Garp
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,104
- Reaction score
- 180
- Trophy Points
- 68
BONUS: 'The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen' [2003]
Taking a break from mummies for a moment, I'm revisiting some Dracula-themed films with 2003's steampunk-ish 'League of Extraordinary Gentlemen'. Admittedly, the Dracula connection is indirect, featuring Mina Harker in an ensemble role, but still. The film is based on Alan Moore's graphic novel and a number of literary figures brought to life. CGI mayhem ensues.
I don't think I ever read the entire novel, but I can't believe it's anything like this. Plotwise, this film is a disaster. The heroes and the villain meet far too early and the motivation for his actions are ridiculous at best. There are two twists that happen almost simultaneously, lessening the impact for both. There are long stretches put there to add some meat to these characters, but it doesn't work. In fairness, the writers were struggling to find their audience, I think. Jekyll & Hyde need no introduction for most people, but Dorian Gray? Mina Harker? Allan Quartermain? The writers gamely try to add their backstory but it's as hamfisted as the rest of the script.
The dialogue is appalling here. Even Connery - no stranger to the out-of-place bon mot after an action scene - must have wrinkled his nose at some of the quips. "Where are we going, Australia?" he says as he is led down a seemingly never-ending staircase. When one character declares, "Pack for an English summer," you know damn well the next scene will be a rainy London landscape. And Connery all but winks at the camera when he is introduced to his superior by the name of M...
The CGI is acceptable, although they couldn't portray fire or water convincingly in 2003, apparently. The invisible man is visible more than not, and in the cheapest, worst looking way possible. Also, note to the director: explosions are no substitute for story. When characters aren't fighting each other, something is blowing up somewhere. If whizz-bang is your thing, you've found your holy grail. The film ends with yet another literary reference, but by this stage I can't see many people caring.
There's usually something enjoyable to be had in a big, dumb movie sometimes, but I struggled to find it in this one. The concept is a good one (and done so well in, say, 'Penny Dreadful') but it fails here. There's no doubt a better story to be told with these characters, and I expect I would find it between the covers of a book.
Taking a break from mummies for a moment, I'm revisiting some Dracula-themed films with 2003's steampunk-ish 'League of Extraordinary Gentlemen'. Admittedly, the Dracula connection is indirect, featuring Mina Harker in an ensemble role, but still. The film is based on Alan Moore's graphic novel and a number of literary figures brought to life. CGI mayhem ensues.
I don't think I ever read the entire novel, but I can't believe it's anything like this. Plotwise, this film is a disaster. The heroes and the villain meet far too early and the motivation for his actions are ridiculous at best. There are two twists that happen almost simultaneously, lessening the impact for both. There are long stretches put there to add some meat to these characters, but it doesn't work. In fairness, the writers were struggling to find their audience, I think. Jekyll & Hyde need no introduction for most people, but Dorian Gray? Mina Harker? Allan Quartermain? The writers gamely try to add their backstory but it's as hamfisted as the rest of the script.
The dialogue is appalling here. Even Connery - no stranger to the out-of-place bon mot after an action scene - must have wrinkled his nose at some of the quips. "Where are we going, Australia?" he says as he is led down a seemingly never-ending staircase. When one character declares, "Pack for an English summer," you know damn well the next scene will be a rainy London landscape. And Connery all but winks at the camera when he is introduced to his superior by the name of M...
The CGI is acceptable, although they couldn't portray fire or water convincingly in 2003, apparently. The invisible man is visible more than not, and in the cheapest, worst looking way possible. Also, note to the director: explosions are no substitute for story. When characters aren't fighting each other, something is blowing up somewhere. If whizz-bang is your thing, you've found your holy grail. The film ends with yet another literary reference, but by this stage I can't see many people caring.
There's usually something enjoyable to be had in a big, dumb movie sometimes, but I struggled to find it in this one. The concept is a good one (and done so well in, say, 'Penny Dreadful') but it fails here. There's no doubt a better story to be told with these characters, and I expect I would find it between the covers of a book.