LXG your thoughts

[Guest KeranGrudgeholder]

now I thinks Dr Toms reviews are pretty on, but this time I can't agree. I thought LXG was the best Summer movie I have seen so far, It blew Hulk out of the water, I was more entertained at it than I was at Angles or Terminater. Now I have to admit there were some problems, Tom sawers was never fleshed out, or even givin a back rong treatment like the others, and he had more of a Texas than a southern accent. The Phantom looked cheesey at first, but it made sence later in the movie why he did, and as to how futurelistic( spelling sorry) some of the weapons were, that his the point of Victorian are sci fi.

[Guest The Mighty Damaramu]

Well Sawyer was like that b/c he wasn't in the comic book. He was thrown in to give the movie an "american influence".

Anyways I thought it was kind of boring.

[Guest WrestlingDeacon]

I was hyped to see it, until I heard all the negative reviews. I might suck it up and go see it anyway, but this has to be the first positive I've heard about the movie.

[Guest The Notorious CRD]

I saw LXG on Saturday and while I didn't actively hate it, it was nowhere near the quality of Hulk. Overall, I thought it was a typical Summer movie; fun, but forgettable.

[Guest Lethargic]

I thought it was pretty damn good. Much better than I expected. It just non stop kick ass action. It was the best pure adventure movie I've seen in a while. I would have prefered that they stuck closer to the book but it was still cool. And the additions of Gray and Sawyer were much better than I thought they would be. I had tons of fun watching it, there was never one slow or boring moment in the whole thing, just action from start to finish with lots of kick ass moments sprinkled through out with a few goofy moments here and there as well. Not a perfect movie and I don't like it more than T3, but it was cool. But to me, it would be very hard to put all those kick ass characters in one movie and screw it up. I mean, it's just a great friggin concept to use those guys as superheroes. Seeing Mina drac-out and whip ass was cool. The scenes of Dorian Gray walking through a hail of bullets with just a sword were awesome. I was also thrilled that they kept Moriarty as the villain instead of pussying out and thinking that the viewers wouldn't know who he was. All the little wink and nods to past League members and to things like Murders in the Rue Morgue were fun. As a major fan of the book I was more than pleased. I can't wait to see it again.

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

I wasn't going to see it...but Dr. Tom's review makes it a must see for me.

 

Everytime I see a shitty movie, he gives it a good review...and the one time I read him give a bad review for something I saw...I loved the movie.

[Guest NaturalBornThriller4:20]

Something about this movie reminded me of The Avengers, that's what made me say NO to it.

 

Besides the fact that Sean Connery was in it.

[Guest Mole]

I saw this movie today because I was 20 minutes late for Pirates, so I thought I would give this movie a try.

 

This movie was awful. The storytelling was horrible, the dialogue was terrible, and I thought it just sucked. I was so bored and tired that I fell asleep, once one of the "twists" happened. I woke up when the credits came on, so can someone fill me in after:

 

Spoiler (Highlight to Read):

M reveals himself to be the Phantom"

[Guest the 1inch punch]

I wont be seeing it, i boycott all Stuart Townsend movies

 

He walked off the set of LOTR, quit as Aragorn

 

WTF was he thinking?????

[Guest Lethargic]

I saw this movie today because I was 20 minutes late for Pirates, so I thought I would give this movie a try.

 

This movie was awful. The storytelling was horrible, the dialogue was terrible, and I thought it just sucked. I was so bored and tired that I fell asleep, once one of the "twists" happened. I woke up when the credits came on, so can someone fill me in after:

 

Spoiler (Highlight to Read):

M reveals himself to be the Phantom"

About a hour's worth of stuff happened after that.

[Guest Mole]

Well, what was the ending.

[Guest Lethargic]

Spoiler (Highlight to Read):

Dorian Gray turned out to be the spy who was helping M. M turned out to be Professor Moriarty. Invisible Man got burnt to a crisp, Quartermain got killed, Hyde got beat up by an even bigger Hyde. Good guys win in the end when Mina flashed her tits at M distracting him long enough for Nemo to ram his entire submarine up his ass. I can't believe you slept through the nipple shot.

[Guest Downhome]

I saw it at the beach Saturday night, and it was something else. That isn't automaticly a good thing either, heh.

