Saw League of Extraordinary Gentlemen yesterday. My, my. It really sucked. I mean, I had heard before it was supposed to be a bomb but I had heard nothing concrete why. OK. Let me detail my thoughts:

First, a disclaimer: It's not that I don't like mindless action movies and movies made out of comics. No sirree. I enjoy those like the next comic book geek, thankyouverymuch. So don't take my comments in the vein of: Oh, she only watches independent French films. No, I don't.

What is it about? Basically it's about a team of Victorian era superheroes in London made up out of various literary figures, e.g. Alan Quatermain, Captain Nemo etc. They battle some sort of supervillain. So far, so good. It's derived from a graphic novel series by Alan Moore (who also did From Hell, the Jack the Ripper thing which was also made into a movie starring Johnny Depp, by the way).

And let me start here: What I absolutely hate is a film that butchers its source material. And the sad thing is: Even though I've never actually read the source material, I could tell it was being butchered. That should show you how bad it was. Let me try describing the feeling ... it's when you watch something and you have the fleeting impression of how the original comic would look like, but it's badly done and just plain ridiculous in the movie? That's how this film was. Let me quote Cyclops from X-Men here: "What did you expect, yellow spandex?" Meaning what looks good in a comic might not necessarily look good in a movie.

On the other hand, they added lots of superfluous things. For example, there's all these British figures and suddenly you have Tom Sawyer turn up, sticking out like a sore thumb and you think: Huh??? When I researched the film afterwards, it became clear why: He wasn't there in the source material. Then why inflict him on us? As I said, if even I can tell what was put in the movie afterwards, it's baaaaad.

Now on to the movie itself. I have to admit I stopped watching it after the first half hour or so or I would have died of boredom. That, and the "tone" of the movie is dark, somber and lackluster (=Victorian era!!!). I compare this to Reign of Fire where the lack of colour also got on your nerves.

Then there's the action scenes. They were cut by somebody with ADD obviously. Somebody with ADD and a squint, because there's just scenes flickering past your eye with no possibility to see what exactly is happening or who's shooting who. Lots of 'splosions and machine gun fire, people running about and meleeing, and each action scene takes forever. Plus, they're really unbelievable. I mean, Sean Connery's probably rather nimble for his age, having been trained as James Bond and all, but can he outrun five men with machine guns? This movie claims he can. Ahem.

Maybe the dialogue makes it worth watching, you say? Think again. Absolutely cringe-inducing. Again, bear in mind I have not read the original. But it seems to me that it contains a lot of witty word-play, in-jokes about the literary origin of its characters...because here you get the witty one-liners smacked into your face wham-bam oh so NOT subtle. "Call me Ishmael" might be funny if delivered in an offhand manner, but not if you almost hear the rimshot in the back of your mind. I've still got goosebumps (and not in a good way) about the scene where one of the bad guys stands there with his machine gun (with which he hasn't been able to hit the broad side of a barn so far) and calls to Captain Nemo to "draw his pistol" (Why? you say, I have no idea, I reply). Captain Nemo then declares that he, alas and alack (Victorian era dialogue!!!) does not own such a contraption but prefers to fight with his sword and then proceeds to kill the guy with the machine gun. With his sword. Mhm.

OK, you say. But I've heard the CGI is amazing. To which I reply alas and alack (help, I've been infected by the Victorian virus) no it isn't. While I can kind of live with the set design (as I said it at least manages to remind you of the comic now and then), there is CGI that is awful, awful, awful. Not the "obvious" CGI (for example Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde are done OK), but the "background" CGI. Meaning that when they go to collect Sean Connery at his house in Africa, the house screams: Look at me, I'm not real!!!! about as loud as a couple of teenagers when Justin Timberlake hops out of his limo and dances around in front of them. Naked. (Male AND female, just different sorts of screams, by the way :).

The direction? Sean Connery gets to chew the scenery like he alwaysh doesh. Camera angles are rather inexplicably bad or predictable (people are talking in front of said CGI house for what seems ages while the house, not them, is in the middle of the picture - guess what? House explodes. Gasp, shock, horror. Unnecessary dialogue is drawn out until you're ready to shoot the screenwriter. Character exposition? Maybe I missed it. What's the bad guy's plan? To sink Venice. Uh...yeah...what's his next plan? Freeze Alaska? Make a desert out of Death Valley? Infest Florida with alligators?

Enough said. Save yourself the money and don't see it, it's not even mindless fun. (Don't do what I did and see Bruce Almighty instead, but that's a different story and shall be told another time.)