La Ligue des gentlemen extraordinaires
Titre original : The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
- 2003
- Tous publics
- 1h 50min
Dans une ère victorienne alternative, des personnages contemporains de fantaisie et de science-fiction s'unissent pour une mission secrète.Dans une ère victorienne alternative, des personnages contemporains de fantaisie et de science-fiction s'unissent pour une mission secrète.Dans une ère victorienne alternative, des personnages contemporains de fantaisie et de science-fiction s'unissent pour une mission secrète.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 12 nominations au total
Avis à la une
This is a really good film. I went to see it not knowing many of the details. I really enjoyed it. I believe that in order to appreciate this film, you need to have an open mind and not take it so literaly. I've read reviews of it in which the authors claim that not of the characters, or cars, or Nemos Sub, could work like they did. WELL DUH! It is a movie based on a comic book. It naturally wouldn't be for real. I wonder what these people take us for. The other great thing about this movie is the characters. Some reviews stated that people wouldn't understand this movie because the characters are not that new. That they've been around for a while and no one will remember them. The only two characters that I didn't know were Allan Quatermain and Dorian Gray. But I would like to know more about them. So that in itself is good. It makes you want to know more about the characters. Bottom line... It is a really great film. Go see it with an open mind, and not take everything so literaly. You may find that you enjoy it. Don't trust all the bad reviews. You should see for yourself. LXG is a really good film
Having been critically panned by both film critics and fans of the original comic book version, you'd be forgiven for thinking that the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (which is hardly a league of "Gentlemen" considering the presence of a female character) was absolute rubbish. However, despite the flagrant misuse of characters established in classic Literature (Dracula, The Picture of Dorian Gray, The Invisible Man, Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea and especially The Adventures of Tom Sawyer) there is an essentially a massively fun film to be found, made all the more enjoyable if you disengage your brain and just don't question the ridiculous goings on of the alternate Victorian universe the film is set in.
So in conclusion, if a night of brainless action adventure fun is what you'r after, then the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is sufficiently enjoyable material.
So in conclusion, if a night of brainless action adventure fun is what you'r after, then the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is sufficiently enjoyable material.
I enjoyed this movie despite its various flaws and lack of depth. It reminded me of old adventure movies when I was a boy, with exotic locales and characters, and lots of dramatic fights and adventure. In that way the movie was strangely nostalgic for me. That being said, a movie didn't need much sophistication or depth to capture my imagination when I was a boy, so take that as you will (it probably doesn't take much even now!)
I liked Sean Connery very much in this movie, it was a tall feat for him to stand out and not to get completely overwhelmed by all the CGI and action sequences (I would really like to see him in an action movie that is actually worthy of his participation!) I also liked the art/production design of the movie, with its sort-of-alternate history 1800's look. Even though there is too much of it, the CGI is not too bad either, with many large and ominous looking locales. It didn't bother me that Tom Sawyer was a character in this movie, this was the sort of movie where a little 'goofiness' like that fits right in anyways.
I didn't read the graphic novel, but if I had I might have been disappointed at the failure of the movie to really live up to the promise of its source material (judging by how many reviewers here talk about it.)
I liked Sean Connery very much in this movie, it was a tall feat for him to stand out and not to get completely overwhelmed by all the CGI and action sequences (I would really like to see him in an action movie that is actually worthy of his participation!) I also liked the art/production design of the movie, with its sort-of-alternate history 1800's look. Even though there is too much of it, the CGI is not too bad either, with many large and ominous looking locales. It didn't bother me that Tom Sawyer was a character in this movie, this was the sort of movie where a little 'goofiness' like that fits right in anyways.
I didn't read the graphic novel, but if I had I might have been disappointed at the failure of the movie to really live up to the promise of its source material (judging by how many reviewers here talk about it.)
I've been reading the comments page in a somewhat bemused fashion. It seems to be divided between people who don't like the movie because it's not enough like the original graphic novel and people who don't like it because they've never heard of half of the characters that are members of the League. The latter seems to me to be an unutterably silly reason for disliking a film. Does nobody read the classics anymore? Nobody reads Oscar Wilde, Bram Stoker, Robert Louis Stevenson, Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle? I find that difficult to believe. As to the former--not enough like the graphic novel, in other words--just how in the heck can a screenwriter accommodate the dark and twisted visions of Alan Moore in a two-hour Hollywood movie, anyway?
I don't believe that one can compare anything written by Alan Moore to what ends up on the screen being ostensibly "based on the graphic novel". (The same applies to FROM HELL, which is another one most people pan, and one which I think is under-appreciated even though the style is breathtaking. I don't even want to think about the reaction that will ensue once THE WATCHMEN comes out!)
What seems to have been missed by most people is that this movie is about style as opposed to substance. It's based on a graphic novel. That's a fancy way of saying it's based on a comic book. On that level, the film succeeds admirably. The characters are archetypes of their literary forbears. They aren't supposed to be, strictly speaking, human. Of course the plot is grandiose, impractical, and over-the-top. Hello? Aren't most comic books like that? Good heavens, isn't most of STAR WARS?
