Rating: 
Summary: Movie of Extraordinary Nonsense: one of Connery's worst
Review: 1 1/2 stars.I am continually amazed at the enthusiastic five-star reviews I find on amazon.com for the most worthless and pathetic works of film, literature and music. That amazement continues with many of the reviews for this movie. Why would one want to rent this sloppy mess? (you certainly would not want to buy this) To see Connery, I guess. I doubt that Sean Connery is capable of a poor job of acting and he does his usual fine performance here, although his Alan Quartermain is not particularly distinguishable from any of a half dozen other recent roles he has played. Unfortunately, his is the one clear voice in a choir of drunken hobos trying to sing Spice Girls songs (metaphor translation: the rest of the actors plus the director and screenwriters all stink - more on that later). I have not seen a worse film in which he appeared, although judging from the Connery film reviews, Arab Conspiracy and Highlander II might be even more horrendous. How Connery could possibly have read this script and thought it sounded decent is beyond me. Does he really need the money that bad? Ok, aside from the mediocre-at-best roles played by the other actors, why does this movie stink? 1) The plot is extremely boneheaded, convoluted and nonsensical. I started nodding off a bit toward the end, but I either missed or can't remember why exactly it is that M was parading around as the evil Fantom and why he contacted and assembled the members of the League in the first place. I seem to recall something about M starting a world war so that he could sell all of the advanced weaponry that his enslaved scientists created, but why could he not just start making and selling these incredible weapons without the need for a war? Or, wait, wasn't he trying to develop formulas from the blood and essence of the League members to sell to create superhuman warriors or something like that? But if so, what did he want from the non-superhuman heroes like Quartermain and Tom Sawyer (and how did Sawyer get there in the first place given that he wasn't even one of the original invitees to the League?) What on earth was the point of exploding a bomb under Venice to make the whole city collapse like a row of dominoes? I understand that the British bank robbery by the so-called German tank crew and the matching destruction of the German Zeppelins were designed to pit Britain and Germany against each other in a war, but what would be the point of destroying Venice, even if there are diplomatic delegations congregating there? 2. Nemo's "toys" were absurd. He had what looked like a white batmobile sport-limousine that somehow just magically got spit out of his sub the Nautilus and sucked back in when no longer needed. Plus, how exactly did the characters learn how to drive such a vehicle? For 1899, that would be like the average modern, day hair dresser in 2004 jumping into a helicopter or space shuttle and taking it for a flight. What was with that missile that Nemo fired to create a "dead zone" that would stop the domino effect of the Venetian buildings crumbling into each other? And speaking of the Nautilus, how exactly was it that a 500+ foot sub that stands at least 75 feet high could cruise at top speed through the canals of Venice? I'm prepared to suspend some degree of disbelief in a science fiction type movie, but this was ludicrous. 3. The invisible man just disappears for the middle part of the movie, is assumed to be the traitor, and then suddenly reappears and tells everyone that he was trailing Dorian Gray, the real spy and saboteur? Eh??? Speaking of sabotage, how did Gray manage to sneak on board five large suitcases packed with explosives? 4. The vampire chick seizes the Fantom's man at the shoot out in Dorian Gray's library and just rips his throat out? If Connery could wing one of the Fantom's assassins at the beginning of the movie in order to capture him and try to interrogate him, why didn't she think to question this guy before killing him? And how is it that whenever she gets riled up, suddenly she is surrounded by 12,000 bats? Is there some sort of inside joke about why she is included in the League of Extraordinary "gentlemen?" If so, I must have nodded off at that point or I guess I'm just obtuse. 5. How is it that Dorian Gray can walk around without consequence in the same room as his portrait late in the movie, but at the end, turns to dust when Peta Wilson's character unwraps the same painting? 6. Sure there was plenty of action in this movie, but it was no more logically connected than the action in a John Wu movie - too many things happened in this movie for the sake of momentary style or excitement without any other purpose. Maybe this movie made a bit more sense if you had read all of the books from which the League's characters were drawn (I've read about half of them) and furthermore read the novel or comic strip on which this movie was based. But I doubt it. There is a wonderful bumper sticker that says "Life's too short to drink crappy beer." Well, it's also too short to waste time watching crappy movies like this one. If you want to see a slightly similar action adventure, try Underworld instead. It's not great (well, parts of it are pretty inane and there's some lousy acting in it), but at least it does feature Kate Beckinsale in tight leather attire.... Speaking of Beckinsale, she is starring in the Van Helsing movie coming out soon, which seems to be a bit of a sequel/prequel to this movie; they mention the character Van Helsing in it someplace or another. I'll see it because in addition to lovely (if anorexic) Kate, I'm also a fan of vampire movies. Honestly, though, the trailers make it look as dumb and convoluted as LEG. Hopefully I won't be posting a review here of Van Helsing in a month or so bemoaning another several hours of my life lost forever.