 

I loved the premise, it was an outstanding idea. They failed horribly in the execution however. The film that was released isn't what was meant to be created. It was originally written as a huge dramatic struggle within each character, and their dealings with where they are at that point in their lives, after their original adventures are behind them.

 

If I'm not mistaken, Connery himself had a part in "dumbing it down" in order to make it a more balls out action flick. Why, I have no idea.

 

The idea was fantastic, but the script and basic plot overall is horrid. I enjoyed it however, as I was really interested in the idea and everything, that really captured me.

 

It's a mega "check your brain at the door" flick, which has it's moments. My favorites included the scenes with Dr. Jeckyll & Mr. Hyde.

 

I really wish the film had come out as it was originally intended. It could have been something truly special. I still think we'll see a sequel to it though, and perhaps they'll learn from their mistakes on this one.

[Guest DrTom]

I thought LXG was the best Summer movie I have seen so far...

It probably IS the best summer movie so far. No, that's not an endorsement. Summer movies are usually just mindless action sequences strewn together while the characters collect various plot coupons, all designed to placate slacker teens with disposable income for a few hours. So, yes, by that standard, LXG is a fine summer movie.

 

And it's a shitty movie by any other yardstick.

 

Tom sawers was never fleshed out, or even givin a back rong treatment like the others

Um... I'm guessing that's supposed to be "background?" I don't recall them even calling him "Tom Sawyer" during the movie, instead just using "Mr. Sawyer" the whole time. I guess everyone was supposed to know who he was, since he was a brash American given to fits of impetuous behavior and feats of derring-do.

 

The Phantom looked cheesey at first...

At first? He looked stupid the entire time. He was a walking collection of horrible bad-guy cliches, from the scarred face, to the mask, to the tendency to pontificate in before-I-kill-you-Mr.-Bond manner. Never mind that his ultimate goal was completely pointless considering he had STEAM TANKS in 1899. He could have smashed his way across Europe had he wanted, or gotten rich selling those weapons to the highest bidders. Instead, we had the silly little plot twist about his real motivations, and it was just one more pockmark on the movie.

 

and as to how futurelistic( spelling sorry) some of the weapons were, that his the point of Victorian are sci fi.

I don't mind the weapons being futuristic. I can suspend my disbelief to that degree. What was inane was the fact that a presumable intelligent villain would squander his vast technological advantage in such a spectacularly silly fashion. It's a pointless risk that no thinking man would take, and if the villains are just mouth-breathing caricatures, what does that say for the quality of the heroes? Or the movie?

 

(BTW: The review in question)

[Guest Grand Slam]

1inch punch: As I understand it, it was a mutual decision for Stuart Townsend to leave LOTR. He was unhappy with how the part was written (he wanted a darker, more brooding Aragorn) and Peter Jackson thought he looked to young and "pretty" for someone who was supposed to be in the wilderness for like 30 years prior to the movies.

[Guest J*ingus]

Everytime I see a shitty movie, he gives it a good review...and the one time I read him give a bad review for something I saw...I loved the movie.

 

Yeah, I feel the same way, and have a few minor points of debate.

 

At first? He looked stupid the entire time. He was a walking collection of horrible bad-guy cliches, from the scarred face, to the mask, to the tendency to pontificate in before-I-kill-you-Mr.-Bond manner.

 

I agree with the stupid Bond villain crap (although it is a Connery action flick, after all), but I thought the entire point of the scars and the mask were to insinuate that he might be the Phantom of the Opera, who was kicking around the literary Continent at about that time. Considering that Leroux's Phantom was one of the original masked mutant freaks in popular culture, I wouldn't call that unoriginal.

 

Never mind that his ultimate goal was completely pointless considering he had STEAM TANKS in 1899. He could have smashed his way across Europe had he wanted, or gotten rich selling those weapons to the highest bidders. Instead, we had the silly little plot twist about his real motivations, and it was just one more pockmark on the movie.

 

Personally, I think that entire armies of invisible vampiric Mr. Hydes attacking out of giant submarines is more intimidating than a bunch of tanks. And I thought the movie would've been much better if the League had to fight an invisible vampiric Hydish version of the villain at the end of the movie, as the big bad guy himself was pretty damn lame once he was unmasked. And I don't think M. was ever supposed to be Mycroft Holmes, that was a plot device from the book that didn't make it into the movie (one of dozens, unfortunately).

