Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

This really was a terrible movie, and Sean Connery knew it.

I'd heard about this movie and all the bad press that came out soon afterwards. Some people hadn't seen it; others saw it and weren't too pleased. After what seemed like a year, I gave it a try and enjoyed it. It's hardly an Oscar contender, but it's not what I'd call bad either. I'd discussed this movie with some of my friends who had seen it, and I came to the conclusion that it was a good idea hindered by lousy execution. They all agreed with me. And even if you don't know the characters, you can always look them up later and/or read the books from where they come. This may not be the best movie, but I'll bet it makes youngsters interested in the classic novels of the Victorian era. LXG may not be for young children, but it's still interesting. Right before I saw the movie, I'd read the comic book. They both have their pros and cons, but in some ways I liked the movie because there was more action.All in all, I liked the idea of these different classic novel characters coming together to fight a common foe, but the way it was carried out just didn't click. Who knows, maybe we'll get a reboot or a TV show. That would probably do more justice. Still, LXG wasn't as bad as I thought it was. I don't think it's weird that I'd like to watch it more than once. And for that, I got the digital home video disc.

Since its initial release, The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen has been a film with a less than stellar reputation. Receiving mixed to negative reviews upon release, it has been seen as a poor adaptation of Alan Moore's graphic novel as well as the final cinema appearance of Sean Connery. Yet looking at the film both then and now would suggest that there's more to the film than meets the eye and that it might, in fact be better than its reputation may suggest.Let's be honest up front though: this is a film with issues. If you've read the graphic novel you'll likely spot pretty quickly that the film bares only the faintest resemblance to it. Many of the characters are present within it pages but many of the incidents portrayed in the film most certainly are not. So if you're going into this expecting a faithful adaptation of Moore's graphic novel, you're in for a disappointment.The film has other issues as well. The quality of the special effects are variable from excellent (in the case of invisible man Rodney Skinner or the Jekyll/Hyde transformations) to middling (which is essentially anywhere CGI is used). Indeed the CGI used in the film looks iffy in places even by 2003 standards with it being very obvious when a CGI version of Hyde is appearing versus a more convincing prosthetic. Perhaps nothing though has come in for more criticism than the script. The late critic Robert Ebert cited the script for featuring "incomprehensible action, idiotic dialogue, inexplicable motivations, causes without effects, effects without causes, and general lunacy." He's not wrong in some places with the plot for the first half or so of the film suffering from exactly that (especially towards the middle of the film as revelations pile up and one wonders why characters have done certain things). It's not a perfect script by any means but I think Ebert did it something of a disservice. Plain and simple, this is an action film. It's interesting to watch today because really this is The Avengers in Victorian times. It's a film about a team of extraordinary individuals being brought together to fight a larger threat, the friction between them, betrayals, romances and plenty of action. The film even turns Jekyll/Hyde into Bruce Banner/The Hulk! It's a Victorian superhero movie and quite an effective one.The film's action sequences can be quite effective. The various fist-fights are all well staged while the film also features a range of other action set-pieces including chases through Paris and Venice and a running series of sequences towards the end of the film. In a way it's a shame that the film's plot isn't stronger to show off the action sequences better with the various sequences having to effectively hold up the poor structure of the film.Move past the sometimes iffy CGI used and the sets and costumes are also quite effective. Both bring not so much the proper Victorian aesthetic but what can be termed as steampunk. It's a slightly more high-tech version of that era but one that is visually appealing and which makes some of the film's events a bit more plausible. From a steampunk point of view, the film is a showcase for what the genre can do on the cinema screen.Of course there's the performances as well. The role of Allan Quatermain would be Connery's last but all things considered he could have done far worse as here is a man in his seventies holding his own with actors a fraction of his age. Connery's presence (both literally and figuratively) anchors the film nicely and Connery not only gets to show off his action chops but play both a team leader and a father figure as well. It's also Connery's skill for throwing away one- liners than makes some of the film's comedic lines work well. What is on showcase here might not so much be Connery the actor but Connery the action star in his last hurrah.The rest of the cast does pretty well given the script they're handed. Tony Curran's Rodney Skinner probably comes off the best out of the cast, playing up the comedy of the invisible man role and becomes a scene-stealer in the process. Peta Wilson's Mina Harker is the only major female role in the film and she becomes a fine foil for Connery's Quartermain as well as an effective presence in the film. Shane West makes for an effective Dorian Gray, playing up the cockiness and amoral elements of Oscar Wilde's most famous character. Both Naseeruddin Shah as Captain Nemo and Jason Flemyng as Jekyll/Hyde are underused though the film touches upon interesting elements of each character that never quite get explored in full (indeed there's a scene between them that feels as if it will that seems to be missing a large chunk out of it). Rounding out the League is the aforementioned Tom Sawyer played by Shane West who is mentored by Connery's Quatermain and is actually an interesting addition as the youngest and perhaps most reckless member of the team. The team then is quite well assembled all things considered with Richard Roxburgh rounding off the cast is an interesting role that is ill-written at times but that he does quite well with.As a film then, The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen isn't a masterpiece. It has issues with its script and production values to be sure but it is far from the disastrous film its reputation suggests (indeed it actually made money at the box-office believe it or not). It's a fun steampunk superhero movie that sees an icon in one last hurrah playing the kind of role he is best known for. As that kind of film, it's an utter joy to watch and one that's a great way of passing a rainy afternoon. So give it a go and enjoy it for what it is.

(Credit IMDb) In an alternate Victorian Age world, a group of famous contemporary fantasy, SF and adventure characters team up on a secret mission.What a disappointment this was! Maybe it wouldn't be known as the colossal failure that it was if this wasn't Connery's last movie before he retired. That being said, it was pretty awful. I can't recall one action scene that truly stood out! It looks great, but you would think a movie with these types of classic characters would be a lot better than it was. Sadly that was not the case what so ever. Sean Connery looks partly embarrassed to be in this film and I don't blame him. He was far from horrible, but he's been a lot better. I honestly don't remember that much about this movie. What I can say is that it was a painful experience! Connery deserved better. 3/10