Printable View
This movie looks amazing, and it doesn't hurt that is was directed by Steven Norrington, who did the original Blade. I picked up the comic book that this is based on yesterday, but I'm holding off on reading it until after I see the movie- I want to go into it fresh and not comparing it to the original work. Still, I love the premise, and the Victorian/modern tech style is really cool (love that car!), and Sean Connery rules. Anyway, it's out this Friday (July 11). Anyone else seeing it?
Oh yeah. I think it looks pretty good. Will probably end up seeing this over "Ass Pirates of the Caribean" this weekend...
You guys think it looks good? I think it looks terrible, but hey, thats just me. It just looks like another corny movie to me. Hope you guys enjoy it.
Yes, It does look good. Trailer shows some pretty cool action sequences, and it has a cool, dark atmosphere.
I completely forgot that Norrignton was directing it, till a week ago. Damn, its been almost forever from his last film. I hope LXG does well, and that PG13 rating doesnt hurt its action.
Sean Connery still looks great, even in his 70s. I loved him in The Rock, and hope that he gets some cool moments here as well.
I will be seeing both LXG and Pirates this Saturday.
I dont know - I think that the interaction between the characters in this movie (Invisible Man, Dr. Jekyll/Mr.Hyde, Draculas Bride, Van Helsing) could be kind of fun to watch. More so than a bunch of cliched pirates.And if they can tie it all together with some decent special effects with a good heaping of action than it could come out pretty decent.
There is no Van Hellsing in LXG.
But there is villian named Dante :p
Quote:
Originally posted by Despair
There is no Van Hellsing in LXG.
But there is villian named Dante :p
Ah shit :)
Well what is the character Sean Connery is playing?
Alan Quatermain.
Hey, it's Dolemite! 'Sup!
I knew I was going to see this movie months ago, and for one reason:
Peta Wilson. Hoo baby. Going into overload this week - Nikita Season 1 today, LXG Friday.... :D
I also like Jason Flemyng and Stewart Townsend - in fact most of the casting is pretty good. I am also a Norrington fan, so it's on.
Yeah, Dole, don't read the comic til after. They've made some pretty major changes, even just based on the little I know about the film. Who cares though - it looks like it'll be a fun time. The concept is killer.
While the premise has potential, the way I'm seeing it pulled off in the preview just about makes me wretch. I think this film will be lame at best, and a disaster at most likely. Especially the cg on the super-muscled dude...it just looks stupid to me.
For some reason, I'd be more interested in this if it wasn't such a "blockbuster," and clearly aiming for that crowd. There's something cool about those characters that expensive cg and star power seems to diminish.
Hmm, You doesnt seem to like anything ;) No BB2, No LXG , No AP.
I dont see anything wrong with CGI, and if audiences could like Hulk, Mr Hyde should be alright :p
'Sup Bio!Quote:
Originally posted by BioMechanic
Hey, it's Dolemite! 'Sup!
, don't read the comic til after. They've made some pretty major changes, even just based on the little I know about the film. Who cares though - it looks like it'll be a fun time. The concept is killer.
I've heard a little about the changes, but I'm trying to go into this movie knowing as little as possible. Still, Norrington already pulled off one great comic book movie- Blade- I think he can do it again. :)
That's what that guy was? I thought maybe he had Tetsuo-ism.
-and hey, look who's calling the kettle black. There's plenty of movies of like, they're just not being discussed currently (at least, in anticipation of their release).
Funny, this movie doesn't strike me as a "blockbuster"-type feel...it feels more quirky and unique. And what star power? Other than Connery, who's in the movie? The only actor I know of is Steward Townsend. And that car looks damn cool.Quote:
Originally posted by FuryFox
For some reason, I'd be more interested in this if it wasn't such a "blockbuster," and clearly aiming for that crowd. There's something cool about those characters that expensive cg and star power seems to diminish.
Sean ConneryQuote:
Originally posted by Dolemite
Funny, this movie doesn't strike me as a "blockbuster"-type feel...it feels more quirky and unique. And what star power? Other than Connery, who's in the movie? The only actor I know of is Steward Townsend. And that car looks damn cool.
Naseeruddin Shah
Peta Wilson
Tony Curran
Stuart Townsend
Shane West
Jason Flemyng
Richard Roxburgh
Max Ryan
Tom Goodman-Hill
David Hemmings (I)
Terry O'Neill (I)
Rudolf Pellar
Winter Ave Zoli
Robert Willox
Seemse pretty much laden to me....{well, okay, maybe not}. Maybe it's all these comic book movies that are getting to me, that are so totally geared towards mass-market appeal. The car was cool, though.
Other than Connery, and maybe(and its a big maybe) Townsend I wouldnt call it a Star ladden cast at all.
And I agree with Dolemite, that this movie looks more unique, in adventure/action way, and not as a big star blockbuster like T3 or Pirates of Caribean.
The comic from which this movie is based is amazing. I hope the film follows suit.