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Hey Jingus, about stuff from the graphic novel that didn't make the film, is it true that in the novel Dr. Jekyll is a closet homosexual, and a frustrated Mr. Hyde rapes The Invisible Man? My friend has the novel, but I won't get to borrow it from him until I see it again in September, and that's the only thing I really know of the graphic novel...I end up telling it to people all the time, and would like to know if it actually happened (I picked it up from an article in the S.F. Bay Guardian on homosexuality in comic characters). If it didn't...guess I have a lot of "whoops"-ing to do.

 

And, though I don't really like to do this, I'm going to quote myself, cross-posting what I said about the film at WDI:

 

QUOTE (Banter~!! @ Jul 12 2003, 01:52 AM)

...then recruits Dorian Grey (the immortal from Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray)...

 

Ha! I knew I'd heard the name "Dorian Grey" from somewhere before! Him and Quatermain were the only literary characters I couldn't place.

 

Shame on anyone who thought the film's plot would even remotely resemble the graphic novel series (I mean come on, it's PG-13 for goodness sake! ). Having only gotten through a few pages of the graphic novel series though, I couldn't criticise for that reason.

 

Not that I really would anyway; I do plan on re-borrowing my friends' copy of the original series soon, but the film makes a good sanitized companion. I saw it this weekend, and I enjoyed it for many of the same reasons CJ did, however I also enjoyed how each of the characters were developed "in context". One could easily have assumed the audience was familiar with all the characters from reading the original literature and not bothered (though the cynic in me questions that assumption of today's movie audience, since I admit I haven't) and just had them go on as such, but there were small, but suitable introductions to each character's background, and I was fooled by one of the requisite "heel turns" (though afterward I couldn't for the life of me figure out why ).

 

The film plays it safe in many ways (hence my use of the term "requisite 'heel turns'"), but its source, atmosphere, and grandiose nature (I'm actually surprised more "past meets present/future" action films aren't made, as the contrast between the 19th century architecture and Nautilus made it much more impressive than if the same ship appeared alongside other ships in a modern setting) keep it a step above other popcorn flicks. My friend said he enjoyed Pirates of the Caribbean more, but until I see that one for myself, LXG is my pick for the summer.

 

and

 

QUOTE (Dave Dymond @ Jul 14 2003, 10:31 PM)

Damn.

 

You guys need to help me out here.

 

EVERY review that I see, says that the movie SUCKS. Most importantly, they claim that it starts off great, but tails off, and that there non-sensical plot twists.

 

But I really want to see it.

 

So what's the story, if you "suspend disbelief" is it at least professionally done? Like okay special effects, and the script isn't crap?

 

Well first off, reviewers are often just plain wrong. I know, I am one

 

No written review, no matter how big the "name", is ever gospel. Though I prefer not to use the term, there's always "guilty pleasures", if people look at you funny for liking an acknowledged "bad movie".

 

Anyway, I had no problem with the story. It was somewhat standard (mysterious bad guy wants to take over the world with bad technology and stuff), but James Bond's been doing it for 20 films and nobody gets on his case for it. It's how a film works with a standard story that counts.

 

The special effects were great. FX-based movies these days have a bad habit of looking "too real", and thus "fake". Even The Matrix films suffer from this in my mind. The only "FX problems" I've had with LXG was a bit too much sparkle in a surfacing Nautilus.

 

I'm curious as to how this "non-sensical plot twists" notion was decided. I obviously can't discuss it any further because I don't want to spoil anything...but I didn't see any twists that were blatantly done just for the sake of doing so. It all fit back into the story, without feeling forced back into it.

 

I guess just as someone who's seen a lot of movies that REALLY suck, it always pisses me off when other people talk about how much a certain film is "the worst of the summer" or whatever. I think I need to kidnap critics and subject them to Jerry Warren marathons. With Ed Wood and H.G. Lewis [sans gore] on intermission. No bots allowed.

[Guest Lethargic]

I agree with the stupid Bond villain crap (although it is a Connery action flick, after all), but I thought the entire point of the scars and the mask were to insinuate that he might be the Phantom of the Opera, who was kicking around the literary Continent at about that time.  Considering that Leroux's Phantom was one of the original masked mutant freaks in popular culture, I wouldn't call that unoriginal.

 

That's exactly what I thought too. Because from what I had read during production said that they weren't going to have M be Moriarty and just use this made up Phantom villain. Then when I saw the way he looked in the movie it started dawning on me, is this supposed to be THE Phantom?

 

And I don't think M. was ever supposed to be Mycroft Holmes, that was a plot device from the book that didn't make it into the movie (one of dozens, unfortunately).

 

Who thought he was Mycroft? It says specificly in the movie who he is when Connery calls him The Napoleon of Crime Professor Moriarty. That's who he was in the book as well and he killed Sherlock Holmes and all that. At least in the original book it was, I haven't read the newer book. Why would it be Mycroft though? Mycroft is Sherlock Holmes' lazy brother. That would be a great villain, somebody too lazy to actually do anything.

 

Hey Jingus, about stuff from the graphic novel that didn't make the film, is it true that in the novel Dr. Jekyll is a closet homosexual, and a frustrated Mr. Hyde rapes The Invisible Man?

 

I heard thats in the latest one. It's not in the original graphic novel. The only rape in that one is BY the Invisible Man who hangs out in an all girls school and gets girls pregnant.

[Guest DrTom]

but I thought the entire point of the scars and the mask were to insinuate that he might be the Phantom of the Opera, who was kicking around the literary Continent at about that time.

Possible, but there's no other connection besides the name. I didn't make that association simply because the film didn't seem intelligent enough to cross over like that.

 

Personally, I think that entire armies of invisible vampiric Mr. Hydes attacking out of giant submarines is more intimidating than a bunch of tanks.

But if you have weapons no one else has, and you have the manpower and facilities to make ever more of them, what else do you need? He could have destroyed anyone in his way with just the tanks and whatever else he might have had. Cloning the League was unnecessary. Maybe in Hollywood, conquering with style points is important, but I don't think any intelligent villain would squander the large advantage he already had in so foolishly reckless a fashion.

 

And I don't think M. was ever supposed to be Mycroft Holmes...

I'm pretty sure I've seen him credited as such. Whatever his name was, he was a remarkable nincompoop, especially if he's supposed to be someone like Moriarity.

[Guest Lethargic]

M is Moriarty. It says so in the book AND the movie. I wonder how you could've reviewed the movie if you missed the scene where that was revealed, what else did you miss?

 

The Mycroft Holmes character is supposed to be so fat and lazy that he doesn't leave his house. Obviously, that wasn't him then.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Personally, I think that entire armies of invisible vampiric Mr. Hydes attacking out of giant submarines is more intimidating than a bunch of tanks.

But if you have weapons no one else has, and you have the manpower and facilities to make ever more of them, what else do you need? He could have destroyed anyone in his way with just the tanks and whatever else he might have had. Cloning the League was unnecessary. Maybe in Hollywood, conquering with style points is important, but I don't think any intelligent villain would squander the large advantage he already had in so foolishly reckless a fashion.

Well, it can be assumed that M was in contact with several of the League members before the plot of the film took place, or at least the first member of the League introduced in the film, Captain Nemo. Its entirely likely that M had been spying on/stealing some of Nemo's technological wizardry secrets before, and it's from this design that he made his original tank. The problem with him just using the tank, though, is it's not very easy to transport - so at the very least he'd need more of Nemo's technology (mainly the faux Nautilus prototypes in his factory near the end of the film). As for the rest of the League, I think M explained fairly well in the film that he was taking their "powers" (so to speak) not just to create his own, invincible army (as the tanks could and would eventually be over-run by pure man-power and/or captured by other countries so they could develop their own anti-tank weaponry), was that so he could backstab and take out the rest of the League with their own powers. Yea, it's mainly for style points, but it's also a way of testing how well his "next generation" mutations of the "evil League" could work against their original models (like the endless "master vs. pupil" showdowns in martial arts films).

 

And as for intelligent villains squandering their large advantages in so foolishly reckless a fashion...hi, Adolf Hitler?

