Post by Salzmank on May 2, 2017 11:59:31 GMT
Hm!
I'm by no means a fan of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen--too much of a CGI-fest for my tastes--but I'm willing to go along with your contention that Connery is fairly decent in it (I wish he'd left the movies in a better picture, though). There is also a charming goofiness that I find likeable, and--despite my better instincts--I like combining all these fictional characters together in one story (reminds me of the Wold Newton Universe, in fact!). With that said, no, I didn't like the film, though I did like the concept.
As for Sommers... Yes and no. It is indeed in the bloated CGI monster mash style that characterized The Mummy and Van Helsing, but Sommers has a pictorialism that I found lacking in this picture. Also, The Mummy (but not Van Helsing) had a genuine story with fun characters, rather than relying The Mummy on its admittedly copious computer generation. The Mummy also had the good sense to be an Indiana Jones knock-off, and incredibly fun.
I'm by no means a fan of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen--too much of a CGI-fest for my tastes--but I'm willing to go along with your contention that Connery is fairly decent in it (I wish he'd left the movies in a better picture, though). There is also a charming goofiness that I find likeable, and--despite my better instincts--I like combining all these fictional characters together in one story (reminds me of the Wold Newton Universe, in fact!). With that said, no, I didn't like the film, though I did like the concept.
As for Sommers... Yes and no. It is indeed in the bloated CGI monster mash style that characterized The Mummy and Van Helsing, but Sommers has a pictorialism that I found lacking in this picture. Also, The Mummy (but not Van Helsing) had a genuine story with fun characters, rather than relying The Mummy on its admittedly copious computer generation. The Mummy also had the good sense to be an Indiana Jones knock-off, and incredibly fun.