all over it with letters the size of Pluto's orbit. All I can say to Moore is that unless he can get Peter Jackson to direct is to not let this happen to Watchmen if anyone gets a wild urge to make a film out of that brilliant work of art.
Rating:
Summary: A little muddled but still quite excellent
Review: Honestly, I cannot understand why anyone could not like this movie. This has to be my favorite movie of 2003 and I saw Finding Nemo, Pirates of the Caribbean, and the Lord of the Rings. From the reviews of the movie, one would get the idea that it is the worst movie ever made, but in reality, there are a lot worse ones. Sure, the cast is not made up of big names, but they are still quite talented. Sean Connery is very good as Quartermein, Jason Flemyng is excellent as Dr. Henry Jekyll, and Stuart Townsend is perfect as Dorian Gray. Although the latter two are not mega stars like Connery, they are still very talented British stage actors. Another reason that I like the movie is that the main characters are Mina Harker, Dr. Jekyll (and of course Mr. Hyde), Captain Nemo, The Invisible Man (but not the original one from the Wells book), Dorian Gray, and Tom Sawyer. With the exception of Sawyer, who I feel was thrown in because they wanted to "American-ize" the movie, the characters in the movie are just like I remembered them from the books they came from. I read and loved the books "Dracula" (Bram Stoker), "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" (Robert Louis Stevenson), "20000 Leagues Under the Sea" (Jules Verne), "The Invisible Man" (H.G. Wells), "The Picture of Dorian Gray" (Oscar Wilde), and "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" (Mark Twain). The characters are all what I imagined them to be when I was reading the books, so seeing them on screen is very cool. In some places the special effects are a little shoddy, but I really didn't mind because I was too busy watching great actors act out great material. In my opinion, The League of Extrordinary Gentlemen is right up there with The X-men. Don't let the reviews here scare you off. Rent it and see for yourself.
Rating: 
Summary: Proof that you can't trust the critics
Review: When the previews began for this movie, I was pretty excited. It looked like something different, and different is usually good. However, when the critics (and moviegoers alike) slammed this movie as something that isn't worthy of the celuloid it's printed on, I let the judgement of others get the better of me. I decided to wait until the dvd was let out, and when it was, I rented it. Proof, once again, that you can't trust the critics. To be sure, this ain't "Lord of the Rings," or, "The Matrix." To be sure, the plot isn't anything original. To be sure, the acting isn't going to win any oscars or emmys or anything. What we have here, ladies and gentlemen, is nothing more than a really solid action flick. The movie centers around a group of characters plucked from old sci-fi and horror literature. The special effects and action are outstanding, as should be expected in our technological age. The characters are all well-acted and well done. The plot is nothing new, but the twist of the old heroes coming together keeps it engaging. There are only two flaws in this movie. One, as I stated previously, is that it would have been nice to see more of the characters interact. The second is the plot is a bit hackneyed, but there are enough original twists to keep it going. I don't know what people were looking for when they saw this. I see it as just a plain, good-old fashioed summer popcorn action flick. Peace
Rating: 
Summary: Sad
Review: What seemed a clever idea when writer Alan Moore came up with it in Comic form---(a 19th century victorian literary version of the 20th century superhero team)--devolves here, under the careful guidance of hollywood, into a stereotypical 'action blockbuster' pieced together around a high-concept. Not really good, and not really BAD, it just sort of hangs together for two hours of colorful characters betraying each other, running around crumbling sets, and blowing things up. Try the book, instead.
Rating:
Summary: One of the Greatest movies ever!!!
Review: I thought that the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was one of the greatest movies. Ii had plenty of action and despise and much more. Sean Connery was almost as good as when he was James Bond. They need to make a sequel to this. There were twists adn turns everywhere.
Rating:
Summary: Good not Extraordinary
Review: How often are movies underrated? I'm sure this one will be. Not a drama that deserves an Academy Award, but one fun movie that harkens me to time of fun matinees at the local theater. Any fan of knockoffs like Richard Chamberlain's Quartermain movie will enjoy it. The production is excellent and the special effects are incredibly well done. I have never seen transitions of characters to their alter egos any smoother.The characters right out of the pages of wonderful books about adventurers and science fiction wonders give us a nice blend of good and evil. These forces both have their share of tricks and fascinating devices that are ahead of their time. I think Sean Connery does a nice job of grounding the movie in at least a little believability. His character seems the most realistic and his performance is memorable. All the rest the cast are well suited to their roles and do a fine job of making us like them or hate them as their roles require. The role of a female Vampire seems a little contrived to include a woman in the group of gentlemen, but it is very well performed by Peta Wilson. I also loved the bat minion touch.
I am sure some will tell you the characters are not true to their book counter parts. Heaven forbid that the film makers would actually use a little imagination of their own and expand on the literary figures. I wouldn't want them to make this fictional or anything. Wait this movie is fictional! Now if you can just get book fans to let their minds OPEN UP to change.
The DVD has all the standard additions. Picture and sound are sharp. The editing of this film was excellent. The transformation sequences could not have been done better. I intend to add it to my collection.
Rating:
Summary: WELL WORTH THE VIEWING
Review: I simply DO NOT understand the negative reviews for this movie. I guess a movie these days has to have a well known cast and some dreary, boring and mind-numbingly detailed plot for it to become "critically acclaimed." Let's see: If you like sci-fi, horror and action with a bit of comedy thrown in, then go see this movie. If you were a fan of the actual literary BOOKS (not comic), upon which many of the characters in the movie were based, then it's an added thrillride for you. But, you don't need to have read either the books or comics to enjoy the movie. Contrary to what other reviewers have written, the characters are exactly as they should be---this isn't Tolstoy or some Academy Award drama (thank god). No one needs excessive background info on each of them beyond the obvious. (and those that do---GO TO A LIBRARY AND READ THE DAMN BOOKS AFTER THE MOVIE IF YOU'RE SO CONFUSED)!
My favorite characters were Dr. Jeckyl (whose effects used for Hyde were very nicely done---in spite of what others say) and the Invisible Man. Those people that somehow didn't "get" this movie and were dissappointed or bored, probably DON'T like action, sci-fi or horror movies as a rule and need to have every detail available to them because they're too slow-witted. :-)
Rating:
Summary: AWFUL MOVIE!!!!
Review: This movie had so much potential, and the director completely screwed this up. Everything was overdone, overblown, and Sean Connery was probably the best thing about this movie! I was really eager to see this one and I honestly was so bored with it I fell asleep 3 TIMES during the film!!! Save you money, but if you absolutely have to see this terrible film, go spend 3 bucks at your local video store, don't blow it on the DVD. It certainly isn't worth the price.
| 
