LXG

[House of Mustard]

Hmm...
Rotten tomatoes has only given it a 33% so far, but there have only been 9 reviews submitted.

[Gemm: Rock & Roll Star; Born to Rock]

I don't care what anyone else says, I've been looking forward to this one ever since I saw the trailer in theaters way back when.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

And they panned hulk, didn't they? I'm not sure, I don't pay attention to critics anymore. Any job where the primary requisites for employment are a) having no life, and b) incidentally bearing an opinion similar to the editors doesn't call for my respect

KILL THE REVIEWERS (just not the game ones)

[Tage]

No, it's just been getting worse and worse as more people review it. Sad, really. I'll probably go see it, but not opening weekend. I'm really primed for Pirates of the Carribean, though, as it's been getting stellar reviews.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

I kind of guessed they were gonna ruin the comic when they kept hyping Connory

[42]

Well, I saw LXG. It's not bad, but it could have been better.

Also, LXG ended up below 20%. Hulk got a 65% rating or something like that (anything over 60% is considered excellent).  On RT there are a few reviewers that are out there, but when you look at what the reviewers are saying overall it tends to be rather accurate of what most people think.

[Slant]

I saw it also, and I agree.  It was far better than, say, Hulk, but it could have been so much better if they'd just stuck to the original series.  Sean Connery wasn't Quartermain, he was just playing Sean Connery AGAIN.  I was particularly annoyed at the cheesy final scene.  Still, it was an enjoyable way to spend an afternoon, just nowhere near as great as I had been getting my hopes up for.

[Gemm: Rock & Roll Star; Born to Rock]

I saw the League tonight. I was rightly impressed by Nemo's fighting skills, that was a good show there. And Mr. Hyde and his counterpart Mr Jekyle had a character I thought I wasn't going to like, and I ended up liking him... them.

The others didn't excite me as much as Nemo and Hyde/Jekyle did. But I enjoyed them when they were around.

The totally different timestamp for this series makes me want more, but I do know its mostly inaccurate history. I know Venice didn't get blown up like so, but it was still cool.

And lastly, Nemo's ship. That is the coolest thing I've ever seen. I don't care what any other movie or what ever else has, this is a big defining point for me with this movie. The "sword of the sea." If they make any sort of action figure thing of it, I will so totally buy it. And then proceed to hit people with it.  

[EUOL]

Okay, I have to come down on the opposite side of you guys on this one.  (Or, maybe not opposite, just further in one direction.)

I thought the movie was, in a word, terrible.  One of the worst plots I've seen in an action movie, half-hearted acting, terrible cinimatography, and poor characterization.  The only saving graces were Connery and the ideas behind the story.  However, even those two high points only served to prove how good a movie this COULD have been.

A few points. **SPOILERS***
1) Why in the world would a missle have saved Venice in that situation?
2) How in the world did Hyde know how to stop a sinking submarine, and why did what he do work?
3) Why in the world would Dorian look at the picture when vampire lady showed it to him?
4) Why would the bad guy send them off to Veince in the first place?  Why not just kill them?  What?  You can't take skin or blood or potions from dead people?  Instead, he expected to reverse engineer Nemo's ship from pictures when he could have just stolen the entire thing?  

Need I go on?

[42]

Let's see EUOL, questions 1 and 2 were explained in the movie. I actually think both of those were quite clear, if somewhat ludicrous.

Question is 3 is little irrelevant. Yes he probably should have tried harder not to look at the painting, but at the same time it could have weighed down the light atmoshpere of the movie by some minor struggle of trying to get his eyes open.

And question 4, well I think that is a problem of it staying true to the source material, which isn't the most plausible story to begin with.

Also, what was wrong with the cinematography? It's not oscar worthy, but I didn't see anything terribly wrong with it. It's well cropped, good quality film, well lit, decent saturation, well balanced and reasonably unified.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Connery was the worst actor in the whole movie!

What this movie lacked was a cast that cared. While the script dragged at moments the dull humorless acting really brought this one down. Connery was abysmal, looking as animated as a stroke victim and as smart as a dirt clod. In the movies attempt to cater to him the other characters were forced to take a back seat.

Quartermain isn't even the team leader in the comic a concession demanded by Connerys participatation (we cant have our star playing a bit player)

[Gemm: Rock & Roll Star; Born to Rock]

Question 3 seems like a rather simple solution. And let me somewhat solve it by asking a question. If you were immortal and had been so for quite some time, would not you then want to see what you should look like after all that time?

Or maybe he was in just a high state of shock that the painting was right there, and she had just happened upon it that he had a stroke and couldn't close his eyes or something. Beats me.

[EUOL]

42, I'm amazed that you would make excuses for their bad plotting.  #1 & #2 were explained poorly and confusingly.  I base my opinion not only on my observation, but on several coments made by people with whom I watched the movie.  The tension of the conflicts presented was weak because the audience didn't understand why the characters' actions were going to make any difference.  This is especially sloppy with #2, since it was intended as the Hyde character climax, and was used to overcome his inner 'demons' so that he could become a productive member of the team.

#3 has similar problems.  You can't resolve a conflict by having a character say, in the movie 'If I look at the painting, I'll be killed--implying that he would never do such a thing--then, later on, have him simply have him look at the painting without explanation.  For the climax to get the payoff it needs, it needs to be resolved through cleverness or heroism of some sort by a main character.  Dorian needed to be tricked somehow into looking at his painting.  Instead, we sat there and watched, as he did, knowing exactly what was happening.  

And to Gemm--your solution does have some merit, but it makes for bad plotting.  Again, you can't have a character be defeated by a simple whim.  The picture had, assumedly, been hanging on the wall of his house.  Why didn't he look at it then?  Why did he resist all that time, then finally decide to glance at it when it would give his enemy victory?  

#4 Was this really part of the original?  From what I heard, they changed so much of the story, that it would be ironic for them to keep this one section that makes no logical sense.  Regardless, if it is from the original, that's no excuse for poor plotting.

How about I throw a couple more out?

#5 How did Sawyer survive the missile blast?
#6 Did they really expect us to believe that the invisible man was the one stealing things?  And that he would just stay quiet and play along?  That was one of the worst examples of a Red Herring I've ever seen.

[Chaosman]

It didn't come here!
It freakin' didn't come here.
I got so hyped for this movie and stupid morons at the Culpeper cinaplex  didn't bring it here! *cries*

[Tage]

Ha, as you may have noticed from this thread, you didn't actually miss that much.