*** Official "THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN" Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Paul Case]

Ouch!

League review

 

[Seth Paxton]

I never go with only one review, but I do wonder what the point is of this quote...

Worse, when the crew find themselves in a nighttime Venice (everything occurs at night in this film in a transparent attempt to camouflage the godawful CGI background mattes) and a character calls out, "Hurry up, we need to find the bomb," the only response is first the very reasonable, "What bomb," followed by the sad realization that they're going to have a hard time finding this bomb because they're all starring in it.

A) IS that the reason for the night settings, or just a personal connection that in some way comments on the CGI without actually saying what was bad with it.

B) Skip the sidebar CGI bash and look at the content of the sentence..."Worse...when a character [says something]...the response is...very reasonable...followed by [my personal opinion that the film sucks]."

How is that an example of why the film is bad, what about that is "worse"? It's not. In fact, he just COMPLIMENTED the actual point he brought up. Sheesh, some of these net critics need a writing course so they can be untaught the "hip speak" of AICN-style blurb-centric reviews that are meant to quote well without really saying anything.


Let me say that it could be that this review will eventually represent the sum total of opinions of the film. I just found that quote very annoying and also noticed a bit of a comic reader angle brought to it. Some of the problems he points out sound like very standard narrative script devices/motifs which signal key character moments to the average audience, whom we might forgive for not reading up on their Wells and Wilde one hundred years later.

However, his final paragraph is much more specific in discussing problems and his record on films for this year mostly comes close to agreeing with me, though his opinion of GONY, 25th Hour, Hours, and Chicago don't exactly line up.

In the end, I would call this a bad early sign too. I hope he was just sour to the idea being a reader of the novel or just not into the style of the film, rather than the film actually being not just bad, but awful.

Who do we believe, Dugger or this guy? For the sake of a good time, let's hope it's Dugger.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Well, I do trust the Dugger's opinion - but I also know Walter Chaw and his work. I honestly think he's one of the best critics out there.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Okay, well I will consider that one thing as a minor quibble, and acknowledged that in general he seems to align with my opinion on the films we have in common.

My guess would be that one of two things are true. Either he is dead on (from my viewpoint) or he just came into the film having a problem with it (which can happen).


And as I reread my post and his review, I think I also brought a bad attitude in reading his review. My post looks more like grumpy complaining nitpicker, but for integrity's sake, I'll leave it up.

 

[Dan Shogren]

I can only hope that it's slightly better than the avengers. Im still going to see it, but im expecting to be let down.

 

[Eric Franklin]

http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&id...019&cf=trailer

Here are six clips for those who don't mind spoilers.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think an opportunity was missed by not getting Winona Ryder to reprise the role of Mina Harker? I think that could have been a scream. :b

 

[Robert Crawford]

This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.

All HTF member film reviews of "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" should be posted to the Official Review Thread.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.


Crawdaddy

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Oh lord.

Guys, expect a lot of references to Rollerball and Wild Wild West and perhaps even Battlefield Earth.

It's bad. In a big way.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Damn, who am I going to believe, my man Dugger or Scott????????? Decisions, decisions, time to flip a coin if it's heads I go see the film and tales, I don't.





Crawdaddy

 

[Seth Paxton]

Man, and the recent trailers and buzz reviews (you know, from the sneaks that show up at AICN, etc...probably plants) had me hopeful.

Now its back to seeing it as turd city. Going up against Pirates which is going to roll along, this film is f***ed in a big way.

One reason I know it must be bad is that the worst internet critic around just gave it a thumbs up listed at Rotten Tomatoes. I consider that an even worse sign than people I trust saying its bad.


PS - I went through and read more of Walter Chaw's stuff and would have to agree with Scott that he actually seems to be one of the better writers out there. I'm even more ashamed of my earlier post bashing him (well, bash might be a bit strong, but I wasn't positive). :b

Sorry Walter, wherever you are. It looks like you nailed it on this one. I might still like it, but I won't have a lot of competition for the DVD purchase if I do.

 

[Tino]

Man, Ebert just gave it one :star:!

I was really hoping that this film would have turned out to be good, and it may very well be, but the reviews so far have been brutal.

My friend who worked on the film said sadly to my brother yesterday once the reviews started filtering in "We're getting killed".

Too bad.:frowning:

I'll see it this weekend. Hopefully it isn't as bad as I am hearing.

 

[Will K]

Here's another not-so-flattering review from The Charlotte Observer. I must admit the idea sounded intriguing at first, but the trailer just had "mess" written all over it. Sad because there are some talented people involved. The box-office is not going to be pretty.

 

[John Doran]

i just read a few more of walter chaw's (the reviewer from the first post of his thread) pieces, two of them for movies i loved.

i can say that he is just like almost every other movie-critic i have ever had the misfortune of reading.

i wouldn't be surprised if LXG is just fine.

you know, i wonder what these critics are like as people - i wonder what it would be like to engage them in a regular conversation. i almost shiver to think.

- jd

 

[Holadem]

Well, the only critic I ever engaged in actual conversation with is Scott, and he was just a fun, foul mouthed, beer drinking, loud burping, tight slapping kinda guy :tu.

Your secret is out Scott.

--
Holadem

 

[SteveGon]

Here's a link to Roger Ebert's review


The trailers worried me, this clinches it. :frowning:

 

[Joel Mack]

Good lord, who edits Roger's reviews?

He calls Connery's character "QuaRtermain" all the way through the piece, and then there's this quote: "Maybe the filmmakers did their research at the Venetian Hotel in Venice, where Connery arrived by gondola for the movie's premiere." I assume he means "the Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas"...

I'm sure I'll end up seeing it anyway. I'll just make sure it's a matinee...

 

[Jim Peavy]

The idea of having Dorian Gray completely immortal as long as he doesn't see his portrait
is dumb.

In fact having Dorian Gray in it at all is kinda' dumb. Tom Sawyer, too. I understand they were added for the film version.

 

[John Doran]

why are those things dumb?

 

[Jay E]

Wow, everywhere I look I see bad reviews for this film. The most disappointing thing about the reviews is how many are saying how dumbed down it is. What a shame but I started having reservations about the film after seeing the trailer & TV spots, it reminded me of films such as The Wild Wild West & The Avengers, not a very good thing. Looks like I might wait and rent the DVD.