Norrington took a comic I didn't give a shit about, Blade, and made a good movie out of it. LoEG by Alan Moore is genius, there's no chance of Norrington coming close to the brilliance of the comic. The worst part is the over-emphasising of Quatermain (Connery). In the comic everyone is well written, and Quatermain isn't the leader, it's Miss Murray. The ads so far make it out like Norrington doesn't give a shit about the team, just Sean Connery. I hope this movie doesn't turn out like "Quatermain and his freaks save the day!". Having Tom Sawyer part of the team is just stupid, really stupid. They're Victorean heroes, for pete's sake. I'd hate to see a remake of The Alamo where a samurai shows up to help out. I really would like a good explanation as to why the villian isn't either Moriarty or Fu-Manchu, but the Phantom of the Opera(who isn't a villian, really?). I'm hoping for the best, but I'm expecting once more a work of Alan Moore will get a shitty treatment (From Hell).
Other than Connery and Townsend, I've never heard of any of these people.Quote:
Originally posted by FuryFox
Sean Connery
Naseeruddin Shah
Peta Wilson
Tony Curran
Stuart Townsend
Shane West
Jason Flemyng
Richard Roxburgh
Max Ryan
Tom Goodman-Hill
David Hemmings (I)
Terry O'Neill (I)
Rudolf Pellar
Winter Ave Zoli
Robert Willox
Pirates of Caribean, now THAT'S a movie that screams "mass market". I mean come on, it's based on a amusement park ride! Geez.Quote:
Originally posted by Despair
And I agree with Dolemite, that this movie looks more unique, in adventure/action way, and not as a big star blockbuster like T3 or Pirates of Caribean.
League looks like one of those occasional movies that are just "different", and based on that mert alone I'll check it out. Also, I love gothic victorian-themed movies...
Based on this spoiler and my afore-mentioned desire to know as little as humanly possible about this movie going into it, I think I shall request that you guys use the spoiler tags when discussing plot elements, at least until the movie is released. Once it's out, post whatever you want. Thank you. :)Quote:
Originally posted by Green
I really would like a good explanation as to why the villian isn't either Moriarty or Fu-Manchu, but the Phantom of the Opera(who isn't a villian, really?). I'm hoping for the best, but I'm expecting once more a work of Alan Moore will get a shitty treatment (From Hell).
Green, I don't expect it to follow the comic closely either - in fact, as you already know, the filmmakers have made major changes. You're probably right on with your "Quartermain & His Freaks" statement. I'm sure some of the changes were done to make a connection to American folklore so that American audiences have some sense of familiarity. Usually this kind of inconsistency really bothers me, but it's funny - going into the film I don't expect it to be anything other than a fun time. It'll be cool to see a film version, despite the changes and inevitable flaws - it certainly isn't going to be a Peter Jackson-ish stick-to-the-details translation.
What does bother me, though, is that there will undoubtedly be people who will think the comic is exactly like the film. It happened with From Hell, and it'll happen here. However, the comics speak for themselves, and there's always the chance some people will discover them and be blown away.
The movie and comic versions of From Hell couldn't possibly be less alike.
That's exactly what I mean. People who only saw the film didn't get close to the original story. I'm betting same deal for LXG.
Dont blame it on Norrigton before seeing the actual film. Its more of a marketing ploy, to emphasize the biggest star they got(in this case Sean Connery), so they build trailers and ads around Quatrmain.Quote:
Originally posted by Green
The ads so far make it out like Norrington doesn't give a shit about the team, just Sean Connery. I hope this movie doesn't turn out like "Quatermain and his freaks save the day!".
Good point, Despair. It's marketing. I'm sure the movie will be much more balanced but there's been plenty of times that advertising has made a movie look like something it's not. The Terminator 3 commercials made it look like a great deal of the movie took place in the future, but as it turns out, barely any of it at all did. :(Quote:
Originally posted by Despair
Dont blame it on Norrigton before seeing the actual film. Its more of a marketing ploy, to emphasize the biggest star they got(in this case Sean Connery), so they build trailers and ads around Quatrmain.
Besides, Norrington and Connery reportedly hated each other's guts on set and almost got into fist fights several times. :)
Actually, I'm happy the handjob wasn't in the movie. :eek:Quote:
Originally posted by BioMechanic
That's exactly what I mean. People who only saw the film didn't get close to the original story.
Sorry about the spoilers, Dolemite, but it's nothing big. You can tell who the villians are early on if you're clever enough.
No prob, Green. :) I'd probably know already but I'm trying to keep myself in the dark.
Here's a pic of Peta Wilson:
http://www.film.ru/img/persons/peta_wilson_1.jpg
Her charisma and screen presence make up for what she might lack in looks (although I think she's gorgeous). Those of you who aren't familiar with her may very well come away being impressed - hopefully she gets the screen time she deserves, and she isn't there just as window dressing.
Oh, and Jason Flemyng was Jack's coachman in From Hell - the guy with the funky ear.
I hear Connery paid quite a bit of money to help with production, so it's not surprising he wanted to square off with the director. I'm very interested in how he and Peta interact onscreen, too - they both have powerful personas.
Another reason I'm attracted to the film is the steampunkish setting - almost like Shadow Hearts. :P
I hate the word "Steampunk." Neo-Victorian sounds so much better. ;)
I just wanted to pop in and say I think this movie looks incredibly awesome, and will be seeing it Friday no matter who might try to stop me.
A couple months ago I applied for a job as assistant manager at a local theater that normally shows nothing but artsy movies. Because of funds and crowds, they've turned to mainstream movies these last couple weeks which has been kicked off with the horrible lineup of From Justin To Kelly, Rugrats Go Wild, and the most recent of Legally Blond 2 and Italian Job. However, when they (finally) got my (rigged) interview and hired me, I also found out that they're getting in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen on Friday, the day before I begin work! Since I now get free movies there, it all works out perfectly.