I don't claim that this is a masterpiece. I do claim that's it's fun to watch if one approaches it with a willing suspension of disbelief. For a couple of bucks shelled out at the DVD rental shop, it takes one to a different world for close to two hours. On that level, it's worth a rental. It's also worth a rental, once one watches the movie, to listen to the commentary from various actors and to realize just how well these so-called "unknowns" do assorted accents that aren't even close to their own. Plus the golfing anecdotes are amusing. (And I don't even like golfing.)
This ain't CASABLANCA. Nor is it TITANIC, for which I eternally thank the gods. (Now, THERE was an overhyped piece of inaccurate trash that pretended to be history, but I digress.) But it's kind of fun, anyway, as long as one doesn't take it too seriously.
I don't believe that one can compare anything written by Alan Moore to what ends up on the screen being ostensibly "based on the graphic novel". (The same applies to FROM HELL, which is another one most people pan, and one which I think is under-appreciated even though the style is breathtaking. I don't even want to think about the reaction that will ensue once THE WATCHMEN comes out!)
What seems to have been missed by most people is that this movie is about style as opposed to substance. It's based on a graphic novel. That's a fancy way of saying it's based on a comic book. On that level, the film succeeds admirably. The characters are archetypes of their literary forbears. They aren't supposed to be, strictly speaking, human. Of course the plot is grandiose, impractical, and over-the-top. Hello? Aren't most comic books like that? Good heavens, isn't most of STAR WARS?
I don't claim that this is a masterpiece. I do claim that's it's fun to watch if one approaches it with a willing suspension of disbelief. For a couple of bucks shelled out at the DVD rental shop, it takes one to a different world for close to two hours. On that level, it's worth a rental. It's also worth a rental, once one watches the movie, to listen to the commentary from various actors and to realize just how well these so-called "unknowns" do assorted accents that aren't even close to their own. Plus the golfing anecdotes are amusing. (And I don't even like golfing.)
This ain't CASABLANCA. Nor is it TITANIC, for which I eternally thank the gods. (Now, THERE was an overhyped piece of inaccurate trash that pretended to be history, but I digress.) But it's kind of fun, anyway, as long as one doesn't take it too seriously.
I was very pleased with this movie. There are some who have claimed that those who enjoy this film have a low IQ. I see no reason why a person can't have a high IQ and enjoy an imaginative and fun film. For years I have enjoyed the works of Doyle, Wilde, Stevenson, Stoker, Twain, Haggard, Wells, Poe, and Verne. I went into this film hoping it would do their characters justice. It did. Some prefer the "original" versions of these characters by Alan Moore. I prefer the way they were written by their creators. The characters are closer to their literary selves in the film version than in the comic book. I was very happy about that. I grew up with these characters and they played a huge part in my childhood fantasy life. Other girls may have pretended to be Wonder Woman, but I was Captain Nemo! I was hoping that LXG captured the imaginative world that flourished in my young mind when I read all those old beloved books. LXG delivered! This is a fun escapist fantasy and all of my favorite literary characters are in great form. I had a truly wonderful time watching LXG. It's a fun adventure that requires that you bring your inner child along for the ride. My inner child loved it. I loved it too!
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesAt one point, Peta Wilson does a humourous impersonation of Sir Sean Connery's voice. According to Wilson, this was a last-minute addition to the scene, and she felt nervous doing it, since Connery impersonations were considered a no-no on the set. Before the shoot, she called Connery and offered not to do the accent, but he insisted she should. Afterwards, she asked him what he thought. He replied, "You were great!" She was taken aback and asked if he really meant it. He said, "Yeah, it's terrible! It's the worst impersonation I have ever heard, and it's perfect."
- GaffesNemo introduces his invention as an "automobile." Later in Venice, Quatermain tells Sawyer to take the "car." The word "car" (from Latin "carrum" for chariot) has been used in English to mean any wheeled vehicle since at least 1350.
- Citations
Mina Harker: You're sweet... and you're young. Neither are traits that I hold in high regard.
- Crédits fousThe 20th Century Fox logo fades into a sign on the London skyline.
- Versions alternativesFor the Swedish release, approximately 33 seconds were cut from various violent scenes in order to receive an 11 certification.
- ConnexionsEdited into 2003 MLB All-Star Game (2003)
- Bandes originalesSon of Africa
Score lyrics written by Joseph Shabalala
Score vocal performance by Ladysmith Black Mambazo
Ladysmith Black Mambazo appears courtesy of Gallo Records Company
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- La liga extraordinaria
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 78 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 66 465 204 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 23 075 892 $US
- 13 juil. 2003
- Montant brut mondial
- 179 265 204 $US
- Durée
- 1h 50min(110 min)
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant