The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen - 7/13/03

Written by: Alan Moore & Kevin O'Neill (comic book), James Robinson (screenplay)

Starring: Sean Connery, Naseeruddin Shah, Peta Wilson, Tony Curran, Stuart Townsend, Shane West, Jason Flemyng

Official Site

Hmmm... I'm not sure where to start this review. Ok, I know where...

This is the second comic book from Alan Moore to grace the screen. From Hell (with Eddie Campbell) was the first... an enormous undertaking by two brothers who had no right directing something this/that ambitious. From hell is larger and denser (in its way) than Watchmen... the ill-fated 12 issue series from 1986 (illustrated by Dave Gibbons) that has been in development hell ever since its inception. Terry Gilliam, the only person in my mind, who could possibly do the story justice... well, I just don't think it's going to happen.

Here is the script for Watchmen, for those interested in what could have been...

For those of you who are unfamiliar to Alan Moore's work... you should really do yourself a favor and pick up some of his work. Any decent comic shop will have the collected works of his stories. Watchmen, LXG, Captain Britain, From Hell, V for Vendetta... not to mention his Swamp Thing and Miracleman work. The man is by far one of the most prolific story writers in the industry, and can easily be compared to Philip K. Dick, who dominated the science fiction field until his death in 1982.

So... we're given From Hell, first... and as you can read from my review, I was less than thrilled. Having seen it on cable recently (and having re-read the work), I can't help but continue to be disappointed by the Hollywood version that was churned out, instead of the intelligent story that took ten years to complete.

Well, the same can be said for LXG. Whose responsibility it was to change the characters, change their origins, and change their interaction with each other is beyond me, but I can say that James Robinson (who, I'm guessing, got this job because of his last script Comic Book Villians... jesus christ) did a terrible job of adapting this comic book.

Yes, there were characters that just couldn't be ruined, like Captain Nemo and Mina Harker and Rodney Skinner (whose character, due to rights issues, the Invisible Man had been changed from Dr. Hawley Griffin)... all of these character proved to be likeable. Even Quatermain... though his character is well developed in the comic, was likeable but not believable.

I was not impressed with Dorian Gray, nor Tom Sawyer (who was ridiculously added to the film because they thought they needed an American, for God Sake...)... and I thought that, initially, the Jekyll and Hyde character was perfect... until he changed near the conclusion, destroying what character development had initially been structured.

A lot of the dialog was well done, with little twinges of Hollywood cliche thrown in for some apparant reason. But the story was quite ordinary, and formulaic. I don't understand why writers continue to butcher their source material in such a way that when the credits read 'based on...', they should just read 'inspired by...'. I found the same problem when it came to last years Minority Report in which the original short story was butchered, and wasn't a P.K. Dick story any longer, but a Steven Spielberg trainwreck.

One thing I will say about this film is that the production was incredible. You can see, very clearly, where all the money went in this film. The Nautilus alone was worth seeing on the big screen... I was very impressed with Nemo and his ship. He was, in fact, the highlight of the film for me. Everything else was not as bright.

This was the second film I can remember (in the last few years) where there was open hostility between the director and one of the actors. The first was Mission: Impossible II, where a primadonna Tom Cruise wanted to make himself look even more like a plastic cut-out, instead of letting John Woo direct him and the film. Well, from what I've heard, Sean Connery was none to happy about working for the supposed mad-man that was director Stephen Norrington. I guess that we're seeing a pattern in movies that fall severly short where there are two warring factions of talent.

Norrington did a tremendous job with the first Blade film. I was thoroughly entertained with that picture, and was eagerly awaiting his next project. When I heard it would be this film, with Connery cast as the lead, I was very excited. And then, I started to hear bad things...

I, unfortunately, missed his last film, The Last Minute. But, this film should be catagorized as such: Bad script, bad story, decent looking, ok acting, great production. I can't say for certain what part Norrington was responsible for... so let's hope that his next feature, Tick-Tock, will prove to be a more solid film (though it does have Jennifer Lopez starring in it, so there's a strike against it already).

One of the things you will notice is the editing. Now, Connery is pushing 74, and does not have the fighting abilities he had when younger... well, I thought I was going to go into seizures watching this picture, at some points. Flashy MTV editing went out a few years ago... but it seems to have been necessary here. Its just something to add to the weak nature of this film. Paul Rubell, editor of Norrington's Blade, along with XXX, The Cell and S1m0ne... what, was he doing what he was told? Was he working with what he had? I couldn't tell you... but its a shame that we can't see action scenes unfold naturally, not pieced together to create blinding spectacles of... something.

I would not recommend seeing this film in the theaters, although it does deserve a rental, for some of the action, the sets and the Nautilus.