9 replies to this topic

[chrisno1]

I'd never seen this movie un til tonight. It was on E4. what a load of rubbish.
I'm not sure I've ever had my intelligence insulted quite as much as these 2 hours of nonsensical garbage.
I know it's based on a comic book, which suggests I need to take it all with a pinch of salt (nay, a full statue of Lot's wife I reckon) but dear God, what an abysmal production froim start to finish. The farfectched plot in itself was mind numbing enough, but when you couple it to the overgrown theatrical superheroics it was laughable. The quite appalling CGI animation constantly boggled me. They made London, Paris and Venice seem the darkest, meanest looking places on earth; there was supposed to be a carnival in Venice but it looked more like a macarbe funeral.
The Nautilus? How big was that? It wouldn't even fit in the canals. It wouldn't even fit in the Thames. Dear God! I know it's a fantasy movie, but really, are we supposed to just ignore true science!
As for the plot. I could have written it on a postcard: "Six 1800s superheroes kill bad master criminal." What's so exciting about that? They ought to succeed - there's only one of him! As for the Dorian Grey business - I saw that coming as soon as the mysterious Phantom materialised in his library. Hardly the shock of shocks.
Anyone, my 007 point is: what was with all those bizarre 007 references: M, All the time in the world and dead relatives. Were they put in as some sort of nod-and-wink at Connery's expense? Are they in the original comic book?

[OmarB]

LXG is another case of Allan Moore's books being adapted badely. Just like V for Vendetta, From hell, Watchmen, Swamp Thing, etc. He writes in a way that fits the medium of comics, much like you have literary authors who write amazing books that you can never see being made into a viable film. He has years ago divorced himself from those trying to make money off of his work. But as a whole, if you read LXG it's a great reading experience, it takes all the characters from literature and puts them all together in one universe where they can interact. You have M, James Bond's dad and Uncle alongside Mina Harker and The Invisible Man!

[mttvolcano]

Hey!
I liked V for vendetta, though it wasn't what he wanted nor was it like the comics.
As for the others they were blah!

[Garth007]

How is Watchmen adapted badly? it fallowed almost board by board of the comic. only thing different about it was the ending and they just changed it form a monster attacking to a bomb but it made more since too. it was really good just long.

[OmarB]

Hey, I loved Watchmen, it's my favorite graphic novel and the reason I'm even a Zack S fan. But the movie did have it's problems and the different ending really changed stuff about the meaning of Dr M at the end and his relation to earth.

[Skudor]

LXG truly is an awful film - didn't Connery say as much himeself?

[Ernst Stavro Blofeld Jr.]

I don't know what's worse: this god-awful film or Alan Moore's holy than thou attitude about it and others like it. He did these books for money, why should that preclude the company from making money of that work as well. Personally, I thought both V for Vendetta and Watchmen were good films, while still leaving opportunity for Moore's work to be read as both a counter-part and different experience.

Watchmen was very loyal to the story and the characters, and IMO the ending was changed for the better. The movie would have been unnecessarily long if including the missing artists storylines as well as the Black Freighter. The alternative proved to be a good opportunity for John, who had been so disconnected from humanity, to help bring them together (even if it wasn't his idea to begin with). The biggest problem with the film is that its too loyal to the source and is a slave to the source rather than adapting the source to work as a film. While purists would hate it, I did an edit of the film that eliminates some of the fan service and makes a tighter film for it.

[marktmurphy]

It's still a cracker of an idea to get these characters together. I don't even mind the film moving away in tone from the original book a bit; it's great fodder for a silly popcorn movie: and adding Dorian Grey and making him into a superhero is quite a fun idea too. It's just a shame it was made badly; and it'd be very sad if this was Sean's last ever appearance on the silver screen, as it appears to be.

[AMC Hornet]

If I had been Sir Sean this would have been enough to put me off film acting too ("never again!"). My main complaint, however, is the treatment of Captain Nemo.

If you are - as I am - a devotee of Jules Verne and the character of Prince Dakar, you will know that the "accursed nation" Nemo refers to while battling the war mongers of the world is none other than England. To have Nemo devoting the remainder of his life to "atoning for [his] years of piracy" is a slap in the face to both Nemo and Verne.

Besides, Nemo first appeared in 1866, after the end of the American civil war (Verne had him appear again (and die) in 'Mysterious Island', which began during the civil war, but that's another story). Given that he would have had to have been at least thirty years old in 1866, he would have been at least 63 in 1899. I hope I will be that spry (but not as repentant) when I'm that old.

As for the rest of the story, I accept that Moore's intention (I trust) was to encourage today's youth to pick up a classic book now and then, but I fear that said youth will be disappointed with the pace of storytelling prevalent in H. Ryder Haggard et al's day.

Edited by AMC Hornet, 06 May 2011 - 12:59 AM.

[jaguar007]

I'll admit that is it certainly not a good movie, but I do have to say it is sort of a guilty pleasure film for me (not that I have seen it in the last couple of years). I mainly enjoy watching it because of Connery. It is too bad that it is his last film.