The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Fast and action packed. Sir Sean is great as Alan Quartermain and who ever plays Nemo has some bad ass moves. I give it 2 thumbs up and a definite must see for the summer. 7 of 10.
</font>

[IronDragon]

When I first heard about this movie I was really excited. Only once however have I run into a movie that improved on the original story (Practical Magic). The original work by Alan Moore was Literate and imaginative and had a sense of both irony and a placement in history, the movie has none of these things. Everything except Connery seems to get lost in an endless barrage of guns and explosions I believe every set in the movie eventually explodes. (The library of Dorian Grey doesn’t but it is the scene of one of the most ludicrous gun fights I can recall.) The explosions are nothing compared to the poorly rendered computer generated Mr. Hyde, it actually makes the Hulk look realistic.
The Leagues theatrically scarred and masked nemesis calls himself the Fantom and his ambition is to cause unrest in Europe, then make millions selling his new state-of-the-art weaponry to warring nations. This gives the producers carte blanche to roll out tanks, machine guns, automobiles, missiles and other action-friendly technology that didn't exist at the time. And roll them out they do, ad nauseum, to the detriment of the movie.
In the original story Mina Harker was the leader of the collection of extraordinary gentlemen which of course was ironic and actually allowed for character development. The movie of course needed to change this to make Sean Connery the leader, for irony to work people need to think and this is not a movie where much thinking goes on. There is some debate if the change in the Leagues leadership was because Connery’s ego needed to be stroked or because the writers were more interested in special effects than characterization.

Character development seems limited to a sort of father / son relationship thing between Connery and young Tom Sawyer. In the original story Connery’s character Quatermain was a washed up has been and an opium addict but here he not only fights ever villain is sight he keeps a stiff upper lip about the death of his son.

The movie is embarrassingly bad.

My advice, wait six months and this dog will be on the cheep rack of the video store.

[Lavindathar]

<font color="cyan">Not seen it yet, but on the trailers it looked awesome!!!
</font>

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
I.D. I never read the novel, so went in with no preconceptions. It might not have been faithful to the book, but I stand by my assessment of a fun action/adventure flick [img]smile.gif[/img] Sorry you were so disappointed.

I suppose Peter Jackson risked the same kind of reviews with LotR.
</font>

[Sir Krustin]

Iron, I read six issues of the comic book. Is this the "original work" you mention, or is there a novel?

[Larry_OHF]

Originally posted by MagiK: <font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4"> I.D. I never read the novel, so went in with no preconceptions. It might not have been faithful to the book, but I stand by my assessment of a fun action/adventure flick [img]smile.gif[/img] Sorry you were so disappointed. I suppose Peter Jackson risked the same kind of reviews with LotR. </font>

<font color=skyblue>That is basically what I am hearing. I am wanting to see the movie, and have read alot of reviews...all of them bad. But the people giving the reviews are either fans of the comic books or fans of the characters in their own respective stories. For people that have no attachment and are here for the first time, I hear only good stuff! So...I suppose I will like it alot, based on this premise.</font>

[pritchke]

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
This movie was awesome!!! 8 out of 10, [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] . Nemo, the scientist, kicked serious ass.

For those complaining about the technology, it is fiction. But think about this, the Romans developed the first steam engine thousands of years ago. They decided it was useless, but if they discovered its uses the world would not be the same today. We would Definitely have been able to build tanks, cars, and subs by 1899. So the technology being used was developed a few decades before that is not so far fetched as it seems and it is not outside the realm of physics.

The one thing that puzzled me was how Jeckle knew were to find the switch allowing water to be removed from the sub. A tour by Nemo sometime which was cut for time a boredom. Maybe the DVD will have some deleted scenes.

As for leadership I did not get the sense in the movie that it had a true leader. Sure the poster made Alan Quartermain seem to be the main character/leader but on Nemo's sub, Nemo was boss (Yes, I liked Nemo's character).

Ending was great, very open ended. I have never even heard of the book before but have read many of the books that the characters are based upon so I enjoyed this movie for how I believe it was intended (not for the followers of the book, but for those who enjoyed the original characters to begin with, or those who just what a kick ass action packed movie, with awesome special effects). </font>

[ 07-15-2003, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Azred]

<font color = lightgreen>Well, all movies have their bad points, but overall this movie delivered everything I hoped it would. [img]graemlins/awesomework.gif[/img]

We know that Mr. Hyde isn't real, so why should he look "real"? [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img] Suspend your disbelief when watching a movie--you'll enjoy them much more that way. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

This is not the first time that "modern" technology is used in a Victorian setting, it certainly won't be the last. Anachronism is a wonderful literary device.

Forget movie reviews...what do movie critics know about movies anyway? [img]tongue.gif[/img] </font>

[Larry_OHF]

<font color=skyblue>Saw it tonight. I loved it. Some of my thoughts:

I really liked Mina's character. I always fancy vampires and she made it look good to me, at least. I am guessing at some deleted scenes with her character. I seem to have seen footage on her that was not in the theatrical cut. Her effects were great! It was dang funny that Tom S. was both attracted and scared of her. Made for some funny moments.

I liked how Dr. Jeckyl, Mr. Hyde did the transformation thing. When he turned, you could feel how painful it was! He looked like he suffered greatly to switch, and his human-form fatigue and out-of-breath feel was superb. Could not have improved any there.

Skinner was likeable. Not much to say, but I like how he ended up being a most vital and important member of the group.

</font>

[Nerull]

Originally posted by Azred: <font color = lightgreen>We know that Mr. Hyde isn't real, so why should he look "real"? [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img] Suspend your disbelief when watching a movie--you'll enjoy them much more that way. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] </font>

Exactly. I mean, do any of the old Harryhausen flicks look real (with the stop motion)? Yet, they can still be entertaining, as long as you stop concentrating on how jerky the motion is and instead let your imagination go. That's why I just laugh when people talk about how fake the Hulk, Mr. Hyde, Gollum, etc. looked. If you are concentrating on the technical stuff instead of the movie itself, then you are kind of missing the point.