Rating: 
Summary: Never given a chance to shine...
Review: There seems to be three schools of thought concerning this film. The first one consists of people who are bona fide Alan Moore fans who dislike this flick due to its plotline not following the first volume of the comic book and/or not having the arcane references to Victoriana in it. The second school comes from a place of action and mainstream sensibility, which tends to shun book smarts and literature in their movies. Their lack of being well versed makes them hate this movie because they can't understand the references and where the characters come from, even when the characters tell their stories in short form, to alert the unaware. These people will never get the "steampunk" genre and never will. They will blame the filmmakers for making a bad movie that was not understandable.I am of the third school. I am a fan of Alan Moore's work, such as Watchman, From Hell and LXG. Even with my commitment to the superiority of this work over the film, which is a mere shadow, I still like this film very much. It is intelligent enough for Victoriana lovers like me to get their full dose of wonderful literary figures and also gives the fan of the comic book a few surprises from that world, like Dorian Grey and Tom Sawyer. Sure, the purist in me would have loved to have seen the whole Invisible Man impregnanting nuns in the convent scene amongst others. Yet watching this as a separate piece away from the comic books gives me a new appreciation of it. Maybe these changes came from wanting to make it a PG-13 film to expand the audience. My only gripe with this was that I didn't get my comic book that was supposed to be free with this DVD because the place I bought it at wouldn't distribute the comic since it contained "mature situations." Bummer. Anyhow, the changes in the movie strike me as delightful. For example, the idea of Quartermaine being representative of Old Era Britain, giving the League over to the New Era America of Sawyer. I thought this was clever. The record scene had a great way of conveying information about the plot in a unique, but still happily Victorian way. Mina as a vampire added a fun twist to the story, though I feel this link is hinted at in the comics. Though the screenplay is not written by the creators of LXG, it is very thought out. Fans that were disappointed in this movie when it came out in the theater may want to rent the DVD to give it a second chance. I believe this movie was never given a chance to shine by many people. Conversely, if you are not a Victorian literature fan, I wouldn't recommend the film. You will get lost. To fully get the story and the comic, you need to read books like Around the World in 80 Days, Dracula, The Picture of Dorian Grey, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Murders in the Rue Morgue and other novels or at very least, have a basic understanding of those characters. When I saw this in the theatre, there was someone sitting behind me who didn't know who Tom Sawyer was, which proves our educational system is in the gutter. I personally, as a bookworm, got a perverse joy out of Mina and Dorian fighting each other, seeing past all the contradictions (well, she is out in daylight, at the end of Dracula, she doesn't turn into a vampire...didn't Dorian die at the end of his book?) and loving it for the sheer creativity of it. If you don't have the drive to want to learn about these characters, you should not waste your money and rent something like Fight Club or XXX. You will be happier and so will I. But please, don't blame the movie for your lack of knowledge, or ignorance of the "steampunk" genre. It isn't for everyone. Overall, the world of LXG onscreen is dazzling. The outfits were gorgeous, the sets amazing and the performances were good enough to carry it to the end and keep my attension fixed. Enough to even buy a copy of the DVD for myself. I am a true sucker for anything Victorian and anything "steampunk," as the kids say. I hope, if anything, the movie converts more people to read about these characters outside of the their parts in the League and also introduce new fans to the genius that is Alan Moore.
Rating: 
Summary: About Tom Sawyer...
Review: This was an alright movie with an alright premise. The obvious question of "Where is Sherlock Holmes in this movie which is set in 1899 London and full of all fictional characters?" was resolved by the appearance of Professor Moriarty at the end, since Sherlock would have recognized Moriarty. Even without that, he would have ruined the movie by solving the mystery (or else, failing to solve the mystery, would have been an unsatisfying character). The more obvious question of "Who is this invisible guy, and why didn't they use the actual Invisible Man?" was resolved when I found out that they had wanted to use Wells' character but that it was still copyrighted--an unsatisfying resolution, but understandable nonetheless--and it really was pretty important to the plot to have an invisible guy around. However, there was one thing that seriously annoyed me (actually two things) and which has not been resolved: Why was Tom Sawyer in this movie in the first place? Everyone else had an "extraordinary" skill, such as being undead, otherwise immortal, invisible, or possessed of animal strength, or being a really good hunter or having a fancy submarine. What did Tom Sawyer have? Equally importantly, you may remember from Huckleberry Finn that Huck, Tom's colleague, ran away with a slave named Jim (in other words, slavery was still in practice). This means that Huck and Tom should have been around 50 years old by 1899. Now, I could understand bending the rules if Tom's presence were indispensible, but since it was far from it, it seriously got on my nerves to see a twenty-something Tom, thirty-five years after the end of the Civil War. Especially when I looked online and found out that he wasn't included in the comic book from which the movie was taken. Now, I'm not the type to nitpick historical details in movies or keep online journals about the scientific inaccuracies which I discover in Star Trek movies--far from it. But this stuff just jumps out at you in this movie. Perhaps Tom was just there so illiterate Americans (see also: Huck Finn's father) could watch the film and say, "Tom Sawyer... At least I know who one of 'em is!"