[Guest DrTom]

M is Moriarty. It says so in the book AND the movie. I wonder how you could've reviewed the movie if you missed the scene where that was revealed, what else did you miss?

I'm well aware that M is Moriarty. I was well aware of it when Quatermain helpfully announced it to the audience. I've also read that he's supposed to be (or at least masquerades as) Mycroft Holmes, but that doesn't appear to be accurate. I guess the only thing I "missed" is what makes this move good enough that people will waste the keystrokes required to defend it.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

I guess the only thing I "missed" is what makes this move good enough that people will waste the keystrokes required to defend it.

Whoa there Tom, you're bordering on AICN-level "criticism" there. I think the reason so many of us are defending it aren't because it's a great film, and probably not one I'd want to see again, but because you've latched onto this crusade to brand a "just all right" film as "unwatchable". It just seems silly since we all know there are lots of worse movies out there.

 

Oh, and so I'm not totally spamming, my girlfriend didn't like the movie either, and um, look over there, it's Moriarty!

[Guest DrTom]

Whoa there Tom, you're bordering on AICN-level "criticism" there.

If you say so. I don't read that site, so I'll have to take your word for it.

 

but because you've latched onto this crusade to brand a "just all right" film as "unwatchable".

I don't even think it's "just all right," nor would I call it unwatchable. I think it's dashed bad from just about every way one can measure the quality of a film, but it's not even the worst move I've seen this year. People seem to be defending it because a) it's a summer movie, b) Connery's in it, and c) OMG MASKED VILLAIN~! To me, the movie was a series of cliches and plot coupons, with a few good moments, but not nearly enough of them to outweigh the huge reserves of suck that had been accruing. I stand by the 2/10 I gave it.

[Guest J*ingus]

I see it as a movie which had some serious flaws in it (not the least of which that the entire scene in Venice is physically impossible, since the city isn't built like that), but I still enjoyed the basic concept a lot, and was amused by the performances. Which is about the reverse of how I saw Terminator 3, which had a lot of really cool shit in it, but ultimately left me disappointed and unsatisfied. So, yeah, whatever. Individual taste is wacky.

[Guest Lil Naitch]

Actually, in the novelization of the movie, it was revealed that Sawyer was going after The Phantom because the Pahntom had killed his best friend and fellow Secret Service Agent... Huck Finn.

 

Also, the book revealed that the Invisible Man was working with the British Government all along as a plant.

 

And finally, nere the end of the book, Mina give Tom a n opening instead of shooting him down.

[Guest Crucifixio Jones]

Stuart Townsend bangs Charlize Theron.

 

That's enough to make Dorian Grey the coolest character ever and LXG not as bad as Tom seems to think it is.

[Guest razazteca]

I saw the movie and enjoyed it for what it was, your basic Action Movie. Yeah it has a lot of cliches but it is no worst than the average Michael Bay/Don Simpson movie. The League is no diff than The Rock which also had Sean Connery as the lead action hero. I see no problem with him as the main character, Sean works well as the elder hero trying to retire but always gets back to having to save the world.

 

The special effect were as good as any other movie, the with the period weapons and technology. The fights scenes were not full on over the top kung fu and had decent sword play by Nimo and Gray.

 

I would like to see a sequel to this movie and I cannot see a reason why not to make one.....hell if Jeepers Keepers and House of 1000 corpses can have one why not this. Possible new League members could be Sherlock Homes or a cowboy of the american west.

 

2/10 is too low of a rating I would give it 6/10 for action and plot twist.

[Guest DrTom]

Stuart Townsend bangs Charlize Theron.

I already liked Townsend, but that makes him much cooler. It doesn't help the character, though, since Dorian Gray was very poorly written and ended up being an idiot who didn't know when to close his eyes.

[Guest Lethargic]

My own problem with the movie is that I wish it was longer to flesh out some of the between action scenes. Besides that it was much better than I expected. I expected anything from total crap to just ok. But besides the Phantom looking goofy, I really can't even find anything there that would even make say "I don't agree with you but I see your point." I can't wait for the DVD release so I can watch it a couple more times. I don't remember there ever being a summer season that has had this many movies that I've actually liked since I was a little kid.