Rating: 
Summary: great movie
Review: LXG is very enjoyable. Some found it too long and wish that they had shot themselves and it's too bad they didn't. Maybe next time they won't fail at knockng themselves off the same way they failed to see what a great movie this is. It's not too long and isn't even two hours, but that shows the attention span of some people and explains why they didn't get it. It's unlikely they ever sat down and read the books the film is based on since it would take "too long". This is fun movie for those who "get" it, have an attention span, and can read.
Rating: 
Summary: One of the Worst of the Year
Review: First off this movie was WAY TOO LONG!!!! The whole time I was wondering where the movie was going and when it was gonna end. This movie has the stupidest storyline. I wanted to shoot myself for paying $7.00 to see this. Honestly, The only reason I went to see it was because I needed something to do on a Friday night. Big mistake. Stay away from this movie unless you need a reason to punish your children for being bad. Horrible, Horrible.
Rating: 
Summary: A little Hackney but cute
Review: Yes, this movie is soeme what uneven, a bit far fetched (The Captain's car, sub, and escape pod) and sometimes a bit silly ( Zane Grey Chaacter and the Vampiress Love/hate relationship, it was still cute and very funny. Sean Connery presence adds a certain class and all the actors except the young guy playing the Pinkerton agent do a great job.
Rating:
Summary: Why does everyone trash this movie?
Review: The idea is a very good one. Allan Quatermain; the greatest hunter who ever lived, leads a team of unique individuals to try to prevent global war. They're certainly interesting people, too. An invisible man, Captain Nemo, Henry Jeckel and Edward Hyde, Mina Harker, Dorian Grey, Tom Sawyer...
As I look at the roster, I can't help but wonder how it could have been any better. After all, using Sherlock Holmes might have overshadowed the other characters.
The movie itself has excellent special effects, superb acting and scriptwriting that is some of the best I've ever seen (we're talking Star Trek; The Next Generation quality.) The characters are right on the money in both attitude and dialogue and if you're familiar with more than one of them, you're going to find this film to be a real treat.
Sean Connery (the big name of this movie) is an over-the-hill actor, so it makes sense that he play the role of an over-the-hill hero. This he pulls off most admirably. The others are just as good at acting, though somewhat less renowned for it. Furthermore, the action is not constant, but considerable enough to be a real rush nonetheless, and wherever there isn't action, there's character-interactions that are truly awesome.
There were only a few things I could spot in this movie that could have been done better. First, the main bad guy didn't get to use enough of his remarkable skills. Secondly, when the main bad guy first appeared, his general attitude seemed almost mockingly cheesy, which I suppose was his intention. Lastly, the character of the invisible man wasn't the original, like in the comic, and to be honest, I wish he had been. The name "Griffin" just seems to belong with the Invisible Man, though to be fair, they did a decent job making Rodney Skinner act roughly like him.
As I said, I can't see why people don't like this movie. I actually thought it was, in most ways, better than the comic, and I've seen it four times already, on the big and small screens. If you're a literature buff, this is a movie for you. If you don't like the characters, you might not get as much out of the movie, but you should still enjoy it. If you're a hardcore comic fan, you might not enjoy the movie at all just because it's different from the comic, but remember; the comic took a lot of liberties that this movie actually hit closer to the mark on. That's my thoughts on the movie, and I hope it compells you to at least RENT it, if not get it.
Rating:
Summary: critics be d*mned!
Review: Some critics of this film claim that by being true to Bram Stoker and having a vampire out in daylight it is the "most striking" example of "liberties" taken with these literary characters. Where is the logic in that? If it's true to the source material then it isn't a liberty taken with the source material. If Stoker wanted his vampires in the day, as other mythic vampires often were, why is it viewed as an error when it's portrayed that way on film? Stoker wrote of vampires out in daylight and LXG gives us that, but this is claimed to be the "most striking" error. Where is the error? If the critics wanted Mina to be more like modern cinematic vampires they must like the scenes of that type right? Nope. I'm not sure what standard is being used, but even Stoker isn't right according to them. It's also a complaint that having human blood have a reflection in Mina's mirror is an error. Why? I could go on, but I wont. Watch this film for yourself.