Rating: 
Summary: Ex-League of Ex-Gentlemen
Review: This film is not the book, and I understand adaptations should never be compared to the books they were based on, but simply as a film, this was ghastly. The film had a very literary premise, and while it needn't stay true to the graphic novel, it should've stayed true to the books the characters came from. Granted, Nemo's ethnicity was correct, but dozens of other details were wrong- most astonishingly about how Gray regards his picture. The whole point of the movie is that it's a story that imports literary characters; the filmakers should make the import believable. Merely as a film, there were incongruities and while I, too, thought that 'Hulk' was a bad CGI adventure, I was further put off by Mister Hyde. Lines like 'Call me Ishmael' were lost in the script and were easily passed over in the storytelling. Even as an action flick it was laughable. There was one Bruce Lee sparring act that sprang up from the unlikeliest of people. The film is extraordinarily distaseful and I urge everyone interested to read the comic book by Alan Moore instead. That should be sufficient. The movie "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" had brilliant source material, as that source material, in turn, did too, but while Alan Moore did a marvellous job with his art, I'm very much afraid the filmmakers here did not.
Rating: 
Summary: It's not that bad
Review: Other reviewers are correct, this movie is not a masterpiece. It probably will never have a sequel. So, why did I give it four stars? Simple, I had fun. I was not expecting a masterpiece. I wasn't even expecting to like it much, but I was pleasantly surprized. Almost from the beginning I enjoyed Sean Connery's character. It helped that I like him and that I saw KING SOLOMON'S MINES several years ago. Then I started playing at identifying as many lines from various books as I could find. Then I just sort of got into it. If I compared it to professional sports I'd have to say that it certainly wasn't the Super Bowl, perhaps more like all star wrestling. Then again, out of all the sporting events I've been to, one night ring side at an all star wrestling event stands out as my all time most fun. RECOMMENDATION: Don't expect THE LORD OF THE RINGS or STAR WARS. Losen up and have fun with it and you will find an enjoyable movie. Pop some popcorn and laugh as you watch it with a friend.
Rating:
Summary: Highbrow adventure
Review: It was actually a rather clever film, but it's something you can only fully appreciate if you're well-read or at least familiar with the 19th-century novels that it draws upon as source material. I personally found it amusing that Captain Nemo (finally depicted as the Indian as Jules Verne had originally described him) had MOBY DICK's Ishmael as his first mate, and that Mr. Hyde was described as "the monkey that killed all those people in the Rue Morgue," a joke directed at Edgar Allan Poe's "The Murders in the Rue Morgue," and the novelization's mention that the dead agent Tom Sawyer had worked with had been Huckleberry Finn, because I was an English major and had more than a passing familiarity with those works. It can still be enjoyed for the action and the creative anachronism of introducing modern weapons a couple of decades early, but it helps if you've been to the local library a few times.
Rating:
Summary: And the point was?
Review: After just seeing "The league of Extraordinary Gentlemen" I can understand why it got such bad reviews. The only good thing that I could say about the movie was Sean Connery was in it and he was the only good actor. The rest of the movie was just plan bad. The one thing that I couldn't understand was Mina Harker was a vampire and everyone know that vampires do not survive in sunlight. This is one movie that watcher should just pass on!
Rating:
Summary: Great Action, Subpar Storyline!
