The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)

Excellent, a Must See

Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

It took me a while to get around to watching this movie purely because of all the negative press surrounding it. In the end, I saw it was on TV and I decided to finally give it a go; I'm glad now that I never spent money to watch it. For all the lack of credibility, the silliness and the poor plotting, the thing that really sinks this film is the CGI work. There are tons of effects shots and what not and none of them are very credible, whether it be the image of Venice sinking or Captain Nemo's massive submarine rising from the ocean depths. All of these bits look just like what they are: cartoon creations, two dimensional and void.Still, I ended up enjoying the film on a minor level, mainly thanks to the impressive acting of Sean Connery. The ex-Bond, who publicly quit acting after his troubles during making this film (a whole other story) puts in a strong, steel-willed turn as Allan Quartermain, H. Rider Haggard's literary hero. He's tough, believable and, most importantly, charismatic. He runs rings around the other characters in the movie, although to be fare none of them are fleshed out as much as he is. Shah is a one dimensional Captain Nemo, an Indian martial arts master with no unique features; Peta Wilson is Mina Harker from Dracula, yet she's in no way convincing as a vampire – far too cold and unlovely. Shane West is the imported American actor, a grab for US audiences, but he seems out of his 'league', while the worst actor by far is Stuart Townsend. I just felt this guy was vain and unlikable, and I'm not sure how much of that was acting. Jason Flemyng is always good value but he has little to do here as Dr Jekyll, while Richard Roxburgh plays a one-dimensional character as best he can.This is a film that works best in the dialogue scenes – unusually. That's because the action scenes are a poorly-edited mess, using that annoying tactic of repeatedly cutting from one battle to another and back again. It's all fancy manoeuvres and footwork, restrained by a kid-friendly rating, and it's the same tired stuff that Hollywood's been serving up for years. Out of all the effects in the film, the only one I liked was Mr Hyde, coming across as a Victorian version of The Incredible Hulk. There are a handful of moments I enjoyed – Dorian Gray's demise being one of them – but they're definitely outweighed by all the flaws elsewhere. Not a film worth spending money to see.

...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.

This movie is one of those interesting film that is incredibly polarizing. Along the same lines as a film like Moulin Rouge. On one hand it is disappointing if your expectations are too high. To be fair though the film on paper looks like it should be one of the greatest films of the new millennium. But because our expectations were not met, does that make it a bad film. It does deliver on most of its ideas, with memorable characters. The action is pretty interesting, and the visuals are not bad for early 2000's. I walked away from the film feeling satisfied in the product, but not wowed like I thought I would be. It's an above average film for me, and it was an enjoyable viewing.

The concept of this movie is good. A team full of extraordinary gentlemen and one lady. The movie feels good in parts but not as a whole. We can feel that it has been taken from a comic books as the dialogues are broken like in comic books. But that is the style of comic books. That feels good there. But in this movie nothing is smooth. Things happen too fast at sometimes. Characters are poorly build. We don't even feel the way about Tom Sawyer as we did in Mark Twain's 'The Adventures of Tom Sawyer.' I was looking at this movie with great expectation but was only disappointed. But the movie is not overall bad as it portrays some good steampunk cinematography and art. Mina Harker's flight in the night sky is really extraordinary. Naseeruddin shah also portrayed good swordsmanship against automatic guns. But the storytelling was bad and no attachment can be seen between the League members.