La Ligue des gentlemen extraordinaires
Original title: The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
- 2003
- Tous publics
- 1h 50m
In an alternate Victorian Age world, a group of famous contemporary fantasy, science fiction, and adventure characters team up on a secret mission.In an alternate Victorian Age world, a group of famous contemporary fantasy, science fiction, and adventure characters team up on a secret mission.In an alternate Victorian Age world, a group of famous contemporary fantasy, science fiction, and adventure characters team up on a secret mission.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Awards
- 12 nominations total
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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 found this movie wonderfully predictable. To most people that may not make sense, but I have read most of the books that these characters were taken from. While there were major differences between the characters and the books they were taken from, for the most part it was like seeing old friends, i knew what the various characters would do becuase they kept the proper personalities. I even figured out who the villian was because I noticed one of the major works of victorian literature that was missing from the movie. And you do not need to have read all of these books to understand the movie, but there is a bit of a lack of character developement that you may find, but my friends who hadn't done the reading also enjoyed the movie.
It has great visual effects, some really good action sequences, and a really nice looking car.
Oh if you know anything about these characters and other victorian books, see if you can catch the little references they toss. I recomend this movie for someone who wants a good adventure movie.
It has great visual effects, some really good action sequences, and a really nice looking car.
Oh if you know anything about these characters and other victorian books, see if you can catch the little references they toss. I recomend this movie for someone who wants a good adventure movie.
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.)
One of the biggest complaints people seem to make about movies is it's unbelievability. I am a huge movie buff, and I can't help but to critique a movie while I am watching it. Now if I am watching a movie that is supposed to be based on a true story or is meant to depict real situations.. or really anything that is meant to be taken seriously, I will be very picky about details and how it was done. However, I understand that there are movies that are made strictly to be fun. L.O.E.G. is not Schindler's List, it is meant to be entertaining.. (eye candy as some would put it), so to say that you didn't like it because the plot or simply the things they did or had were unbelievable seems very strange to me considering that it is based on some of the most unbelievable but well liked fictional characters we have known. So it is believable that an invisible man, a vampire, a man that can suddenly change physical form to become a giant beast joining forces with a few other people included is believable,... but giving them extraordinary technology and putting them in extraordinary situations is going to far? If you don't like these kind of movies then don't watch them.... I however do enjoy watching movies with cool special effects, as well as the more serious and artistic films. The movie delivered what it was meant to deliver, and that is some very stunning visuals,... come on really,.. what did you expect? League is a fun movie to watch, it's not going to be nominated for Best Picture or anything like that, but if your looking to escape reality and experience a quite stunning fantasy world with some pretty cool characters then you might rent it. Not too bad.
For those of you who agree with me in that your main stream critics are basically worthless, a person with a thing called "imagination" is required.
I had my reservations about this film from the beginning. Was this going to be another Highland part III?
But to my astonishment this movie turned about to be great. Here are a group of characters who you would never see together. These characters have a well defined existence in the root of many of our classic novels and such.
Each of them at-odds with own demons, yet working together for a common good.
I recommend this to any body who has imagination and who doesn't "literally" take a movies premise word for word from its original reference.
I had my reservations about this film from the beginning. Was this going to be another Highland part III?
But to my astonishment this movie turned about to be great. Here are a group of characters who you would never see together. These characters have a well defined existence in the root of many of our classic novels and such.
Each of them at-odds with own demons, yet working together for a common good.
I recommend this to any body who has imagination and who doesn't "literally" take a movies premise word for word from its original reference.
Did you know
- TriviaAt 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."
- GoofsNemo 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.
- Quotes
Mina Harker: You're sweet... and you're young. Neither are traits that I hold in high regard.
- Crazy creditsThe 20th Century Fox logo fades into a sign on the London skyline.
- Alternate versionsFor the Swedish release, approximately 33 seconds were cut from various violent scenes in order to receive an 11 certification.
- ConnectionsEdited into 2003 MLB All-Star Game (2003)
- SoundtracksSon of Africa
Score lyrics written by Joseph Shabalala
Score vocal performance by Ladysmith Black Mambazo
Ladysmith Black Mambazo appears courtesy of Gallo Records Company
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Languages
- Also known as
- La liga extraordinaria
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $78,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $66,465,204
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $23,075,892
- Jul 13, 2003
- Gross worldwide
- $179,265,204
- Runtime
- 1h 50m(110 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.39 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content