The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen Reviews

Page 1 of 718
February 2, 2017
It's good movie to watch
½ December 28, 2016
12/28/2016: Very disappointing. This is one movie that could use a remake. Some of the special effects were good, but the story was pretty bad and made the whole movie feel like a cheesy syfy flick.
½ December 24, 2016
Fun film and carefree coarse with special effects, or too obvious, direct from a static Stephen Norrington, capable of creating an all-British Group and an American intruder
October 11, 2016
Sean Connery is the man but this was terrible. Corny, boring and stupid.
August 21, 2016
A fun throwback action pic.
August 15, 2016
They all freeload off the rich Raja's cars and boats. The bad guys guns are obvious AK-47s covered with rediculous mockup furniature.. pfx fail.
Great movie to make fun of.
½ August 10, 2016
Well its no averagers ( marvel version not British version) but it's a good film even if the comic came out in the late 90's and this came out 4 yrs later it still is ok in my book even if a lot of people hate this there r some people like me that do like this, besides there is 2 generas called "cult movies" and "it's so bad it's good movies" think about that.
July 7, 2016
I know it is a really flawed movie, but i still like it. I rarely would say this, but i think this movie needs a reboot. It is a great premise, and if it were to be made right it could be a really good movie.
July 3, 2016
Despite its inherent creepiness, the comic series is definitely the superior version in this case as the movie is clearly attempting to sex up a sound idea. The charm of the original idea is that the group can work with the technology of the day - conversely, the movie bringing in items like the hotrod car tells us that the era was lacking and its heroes aren't enough, when they certainly were for the readers of the day. Connery's Quatermain is more effectual than the comic version and Wilson's Harker is more assured (both of these sadly lose their vulnerability and hence audience relatability), and Curran's Invisible Man is thankfully not at all the disgusting rapist he is in the original. West's Sawyer is a neat addition and makes for a good way in for the audience as the burgeoning protagonist he could have been had the series continued. Townsend's Gray gives a nice tilt as the inside antagonist too. And Roxburgh is, of course, a standout.
July 2, 2016
I find the reviews a little insulting. Stunning visuals and frankly a great collection of characters. I found the film fun!
½ June 24, 2016
Not bad, but It could have been a whole lot better.
May 29, 2016
Even though I could tell it was pretty cobbled-together and all over the place, fictional character crossovers are always entertaining for me, so I can't completely hate it.
May 27, 2016
This movie isn't so bad that it is good, but it is a solid guilty pleasure. I really get a kick out of the film portraying Tom Sawyer in his mid-20s when he would have actually been in his sixties in 1899.
May 8, 2016
Very underrated. Nice visuals, nice premise, enjoyable story, good actors.
½ April 22, 2016
Had not watched this one since it first came out. It has not gotten any better with time!
April 5, 2016
Starts off interesting, then just gets worse and worse and worse.
½ March 31, 2016
Just watched this film on DVD and it was the most terrible looking film i have seen to date. It has graphics like I was on the ps2 some of the characters i didn't care for and there was no excitement whats so ever the action was boring. The take on Dr. Jekyll and Hyde was the worst thing i have ever seen they made Hyde into a big massive creature when in the book he was small and had a limp, I was thinking through this hole thing Hyde would not make a deal with these people I think he would go on a rampage because in the books he was short tempered and in this he feels like the incredible hulk, did they even read the book? cause they would know Hyde would be dead by then because Jekyll would of felt guilt over the actions Hyde made and also to stop Hyde from killing so he had to kill him self not move to France. I feel like there was a meeting for the film like this Paul: "hey we need more money what can we make for cheap and get us loads of money,", Jerry:" I know there is this comic book-" Paul:" say no more add a vampire who is a women cause that's bad ass and sexy, Sean Connery cause hes cool a american so the Americans can relate and the invisible man and other filler characters." This was made by people who just wanted a pay check
½ March 29, 2016
I think it's a guilty pleasure of mine.
½ February 20, 2016
- Watched for the 2nd time. Though not a great film, i found it enjoyable enough, probably as I recall all the reviews slamming it so was pleasantly surprised. This is one film I'd like to see remade by a better director, with today's Special Effects, and a new cast as the premise is great, and it's based on an Alan Moore graphic novel. Keep an open mind and give a try.

- I was really pleasantly surprised by this one. I had put it off for years and had really low expectations, but always loved the concept and wanted to try it. The movie is obviously flawed as you'd expect from a big summer type movie, but it is a lot of fun with some decent performances and I enjoyed the effects, definitely better than Van Helsing. If you go into this with no expectations and just want some mindless entertainment, this will do the trick.
½ February 14, 2016
Il film di per sť potrebbe anche essere carino, ma certe volte gli effetti speciali sono orribilianti. Sean Connery un po' sacrificato.
Page 1 of 718