Oprah's Book Club, the Early YearsThis month Empire Magazine (AU) devoted 7 pages to the film "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen". It's a flashback to sort of examine what went wrong between Connery and the director, Stephen Norrington. It got me thinking, if Empire would do a 7 page article on this film 5 years after it made it to the big screen coupled with the fact that everywhere that sells DVD's always seems to have copies, is this movie really that bad?
Last night I heard a shout from the toilet (excellent place to read any magazine, as I'm sure you are aware) of "BUT I really LIKED League of Extrordinary Gentleman"! I had to agree.
The film is based on a comic of the same name (there's a story there) and a really damn good idea. It's like a Marvel cross-over, but this time it's literary characters instead of Superheroes. I'm now dangerously close to plagiarizing the Empire article, so I'll interject here and say just read the damn magazine. The article is great.
What I wanted to highlight is, League doesn't suck, though one of my bloggers Blake may disagree. The sets were beautiful, the action was quick, acting:check and the story was highly entertaining. It certainly wasn't the best blockbuster I've seen but I would say it's up there. You can't take much of my advice, however, as I do retain a special edition DVD of Van Helsing. (Ok, that was fun too, admit it)
Let's face it, League was ridiculous but how much more so than a ring of power, or a human spider? The movies are ridiculous, but we love them because they're entertaining. I say, don't be so harsh on League. It's an adventure, a fantasty, and in that respect it works. Sure it's schlock, but honestly, that can be the best kind of fun.
The League of Extraordinary Gentleman is at least a 3/5 and will definitely be a welcome addition to my progressive DVD collection.
2 comments:
I thought the LXG was fun for about half an hour, then progressively became more and more ridiculous. How the hell did it fit under the bridges of Venice. And a CAR CHASE in Venice? That doesn't seem strange to anyone?
All that, and the site of a 75 year old Connery fighting dudes a quarter of his age just looked a little ridiculous. But you're right, it's not bad enough to deserve the 'worst movie ever' tagline. The same thing happened to Gigli, and that wasn't even the worst movie of 2003.
I know it was supposed to be in Venice but it was filmed in Prague. Car chase = movie magic. Brandon Routh can't fly you know! Plus, Connery was supposed to be a superhero of sorts so it made sense he was able to still fight. It didn't seem too silly to me, maybe a couple of scenes.
I do see what you're saying, but my point was that a lot of other movies are waaaay more ridiculous but people seem to not have a problem with those. It annoys me! lol
Post a Comment