A Liga Extraordinária

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.

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.

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

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 get why this movie bombed back in 2003. It would have been hard to understand what was this movie's idea. Is it a Connery badass movie? Is it a group effort? And what about all the adventure stuff laced in between? And wait, fantasy with a little fiction laced in there?

But watching it today, after we've all been educated by the Marvel Cinematic Universe, The Umbrella Academy, The Boys, and more, this movie makes sense. It's unfortunate that in this sense the movie came out at the wrong time.

Because 20 years later, after all we know and love in current movies, this movie fits very well. Sure, some elements are dated, they didn't quite know how to define a "universe", and the VFX leaves a lot to be desired, so it wouldn't have been made just as it is today. But overall, I found it enjoyable.

I would watch a reboot if they keep the same spirit, but now there's the reverse problem - it could arrive too late to the party.