|
|
Post by brokenbow on May 2, 2017 11:28:47 GMT
I finally added this to my collection (under $5 dollar Blu-Ray) and I gotta say its aged well, and Connery despite behind the scenes drama did amazingly well. His performance in League was my favorite since The Last Crusade, and I can't help but think if he hadn't retired what other roles would he have picked. And since I didn't get to see this in theaters I finally have seen it in HD. I give it an 8/10 just because of its pure fun, also did anyone else think it felt like a Stephen Sommers movie? That isn't a bad thing to me, I liked The Mummy 1,2,and Van Helsing. Anyway your thoughts on League/Connery?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on May 2, 2017 11:53:12 GMT
I thoroughly enjoy League despite acknowledging it's a bad movie. It has serious pacing/editing problems that really bog it down at times. But the action scenes are fun and the concept is too damn good for me to turn my back on it entirely. The shootout in Dorian's library is one of the best action sequences I've ever seen. Everyone gets to strut their stuff in that scene yet it doesn't feel overwhelming or gratuitous.
It's a fun little movie despite its flaws, but it definitely could've been much better. Still, what we got was good enough for me-- I would've taken a sequel.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on May 2, 2017 12:06:00 GMT
That's an interesting observation, it's up Sommers' alley. I always liked it too. I think in some respects, it was ahead of its time with the teaming up angle that the Avengers would do nine years later. I'd love a reboot though since the comic is amazing but it should have been a R rated epic like Watchmen.
|
|
|
|
Post by brokenbow on May 2, 2017 12:27:55 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 can respect everything you said, despite me enjoying it so much. =) |
|
|
|
Post by brokenbow on May 2, 2017 12:28:27 GMT
That's an interesting observation, it's up Sommers' alley. I always liked it too. I think in some respects, it was ahead of its time with the teaming up angle that the Avengers would do nine years later. I'd love a reboot though since the comic is amazing but it should have been a R rated epic like Watchmen. Interesting, I can see this movie (rebooted) as R, being more "true" to itself. |
|
|
|
Post by brokenbow on May 2, 2017 12:34:08 GMT
I just remembered something. I read probably a year ago about this movie getting a reboot with an all (or mostly all) female cast...hmmmm...wish I knew where I read that. Anyway unless a trailer blows me away I'll stick to the Connery film.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxwellperfect on May 2, 2017 13:51:33 GMT
Sean Connery is an eminently watchable actor; like Bill Murray he's good in practically everything he's in. LXG isn't a good movie but it's a fun concept. When I'm watching it, I'm distracted by so many nit-picky details, such as how does a submarine seemingly as big as a battleship navigate the canals of Venice, and how do they have a WWI era tank, a 1920's style roadster, and Polaris missiles in the 1890's? And why did they make Mr. Hyde the Hulk? I still have a soft spot for it. I'm sure many fans of the original comics must think it's a total bastardization.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 2, 2017 16:14:14 GMT
It's not a good movie imo, nor it is it as bad as many people claim. Connery isn't the problem and he is very watchable as usual.
Stephen Sommers movies are fun (for the most part), The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is not.
I will say this though - The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen >>> Van Helsing |
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on May 2, 2017 16:20:26 GMT
It's not a good movie imo, nor it is it as bad as many people claim. Connery isn't the problem and he is very watchable as usual.
Stephen Sommers movies are fun (for the most part), The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is not.
I will say this though - The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen >>> Van Helsing I agree with all of this. |
|
|
|
Post by Marv on May 2, 2017 16:27:43 GMT
I enjoyed it. The biggest complaint I've always heard is it's nothing like the source material but I haven't read that so it doesn't bother me.
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on May 2, 2017 17:50:35 GMT
I had a hard time staying awake through it. It is a perfect example of what makes modern movies so pathetic. It isn't a "horrible movie", but it's got to be rating 2/10 to 5/10 depending on if you're harsh or generous as a critic.
What do I mean by "perfect example of what makes modern movies so pathetic"? The fact that it has all those effects, all that action, and still plods along in an annoying way. The chief problem is that writer guild writers, and published writers, are completely out of touch with 95% of the people, instead complying with the 5% of elite royalty, all of whom are out of touch.
No one can relate to anything any of the chief characters do, and it makes for a dull story, even duller when action is added, because it looks stupid. We can't help feeling embarrassed for the alleged artists involved.
What they have going for them is the ignorant youth that accept this as some sort of reality. They don't know what in the world is being said, but they like the action, so they adopt whatever goes with the action as a guideline to life. Unless they're in the top 5% with the silver spoon, they can't possibly achieve anything in reality.
In fact, movies like THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN would be better with no effects and little action, even if we can't relate to anything, even if no one reminds us of anyone we are involved with or look up to, because it wouldn't be so goofy looking.
I'm fairly generous, because there are so many worse movies, and I give it 4/10 or more like 3.55/10.
|
|
|
|
Post by fangirl1975 on May 2, 2017 19:36:10 GMT
I found League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen to be a highly enjoyable popcorn movie when I saw it in theaters in the summer of 2003. Sean Connery dominated the show as Allen Quartermaine.
|
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on May 2, 2017 19:44:39 GMT
I haven't seen in a while, so I can't give the most detailed description, but I always remember thinking it was pretty enjoyable. I thought it was fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jerk on May 2, 2017 19:46:25 GMT
It's a bad movie. Worse after reading the source material. BUT...I have always enjoyed the movie as a novelty. Seeing the characters appear together and go on this ridiculous adventure. It's fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on May 2, 2017 20:09:08 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 can respect everything you said, despite me enjoying it so much. =) And that's just fine, Brokenbow. (I greatly respect your points too.) This is going to sound like an aw-shucks cliche, but I really appreciate it when two people can disagree without resorting to name calling or that sort of thing. It seems to happen all too often on forums like these, when we can easily forget that there are real people on the other end of the screen. Oh, well... Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by brokenbow on May 2, 2017 20:13:55 GMT
I can respect everything you said, despite me enjoying it so much. =) And that's just fine, Brokenbow. (I greatly respect your points too.) This is going to sound like an aw-shucks cliche, but I really appreciate it when two people can disagree without resorting to name calling or that sort of thing. It seems to happen all too often on forums like these, when we can easily forget that there are real people on the other end of the screen. Oh, well... Thanks! AGREED! =) |
|