Review: I really enjoyed the special effects and the action of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. The fact that Sean Connery (an Action Film Icon) was the lead in this made me curious to buy it in the first place. The storyline though simple, sometimes confusing once all the characters are brought together to save the world (how original), moves along quite fast and doesn't lull you to sleep the way Pirates of the Carribean did. That was one boring overrated movie that was at least 35-40 minutes too long. However, where Pirates failed in providing enough action to frankly keep you awake, at least League had enough action, and different characters that we've all grown up and read and heard about at some point to make the film interesting enough to watch it, and the supporting cast was also credible. Like DeNiro, Connery can take a below average plot and make it above average just with his talent alone. The DVD extras are wonderful and go in-depth about costume design, special effects, the choice of actors, and about the comic book this movie is based on. It also details how Connery himself was offered the role in both the Matrix and Lords Of The Rings but had turned them both down because he didn't quite understand the complexity of both films. I guess the complexity in this film was non-existent but nevertheless, very entertaining and would rate it head and shoulders above Pirates of The Carribean.
Rating:
Summary: Three stars for the movie, plus one more for Sean Connery
Review: The main reason for buying this DVD is that it stars Sean Connery as Alan Quartermain. That man can make any movie worthwhile watching. Other than Peta Wilson, the rest of the cast get sort of hidden in his shadow, but the casting is great anyway. The movie itself is entertaining and action packed, albeit impossible, confused and full of holes. The good thing is that it doesn't attempt to take itself seriously, and pushes the special effects to the limit to keep your attention away from the plot. (?) Recommended for light entertainment and Sean Connery, who proves that he still has "it".
Rating:
Summary: A ROLLICKING ADVENTURE
Review: From gaslit London to the icey wastelands of Mongolia, a band of freaky anti-heroes pursue the mysterious "M", a criminal mastermind bent on world domination. With a well-known supporting cast, tongue-in-cheek humor, and a slew of computer generated special effects, this film will appeal to anyone between the ages of 12 and 65 (there are a few violent scenes that may be too intense for younger viewers). Keep in mind that this is escapist adventure, and nothing more. Very enjoyable.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting Though Uneven
Review: Once again we have the temptation to compare the book to the movie, which I will succumb to just a little. Books and movies are different media, and each brings its own strengths to art. Such is the case here. The book was full and lengthy, and while it brought the same breadth of characters, it was able to provide a broader background for each of the characters. There were some spots where I thought the book was just a bit fuzzy on the plot, but I loved the style. The movie provides more visuals, but with a two-hour length it had to cut back on the length of background for the characters. The movie glossed over some of the darker aspects of the characters, particular Alan Quatermain, but enhanced others, particular the background of Mina Harker. The other strange addition was that of the character of Dorian Gray. I also objected to the change in the invisible man character from the book to the movie. I much preferred the book's Hawley Griffin as the invisible man versus Rodney Skinner, who supposedly stole the formula. Griffin was a much stronger, more tormented character, though his characterization would require more film time to establish and would likely have weakened the roles of the primary actors. In terms of characterization, Sean Connery clearly shined as Quatermain, as he always seems to do in every role. Peta Wilson is excellent as the sultry, dangerous Mina Harker. Naseeruddin Shah as Captain Nemo returns Nemo to his original characterization by Verne as a Sikh. Shah's Nemo was a welcome variation to previous Nemos, providing a sense of command, control and honor in comparison to those others who sometimes seemed simpering and typically talked far too much for Verne's Nemo. The other actors have insufficient screen time to fully flesh out their roles, partially because of the large number of lead characters. The plot itself is a bit of a muddle. It's difficult to follow the progression and contrivances that lead from point-to-point. Often the logic is non-existent, and the viewer is left to wonder how they knew they were headed the right direction other than a trite explanation by one of the lead characters. Had the movie been extended by another 15 or 20 minutes many of the incongruities could have been reduced and the story flow could have been smoothed. To try to minimize the various confusions: Essentially the story is about a group of sort of good guys out to stop a definite bad guy from conquering the world, except the bad guy has been cleverly manipulating the sort of good guys all along and has a nefarious reason (of course) for doing so. The special effects end up providing much of the focus of the movie in lieu of a more coherent plot. Some of the special effects are very good, such as the bizarre image of the Nautilus sailing the canals of Venice. The destruction of Venice by underwater bombs is standard fare by today's standards. The other special effects vary in their quality and effect on the viewer, but are generally good. As noted before, the special effects often substitute for plot. Though some of my criticisms are not encouraging, I actually liked the movie. As a B movie it is okay. Clearly not in the league of movies such as The Lord of the Rings, it is nonetheless a rousing adventure. In general the movie rates 3 stars, but I'm giving it 4 stars because of the three actors that really made this movie for me: Connery, Wilson and Shah.
|