Although I now have to be subjected to Legally Blond 2. There are some fights I just can't win.
Oh, and I also think that Pirates of the Carribean looks like it should be fun. I eagerly await my chance to go.
Grats on the new job, Mech. :)
It seems okay. The premise is definitely cool and the preview made it look iffy. The CG looks old but I can overlook that if it has a decent plot, good development and hard hitting action.
Pirates of the Caribean doesn't look that great.
yeah but its got pirates in it so i'll deal.
The blatantly CG 'hulked out' character in the trailers isn't Hyde; he was done entirely practical. I believe it's some kind of servant to the Fantom.Quote:
Originally posted by Despair
Hmm, You doesnt seem to like anything ;) No BB2, No LXG , No AP.
I dont see anything wrong with CGI, and if audiences could like Hulk, Mr Hyde should be alright :p
Perrin, Are you sure?
Since Jekil is held in chains to prevent the Hyde version of him from escapting/rampage. Well, We shall find out on Friday.
Hooray. A film bashing review:
[url]http://filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/leagueofextraordinarygentlemen.htm[/ur]
Writer sounds like an asshole.
And zombies too! Fail-safe right there.Quote:
Originally posted by station82o
yeah but its got pirates in it so i'll deal.
Zombie-Pirates, even! Or Pirate-Zombies.Quote:
Originally posted by SXA
And zombies too! Fail-safe right there.
Completely. There has been bitching and moaning on AICN for some time comparing the practical Hyde to CG Hulk.Quote:
Originally posted by Despair
Perrin, Are you sure?
I watched few more exclusive clips and it looks very cool. Seen couple of action sequences and they are staged pretty well, and Connery looks great in fights. Also nicely done and shot fight choreography, somewhat simular to Blade fights.
Few fx I saw looked neat.
Ok, Ebert reviews LXG. One star and lots of bitching. I think I will be enjoying this one :p
As usual, when he doesnt like the film, he goes into spoiler spree of bitching. Read on your own risk:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert...league11f.html
haha - funny ebert review. I was actually quite suprised that he liked Pirates of the Caribbean... even gave it 3 stars. Of course, it was Johnny Depp's performance of Jack Sparrow that sold it to Ebert, and I'd agree.
The movie's getting shit reviews...makes me want to see it all the more. :)
Same here. I already read about HOW INPROBABLE to have such tenchologies in 1899 and that its just silly action and fist fights and such bitching.
Come on people, its a FANTASY action film. Jesus.
One of the reviewers had a great name though: Kirk Honeycutt !!! :lol:
Yes, he works with that other great reviewer, Hawkeye Pierce. ;)
And I love it when movies take tech and style from different ages and cram they together to make something interesting and unique. Shit, some of these idiot reviewers have no imagination... :mad:
I actually think the setting looks quite unique, and I love when they trie to mix styles and genres. Some people never can be satisfied - they whine about lack of the imagination and originality and when its shown to them they whine about its being weird and improbable.
I don't know about this one. I'm glad I didn't pass up on PIrates of the Caribean, but this looks a bit odd. Maybe it's just good action, but with such strong literary characters I expect more.
Maybe that's a mistake. I'll try to see it with an open mind.
Well, I'm certainly glad I didn't pay for this one. Very imaginative in design, but the writing was horrible and the special effects are on-again-off-again in quality control. Their entrance into London (if I remember right, during all that city->next city->next city->next city->...) featured the most obvious matte painting background I have ever seen in a movie. Could they have made that look any more flat if they tried? And the bit showing Dorian inside the escape pod? That was horribly CGed! Hyde was far better done then I expected and I give them major props to that, but there was no subtly considering that the subject matter begged for the entire thing to play off as an inside joke. Instead everything came off as blantant and spelled out and rather ruined the character introduction, immediately making the first half-hour or so B-movie dredge.
The characters weren't used half as well as they should've been - Hyde excluded - and the villian was pretty damn "meh." The final battle amongst everyone was damned nice, but the showdown was against someone that I didn't care about either way. He might as well have been a Star Trek red shirt as his development and screentime was equal to such anyway.
I did like some stuff and it certainly had its moments, but overall I'd rather have seen Pirates again.
the movie was utter shit. and they did a HORRIBLE job of marketing it. the ads didn't even say the director was the guy who directed blade or tell who each of the characters were until a week ago.
i would have been a lot more interested if i had known who the director was. good move, fucktard movie producers!
I haven't seen it, hell I had high hopes for it. But my friend came back and trashed it. He collects his ticket his stubs but... I've never seen him do anything like this to one of them, even Jurrasic Park III.
The Connery and his league of freaks thing continues- the ad in the paper today had the title in bold letters next to a pic of Connery that read: Connery is in a League of his own! Godamn, Connery must've paid for the whole damn movie himself.
I just got back from seeing this movie. This movie is easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
Luckily it was very entertaining, because it was so horrible it was funny at times.
I'm not liking the sound of this... :(
Well, I'm seeing it tonight, I'll post my impressions afterward. Hopefully it'll be decent...
yikes - all the bad reviews? i really thought it was looking like a cavalier action flick - hmmm... post more impresions.