Rating: 
Summary: The Minor League Of Ordinary Movies
Review: Once again, a movie emphasizes special effects at the expense of a coherent plot. Worse yet, many liberties are taken with the (admittedly) fictional characters. The most striking example of this would be Mina Harker, played by Peta Wilson. She is a vampire, but she is able to walk around in sunlight, she can see her reflection in a mirror, and otherwise behaves normally. Only when confronted by the bad guys do her fangs come out. Not only that, when confronted with an army of villains, she can turn herself into hundreds of vampire bats! Jason Flemyng is fine as Dr. Jekyll. However, his alter ego Mr. Hyde looks like a flesh colored Incredible Hulk. Later, when a villain drinks a large amount of the Doctor's formula, he is transformed into a gigantic, muscular monster. Perhaps the good Doctor discovered an early form of steroids! Tony Curran as Rodney Skinner (the Invisible Man) is a rogue before he takes the invisibility formula. Amazingly, rather turning him into a raving megalomaniac like the scientist who discovered and first used the formula, it turns him into a good guy! Stuart Townsend plays Dorian Gray as a dandy, who later turns out to be a double crosser. Apparently, if he's ever shown the portrait of his ancient self, he will instantly age and turn into dust. Later, even though he is trapped, he makes no attempt to close his eyes when confronted with his portrait. Naseeruddin Shah plays Captain Nemo with just the right amount of virtue mixed with menace. Shane West plays Tom Sawyer as an earnest young man. However, there is one scene where he's driving a car that crashes through a building and flips over. He starts to slowly crawl out of the car. The next shot shows the building being hit by a rocket and blowing up. In a later scene, Tom reappears with barely a scratch on his face! Sean Connery is outstanding as the adventurer Allan Quatermain. Admittedly, he is a bit too old to continually beat up the much younger, stronger villains. However, being Sean Connery, he somehow manages to pull it off convincingly. Overall, I found this movie to be a disappointment.
Rating:
Summary: Watchable And Fun, But Not Outstanding
Review: "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" is a decent flick. It seems somewhat crammed together and I agree with other reviewers that some of the characters seemed forced on the viewer. Connery does a good job here, but I think that he could have done much better with a stronger script and a better supporting cast. The Invisible Man is likeable, and Dorian Gray is one of the better nasties I've seen in awhile. Peta Wilson as Mina Harker doesn't add up for some reason. There are a lot of holes in her character and while I'll look beyond the fact that she could walk around in daylight, I can't get over the feeling that the character is just a jumble of stereotypical heroines. Jekyll/Hyde was pretty good, but his character didn't seem to belong here. It's almost as if he was thrown in so that there would be a big guy in the group. Tom Sawyer was useless in this flick, excepting that he replaces Quartermain's deceased son. Captain Nemo was stale. His character never really caught my attention. Even though I'm throwing out a lot of negatives, this story is action-packed. It moves at a breakneck pace and leaves you little time to catch your breath. As far as visuals go, this movie is tops. But that might be the biggest problem. Too much time seems to have been spent on impressing the audience with special effects instead of story development. Sadly, that has become commonplace in today's action yarns. Overall, this movie is okay. It isn't too great, but you won't feel that cheated of your time after watching it. It's no-brainer visual fun. If you want a better period action piece, watch "The Mummy." The story and acting are much better.
Rating:
Summary: Not bad, not bad at all, and it has a message
Review: Inferior to Underworld, far superior to the Matrix and Terminator III.
This film is based on a hit comic book. It is set in a fictional Victorian era, where all the inventions of Verne and Wells were actually made. When an international terrorist attacks the UK and Germany using new inventions (the tank and the rocket propeller grenade), a group of extraordinary individuals are assembled to track him down. They travel in captain Nemo's submarine.
The special effects are good, the acting more than adequate (Sean Connery is Allan Quartermain). The scenery is evocative, especially the vision of hell in Moriarty's armoury.
The film has an unsettling message: the best brains in the world can be corrupted into evil, or duped to be its servants. In the end, the league only delays the inevitable. Overall, the film is entertaining; good to watch over popcorn with friends.
Rating:
Summary: I WALK A DIFFERENT PATH
Review: FANS OF CAPTAIN NEMO ON THE SILVER SCREEN WILL BE VERY PLEASED WITH LXG. IT'S AS ENTERTAINING AS THE NEMO MOVIES THAT HAVE COME BEFORE IT, BUT THIS TIME NEMO IS EVEN MORE LIKE THE CHARACTER VERNE CREATED. LXG IS A WORTHY ADDITION TO YOUR COLLECTION OF FILMS.
|