I'm seeing it in a few hours. Will try to see it before Pirates, so I could save a better movie for last :p
I will post my thoughts here later.
With all the bad-mouthing, I think I'll stick to my comic, thanks. ;)
I guess I'll give you some more in depth impressions.
This movie was the most jumpy movie I've ever seen. Even though all of the explosions were completely obvious before they happened, the rest of the time the movie was ALL OVER THE PLACE. One minute they're getting all the members and then KABOOM there goes Venice.
Yeah, it was a PG-13 movie, so all the punches never connected. It was funny to see someone throw a punch, and then KABOOM change the camera and see the guy fly back, but not actually get hit. That's another thing, the camera was all over the place most of the times.
The action scenes were terrible mostly. Might have been nice if they didn't keep jumping every five seconds between each character and their battles.
This movie created no feelings for any of the characters. In the end, someone dies... but it was like... why should I care? The worst of it was him turning into a zombie at the end. Easily the worst ending to a movie I've ever seen.
Oh yeah, a lot of the special effects were really really really horrible.
no coherent plotline, no in depth for any charachter, the antagonist (bad guy) played a minor role and just ran away every time. i would have liked this movie if i were 10 years old. it just plain sucked. they even pretty much used the s word but bleeped it out by cutting it off aww shhhhh
Say what you want but I LOVED it. I dont understand the hate it gets. PEOPLE, what the hell is wrong with just simply ENJOYING the movie???
I saw it with Pirates of the Caribian and and I loved them both. Simple as that. Will post detailed impressions later tonight.
Some people go in trying to enjoy a movie, some go in waiting to have a reason to enjoy a movie.
What do you mean it was jumpy??? They assemble the team in England, then spend about 20 minutes getting to Venice, and while in route give the viewer some character exposure and eplanations. Nothing wrong with that.Quote:
Originally posted by Mairu
I guess I'll give you some more in depth impressions.
This movie was the most jumpy movie I've ever seen. Even though all of the explosions were completely obvious before they happened, the rest of the time the movie was ALL OVER THE PLACE. One minute they're getting all the members and then KABOOM there goes Venice.
Fights here felt MORE REAL than WHOLE Reloaded. And Punches WERE connected. It was one FUN PG13 film, with brutal fights and lots of casualties, which is a GOOD change of pace. What the hell you talking about badly staged stunts, I guess you you really look for reasons and flaws, you will find them no matter what.Quote:
Yeah, it was a PG-13 movie, so all the punches never connected. It was funny to see someone throw a punch, and then KABOOM change the camera and see the guy fly back, but not actually get hit. That's another thing, the camera was all over the place most of the times.
Action scenes were just FINE. Opening battle where Quatermain fights the assassins was exciting, and Connery was great. And so was the Library ambush, with some nice gunplay, good old fist fighting(thank god for absense of SLOW MOTION MATRIX BATTLES, and some decent swordplay. Nothing wrong with that, and at least LXG didt copy Matrix like many other films would do this day(and no fight between Gray and Harker at the end wasnt copying Matrix and was done nicely). Sure quick cuts were used, but nothing that would spoil the fight, and simular to how original Blade was done, BEFORE Matrix rage.Quote:
The action scenes were terrible mostly. Might have been nice if they didn't keep jumping every five seconds between each character and their battles.
Maybe not you, but I CARED about characters, Connery and Sawyer were simpathetic, and I cared about Connery demise. Not all characters got alot of coverage, but it was decent. And while ending was a bit hockey, its a COMIC BOOK for CRIST SAKE. Did you whine when Jean Grey came back from the dead in X2? Its a FANTASY film.Quote:
This movie created no feelings for any of the characters. In the end, someone dies... but it was like... why should I care? The worst of it was him turning into a zombie at the end. Easily the worst ending to a movie I've ever seen.
I give you that SOME(but not ALL) sfx were little shady, but again, I loved the style, and matte backgrounds, and for most at least it was UNIQUE vision.Quote:
Oh yeah, a lot of the special effects were really really really horrible.
Um, I saw it last night, and I think I missed something. Last shot of the film was lightning striking a grave, but there were no zombies.
Otherwise, yes, this was the most jumpy movie i've ever seen, with the director trying to show you every punch all the characters were throwing or something. If he was trying to create a sense of just how much action a whole team of people could be in for, I think he succeeded.
I dont think the movie was all that bad. It wasn't X2 or even the first X-Men (i dont know, think of another team based superhero movie and i'll compare it to that instead), but it wasnt as bad as some are thinking. Just relax the old brain for a while and let the what might have been flow over you instead of the oh thats not even remotely possible.
I will agree though, with the statement that some if not ALL of the CG was horrid.
Ummmm but that shitty ass ending was not in the comic book. In fact little of what was on the screen had much at all to do with the comic book. They ruined a fantastic comic, that explored the dark side of tragic literary figures. Obviously you haven't read the comic, but have you at least read the novels that the characters are from? It seems to hurt alot to be a literate person seeing that crap. In the comic the characters were true to their literary works... in this shit... they were not. Also how about getting the fucking character ages right... Tom Sawyer should be around 40 years old in 1899... and if I remember correctly the main Villian should be about 60ish I believe... which he was in the comic. If they had spent more time going into all of the characters dark sides... which I will be honest, they did a decent job with Dr. Jekyll, the film would have been much better.Quote:
Originally posted by Despair
Maybe not you, but I CARED about characters, Connery and Sawyer were simpathetic, and I cared about Connery demise. Not all characters got alot of coverage, but it was decent. And while ending was a bit hockey, its a COMIC BOOK for CRIST SAKE. Did you whine when Jean Grey came back from the dead in X2? Its a FANTASY film.
Yes, I know about all the characters, and read about them(with exception of Darian Gray SP?). And no I didnt read the original comic, and I'm sure that it was much better than what was on the screen, but it didnt made me enjoy the film ANY less.
I think you look too much into comparing it to the comic book. So what if characters dont match their age, or technology seems improbable for the time period, and other things. Its a FANTASY movie.
Dorian. It's a "sky just before a storm" kind of color. FYI. ;)
Couldn't have said it better myself.Quote:
Originally posted by bbobb
Ummmm but that shitty ass ending was not in the comic book. In fact little of what was on the screen had much at all to do with the comic book. They ruined a fantastic comic, that explored the dark side of tragic literary figures. Obviously you haven't read the comic, but have you at least read the novels that the characters are from? It seems to hurt alot to be a literate person seeing that crap. In the comic the characters were true to their literary works... in this shit... they were not. Also how about getting the fucking character ages right... Tom Sawyer should be around 40 years old in 1899... and if I remember correctly the main Villian should be about 60ish I believe... which he was in the comic. If they had spent more time going into all of the characters dark sides... which I will be honest, they did a decent job with Dr. Jekyll, the film would have been much better.
See, Wasnt very good at spelling the guys name.
I just found this while browsing, if anyone's interested. It's a bit tough to read without the visual pannels, but in light of a text description of those same lacking pannels, you should be fine. It's long though.
Technology is improbably in the comic as well... I don't have a problem with that... but keeping the characters true to their literary selves is pretty damned important. That's what the story is based around. It's about these tragic figures who are now washed up, and many are trying to make ammends for the crimes of their past... they turned that brilliant concept into a shitty, nonsensical piece of crap. The thing that has made most of the recent comic book movies, X2, Spiderman, and Daredevil, great films is the fact that they do a good job staying true to thier comic sources... even though they don't follow them exactly. This movie completely fucked it's source over... it's like somebody just read a quick two sentence description of the comic and decided they could make a movie out of it. Hell it didn't do justice to the classic literary works either which is sickening as well.Quote:
Originally posted by Despair
I think you look too much into comparing it to the comic book. So what if characters dont match their age, or technology seems improbable for the time period, and other things. Its a FANTASY movie.
Oh and I just did my research... Tom Sawyer should be about 64 years old at that point in time... since it's assumed that the novel takes place around 1845. And the villian should be right around 50... he was in his early 40's when he "died" in 1891.
Very nice... it's quite easy to read with the comic in front of me, and it points out many things I missed. Good find.Quote:
Originally posted by Captain Vegetable
I just found this while browsing, if anyone's interested. It's a bit tough to read without the visual pannels, but in light of a text description of those same lacking pannels, you should be fine. It's long though.
Wow, I'm on issue 3 now... and I can't believe how many literary references are in there that I missed... Alan Moore is amazing.
Maybe for you as big fan of the original comic book version, it all looks like a complete trash, but for me its different. I understand that they took QUITE a liberties with its characters, making some of them into something that isnt true to their novel origins, but I can accept that. I just looked at it as entertaining adventure movie, and I got what I was looking for - entertainment.Quote:
Originally posted by bbobb
Technology is improbably in the comic as well... I don't have a problem with that... but keeping the characters true to their literary selves is pretty damned important. That's what the story is based around. It's about these tragic figures who are now washed up, and many are trying to make ammends for the crimes of their past... they turned that brilliant concept into a shitty, nonsensical piece of crap. The thing that has made most of the recent comic book movies, X2, Spiderman, and Daredevil, great films is the fact that they do a good job staying true to thier comic sources... even though they don't follow them exactly. This movie completely fucked it's source over... it's like somebody just read a quick two sentence description of the comic and decided they could make a movie out of it. Hell it didn't do justice to the classic literary works either which is sickening as well.
Oh and I just did my research... Tom Sawyer should be about 64 years old at that point in time... since it's assumed that the novel takes place around 1845. And the villian should be right around 50... he was in his early 40's when he "died" in 1891.
I didn't. His demise was predictable and Sawyer was a pansy.Quote:
Connery and Sawyer were simpathetic, and I cared about Connery demise.
For a film that had "extraordinary" in the title it turned out to be an ordinary action flick. Won't be looking forward to the inevitable sequel anytime soon.
I don't think they'll be making a sequel.
Okay, I just got home from seeing it, and I thought it was pretty good. Not great or amazing in any way mind you, and certainly not as great as I was expecting (hoping) it to be, but it wasn't anywhere near as horrible as some of you are making it out. Good, but still disapointing.
As for the CG, the only thing I found to be really, really bad was the Nautilus- it just looked so fake and low-res compared to it's surroundings. :rolleyes:
Overall, very stylish, with some beautiful production and background work, well-designed and charming characters, a "meh" story, lame villian, decent-to-bad CG work, excellent action scenes, and simply 'okay' direction (Norrington's work on Blade was better). Now, it's time to read the comic and see what has changed, and how the movie stacks up compared to it. Whenever I read Quartermain's lines, however, I'll be hearing it in Sean Connery's voice. :)
What the HELL are you talking about?!? Every single punch and kick made full contact! You must have gone to see Finding Nemo or something instead. The Nemo is this movie has a beard, try not to get 'em confused again.Quote:
Originally posted by Mairu
Yeah, it was a PG-13 movie, so all the punches never connected. It was funny to see someone throw a punch, and then KABOOM change the camera and see the guy fly back, but not actually get hit. That's another thing, the camera was all over the place most of the times.
The comic just recently had a sequel, so you never know...Quote:
Originally posted by elfneedsfood
I don't think they'll be making a sequel.
Yeah, I agree, I thought the movie flowed pretty well.Quote:
Originally posted by Despair
What do you mean it was jumpy??? They assemble the team in England, then spend about 20 minutes getting to Venice, and while in route give the viewer some character exposure and eplanations. Nothing wrong with that.
Yeah, and I'd rather watch a movie that attempts something different and isn't a complete success than any of the lame-ass cookie-cutter films that Hollywood churns out every week.Quote:
I give you that SOME(but not ALL) sfx were little shady, but again, I loved the style, and matte backgrounds, and for most at least it was UNIQUE vision.
I wouldn't go THAT far, but I did like it. But I was a little dissapointed. It was entertaining but not as exciting as I would have hoped. From what I've heard the movie didn't have the intelligence that the comic had.Quote:
Originally posted by Despair
Say what you want but I LOVED it.
Anyone notice the posters on the wall in that once scene that had Alan Moore and Kevin O'Neill's (the comic's creators) names on it?
I guess when you hype up a movie you get blind to it's inconsistencies and negatives.
OH WAIT IM SORRY WHY CANT I JUST ENJOY A MOVIE FOR WHAT IT IS OH BOO HOO!
Well, Good to hear that you thought it was decent D :p Too much negativity here.
You make it sound like a quick trip, instead of one city->next city->next city->next city without ever actually getting to know any of the characters. They basically appear, blatantly state who they are and what book they're from, and then everyone runs off to the next person to repeat.Quote:
Originally posted by Despair
What do you mean it was jumpy??? They assemble the team in England, then spend about 20 minutes getting to Venice, and while in route give the viewer some character exposure and eplanations. Nothing wrong with that.
As for jumpy, the camera work most definately was. Every single time Nemo landed a punch the camera flew by so fast you couldn't ever actually tell who he was punching. I didn't have too much of a problem with it, but if you think it wasn't I have to seriously question your vision.Not really, only certain sections of the final battle had any tension in them. The rest came off as so staged it was hard to feel for any of them. And what the hell does the Matrix have to do with any of this? Just because it didn't abuse a popular technique doesn't make it a better scene.Quote:
Action scenes were just FINE. Opening battle where Quatermain fights the assassins was exciting, and Connery was great. And so was the Library ambush, with some nice gunplay, good old fist fighting(thank god for absense of SLOW MOTION MATRIX BATTLES, and some decent swordplay. Nothing wrong with that, and at least LXG didt copy Matrix like many other films would do this day(and no fight between Gray and Harker at the end wasnt copying Matrix and was done nicely). Sure quick cuts were used, but nothing that would spoil the fight, and simular to how original Blade was done, BEFORE Matrix rage.
Subject matter doesn't excuse bad writing. I think it's pretty obvious we all expected a fantasy movie (if anyone didn't they either had never heard of this and went in blind or is as dumb as a rock), but the difference between X2 and LXG is that X2 had good writing and excellent pacing. LXG had neither.Quote:
Maybe not you, but I CARED about characters, Connery and Sawyer were simpathetic, and I cared about Connery demise. Not all characters got alot of coverage, but it was decent. And while ending was a bit hockey, its a COMIC BOOK for CRIST SAKE. Did you whine when Jean Grey came back from the dead in X2? Its a FANTASY film.
That's all I was looking for too, especially after all the negative reviews. Shame it lived up to them.Quote:
I just looked at it as entertaining adventure movie, and I got what I was looking for - entertainment.
Yeah, but people liked the comic.Quote:
The comic just recently had a sequel, so you never know...
90% of which were only shown with the camera flying by at about 50 mph. Which doesn't really count.Quote:
What the HELL are you talking about?!? Every single punch and kick made full contact!
I might just be harsh on this movie because I've been watching nothing but quality movies lately, thus making this seem like worse drivel then it might if I had instead just come off watching the Star Wars Holiday Special. But I don't really think so, considering those I went with were also glad they didn't pay for it, and when I was at work today a number of people left the theater well before the movie was over.
They only had 1 stop on their trip and it was Paris to capture Mr. Hyde. The rest of time was spent on the Nautilus, en route to Venice, and it did allowed for some character development, but I agree that it could have used more.Quote:
Originally posted by MechDeus
You make it sound like a quick trip, instead of one city->next city->next city->next city without ever actually getting to know any of the characters. They basically appear, blatantly state who they are and what book they're from, and then everyone runs off to the next person to repeat.
Sorry Mech, but I didnt had a problem following the fight, and even though quick cutting was used, it wasnt nowhere as bad, as in some other Hollywood films. Sure its not full plane action shown like in MR, but at least it was hard hitting unlike that film. My vision is just fine, thank you very much.Quote:
As for jumpy, the camera work most definately was. Every single time Nemo landed a punch the camera flew by so fast you couldn't ever actually tell who he was punching. I didn't have too much of a problem with it, but if you think it wasn't I have to seriously question your vision.Not really, only certain sections of the final battle had any tension in them. The rest came off as so staged it was hard to feel for any of them. And what the hell does the Matrix have to do with any of this? Just because it didn't abuse a popular technique doesn't make it a better scene.Subject matter doesn't excuse bad writing. I think it's pretty obvious we all expected a fantasy movie (if anyone didn't they either had never heard of this and went in blind or is as dumb as a rock), but the difference between X2 and LXG is that X2 had good writing and excellent pacing. LXG had neither.That's all I was looking for too, especially after all the negative reviews. Shame it lived up to them.Yeah, but people liked the comic.90% of which were only shown with the camera flying by at about 50 mph. Which doesn't really count.
I think maybe you are a little too harsh. While its not perfect it was still quite entertaining. But I guess its all subjective.Quote:
I might just be harsh on this movie because I've been watching nothing but quality movies lately, thus making this seem like worse drivel then it might if I had instead just come off watching the Star Wars Holiday Special. But I don't really think so, considering those I went with were also glad they didn't pay for it, and when I was at work today a number of people left the theater well before the movie was over.
Starts in England, goes to Africa, goes back to England, goes to Paris, and then goes to Venice.Quote:
Originally posted by Despair
They only had 1 stop on their trip and it was Paris to capture Mr. Hyde.
Sure, it was better then the twins fight in Kiss of the Dragon (which was just confusing), but once again: Just because it isn't bottom of the barrel doesn't mean it's good.Quote:
Sorry Mech, but I didnt had a problem following the fight, and even though quick cutting was used, it wasnt nowhere as bad, as in some other Hollywood films.
At least I didn't walk out on it. Then I would've missed the only part worth watching.Quote:
I think maybe you are a little too harsh.
Hey, I thought that fight in KOD was great. Didnt had problem following it at all :p
?!Quote:
Originally posted by Despair
Fights here felt MORE REAL than WHOLE Reloaded.
I've noticed Despair likes to bash Reloaded in just about every movie related thread there is. I don't think Reloaded is the greatest movie ever or anything, but it sure as hell is better than LXG.
Oh, the irony...Quote:
Originally posted by Despair
I think maybe you are a little too harsh. While its not perfect it was still quite entertaining. But I guess its all subjective.
Ok, I promise to tone down my MR comments. Its just too many people hyping it like its the best thing since sliced bread, which is not.
But alas, I shall be silent now.
And I feel exactly opposite. While LXG wasnt the greatest film I ever seen, but it was more entertaining.Quote:
Originally posted by elfneedsfood
I've noticed Despair likes to bash Reloaded in just about every movie related thread there is. I don't think Reloaded is the greatest movie ever or anything, but it sure as hell is better than LXG.
OK, that's fair. And I understand how the Matrix being so hyped could irritate you. It definately has it's flaws. I still think it's a better film than LXG though. The fact that LXG is changed so much from its source material really bothers me, especially since the source material was so good. I like quite a few movies that are considered shitty too though, so I'll shut up.
Despair often confuses "I like it" with "it was a good movie." ;)Quote:
Originally posted by elfneedsfood
OK, that's fair. And I understand how the Matrix being so hyped could irritate you. It definately has it's flaws. I still think it's a better film than LXG though. The fact that LXG is changed so much from its source material really bothers me, especially since the source material was so good. I like quite a few movies that are considered shitty too though, so I'll shut up.
And so are you my friend :p Do you need someone else to tell you whats good and what not? Or you can actually decide for yourself ;)
I do, infact, seek those with more knowledge concerning any given topic to tell me whether item X, concerning that topic, is viable. I do not, however, let others tell me what I like. ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Despair
And so are you my friend :p Do you need someone else to tell you whats good and what not? Or you can actually decide for yourself ;)
word.Quote:
Originally posted by Captain Vegetable
I do, infact, seek those with more knowledge concerning any given topic to tell me whether item X, concerning that topic, is viable. I do not, however, let others tell me what I like. ;)
....
I just got back from seeing LXG and hence my two cents here:
I think it was the best sci-fi/fantasy movie of the summer hands down. Well paced, and lots of fun to watch. I like fun and you should too... ;)
Better than T3 or Pirates?
Despair: Some people don't like to remove their brains when watching movies. Don't expect them to.
The movie was sweet ride, filled with originality. Can someone post up a list and a brief Bio of all the League characters? I know most of them; The Invisible Man, Captain Nemo, Dracula's bride, Tom Sayer, Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, but I don't know Sean's character and Dorian Gray.
Google is your friend.
Dorian Gray is from a Wilde book called The Picture of Dorian Gray, and Allan Quartermain is from a book of the same title (sequel to Solomon's Mines). He also seems to have been in a number of other books in that series.
I thought it was great fun.
It wasn't a brilliant piece of cinema. Lots of the dialogue was bad, the plot was silly, it was disjointed, and the fight scenes gave me a headache. It wasn't close to the comic, but I wasn't expecting it to be.
I must say Peta Wilson was perfectly cast as Mrs. Harker.
I think any film that comes out in the summer should not be approached with a critical frame of mind, because most of the time you'll be disappointed. I went in expecting a good time, and that's exactly what I got.
Bio, Great to hear that you liked it. :p Guess me and my family is not complety grazy in enjoying this film. I could understand that fans of the comic might not be happy with the changes made, but it wasnt as bad as many people say it is.Quote:
Originally posted by BioMechanic
I thought it was great fun.
It wasn't a brilliant piece of cinema. Lots of the dialogue was bad, the plot was silly, it was disjointed, and the fight scenes gave me a headache. It wasn't close to the comic, but I wasn't expecting it to be.
I must say Peta Wilson was perfectly cast as Mrs. Harker.
I think any film that comes out in the summer should not be approached with a critical frame of mind, because most of the time you'll be disappointed. I went in expecting a good time, and that's exactly what I got.
I liked Wilson as Harker as well.
Why do you have to "remove" your brains, and cant simply enjoy the movie? Why always look at the film from so called "intellectual" approach, when if the movie doesnt fit your "preset" mold you brush it off, as stupid trash?Quote:
Originally posted by Andrew
Despair: Some people don't like to remove their brains when watching movies. Don't expect them to.
I dont expect everyone share my views, but I dont expect me do the same either.
Because if you have to ignore the writing, acting, and put up with a lot of scenes that you feel don't flow well, you would have to stop thinking in order to enjoy it, no? If a movie is constantly bugging you, the more you think about it the more it will irritate you, hence "removing your brain."Quote:
Originally posted by Despair
Why do you have to "remove" your brains, and cant simply enjoy the movie?
Whatever, Reloaded Boy.Quote:
Why always look at the film from so called "intellectual" approach, when if the movie doesnt fit your "preset" mold you brush it off, as stupid trash?
:lol: The funny thing about me and MR is that I actully liked the story and pholosophical musings, its that action what turned me off it. But I promised not to mention MR anymore, and I will stay true to my word.
Then why do you come down on people for trashing the movie.Quote:
Originally posted by Despair
Why do you have to "remove" your brains, and cant simply enjoy the movie? Why always look at the film from so called "intellectual" approach, when if the movie doesnt fit your "preset" mold you brush it off, as stupid trash?
I dont expect everyone share my views, but I dont expect me do the same either.
There are no roads in Venice, and I enjoy good writing. Action is action, and all movies have some form of it. I like to think and enjoy nice dialogue, great acting or something exceptional about a movie.
Case in point: Dude, Where's My Car? The movie was idiotic, silly, and downright fun. It wasn't trying to be something it wasn't. Something like the League, based off of good literary character and a well founded comic being shattered to bits by horrible dialogue and scenes is ridiculous.
The submarine is originally supposed to be fucking huge and yet can fit in the canals of Venice.
I like what I like, and there are other ways I can spend my money.
In this case, how can you judge this movie without EVEN seing it? And dont give me the excuse that you dont need to see the movie to know its bad, or that you heard enough info on that to make a decision. I would understand your dissatisfaction with it, if you seen it like Mech or Bbobb did, but you havent done that.Quote:
Originally posted by Andrew
Then why do you come down on people for trashing the movie.
There are no roads in Venice, and I enjoy good writing. Action is action, and all movies have some form of it. I like to think and enjoy nice dialogue, great acting or something exceptional about a movie.
Case in point: Dude, Where's My Car? The movie was idiotic, silly, and downright fun. It wasn't trying to be something it wasn't. Something like the League, based off of good literary character and a well founded comic being shattered to bits by horrible dialogue and scenes is ridiculous.
The submarine is originally supposed to be fucking huge and yet can fit in the canals of Venice.
I like what I like, and there are other ways I can spend my money.
You cant mention "horrible" dialogs, that you havent heard, but at this point you seem to be determine to hate that movie anyway, so even the viewing of it wont help.
I for once CAN suspend my DISBELIEF in the FANTASY movie, so I can live with the fact that big sub wint fit into canals in Venice, but its not a documentary here. You can find plenty of things that dont make sense in Pirates of the Caribean(the film that you said you liked alot), so why dont you go and scrutinize that movie for facts that dont make sense, and some of the dialogs there wont be winning Academy Awards anytime soon either. Doesnt make the film any worse, right? And we both clearly enjoyed it.
I am not trying to convince you or anyone else that LXG is a superior film, but its not fair for it to be bashed so much, especially by people who HAVENT SEEN it in the first place.
Since League was a fantasy film set in a fantasy parallel universe, make sense that Venice wouldn't be exactly like it is in reality.Quote:
Originally posted by Andrew
There are no roads in Venice.
The submarine is originally supposed to be fucking huge and yet can fit in the canals of Venice.
League ain't Stanley Kubrick or David Lean material, and doesn't try to be. It's severely flawed, but fun - I suppose it comes down to if you can look past the problems or not. It's easy - really easy - to trash the film, but that doesn't mean no one will enjoy it.
But it's not okay for people who have seen it to bash it because they just "can't enjoy movies", right?Quote:
Originally posted by Despair
I am not trying to convince you or anyone else that LXG is a superior film, but its not fair for it to be bashed so much, especially by people who HAVENT SEEN it in the first place.
I didnt bash you, just commented on the points that you stated were BAD in the film, which in fact werent. Dolemite backed me up on the matter of Fights, which you can read in his comments on previous page. Its your right to like/not like film, but bashing it trying to make its flaws bigger than they actually are, will make me counter in the defence.