Anyone seen LXG and care to give their review?
07-13-03, 08:50 PM
#26
DVD Talk Limited Edition
The movie was "eh!"
It wasn't particularly good, but it wasn't bone jarring bad. There were moments of enjoyment, some good laughs, some decent action, but also a pretty wooden by the number story line and too little characterization across the board.
I've read that the flooding in Prague during the shoot actually changed some of the stuff they were originally going to do, any idea how?
It wasn't particularly good, but it wasn't bone jarring bad. There were moments of enjoyment, some good laughs, some decent action, but also a pretty wooden by the number story line and too little characterization across the board.
I've read that the flooding in Prague during the shoot actually changed some of the stuff they were originally going to do, any idea how?
07-13-03, 10:24 PM
#27
DVD Talk Godfather
It was a decent film... wasn't bad, but something fun to watch to pass the time. Although i'm sure i enjoyed it more knowing who most of the characters were while my friends didn't, which made Dorian Gray a lot more interesting to me. Some nice effects, although none of the characters were very developed. It was annoying watching them pan across the Nautilus over and over again though.
07-16-03, 12:09 PM
#33
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Guelph, Ontario
Posts: 9,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had really high hopes for LXG...with Connery, Norrington and the source, I thought it could be something special.
LXG blew goats... a whole herd of them. The action was cut to ****... couldn't make heads or tails of what was going on, because they'd jump from angle to angle so fast, without reason (except to make it seem "frantic" or "action packed"... you could tell they didn't really plan out the editing of these scenes while they were shooting...seemed like random cutting to cover the gaps etc.... quite ******** if you ask me)
They made most of the characters dull and really missed some great opportunities.... Extraordinary my ass... anyone thinking of seeing this movie should do themselves a favour and go see Pirates instead.
MATT
LXG blew goats... a whole herd of them. The action was cut to ****... couldn't make heads or tails of what was going on, because they'd jump from angle to angle so fast, without reason (except to make it seem "frantic" or "action packed"... you could tell they didn't really plan out the editing of these scenes while they were shooting...seemed like random cutting to cover the gaps etc.... quite ******** if you ask me)
They made most of the characters dull and really missed some great opportunities.... Extraordinary my ass... anyone thinking of seeing this movie should do themselves a favour and go see Pirates instead.
MATT
07-16-03, 12:15 PM
#34
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Guelph, Ontario
Posts: 9,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by jonpeters
I for one, liked the Hyde FX. The use of prostectics and CG, worked out pretty well. The transformation process was a unique touch.
I for one, liked the Hyde FX. The use of prostectics and CG, worked out pretty well. The transformation process was a unique touch.
MATT
07-16-03, 12:35 PM
#35
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 15,108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ehhh. I saw it yesterday, basically a mindlessly silly action film. I wouldnt say it was horrible because there things I did like. Beard man, Hulk Man & Bat Lady were all pretty cool. The Indiana Jones wannabe character was pretty damn lousy. Connery is way to old to kicking people's asses on screen 
07-16-03, 12:44 PM
#36
DVD Talk Special Edition
LXG
I watched the movie and like it... But I cant remember if they showed Mina's reflection in makeup mirror? If they didnt maybe it was sort of a reflex thingie... you know things women do.
Im thinking she is it out of habit. but i cant remember if they showed her face. =)
just a thought.
Im thinking she is it out of habit. but i cant remember if they showed her face. =)
just a thought.
07-16-03, 02:37 PM
#37
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Minding the precious things in the Local Shop
Posts: 4,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saw it today and was totally disappointed. Too many problems to name just one. I was looking forward to the DVD before the film began. That $5.25 saved me $19.99. The Jekyll/Hyde thing was absolutely ridiculous. At the start of the film when he's introduced, he's still wearing a top hat as Hyde. It was big enough to fit his head. Did he poor the potion on it as well as drink it? (The American kid picks it up after Hyde's capture)
Mina was the best character in the film. Not really saying much as the film on the whole is one huge stinking turd. The invisible dud(e) was more annoying than he was entertaining and the whole "I'm The Phantom" thing was utterly stupid. And another thing, Do all the American characters have to be so John Wayne-esque in these kinds of films? The matte work was really obvious throughout, and the film was at times far too dark to make anything out of whatwas going on onscreen.
I tried to find something recemptive in this two hour pile of gob shite but I am wholly unable to.
What a waste. Of the films I have seen this year, this is easily the worst.
Mina was the best character in the film. Not really saying much as the film on the whole is one huge stinking turd. The invisible dud(e) was more annoying than he was entertaining and the whole "I'm The Phantom" thing was utterly stupid. And another thing, Do all the American characters have to be so John Wayne-esque in these kinds of films? The matte work was really obvious throughout, and the film was at times far too dark to make anything out of whatwas going on onscreen.
I tried to find something recemptive in this two hour pile of gob shite but I am wholly unable to.
What a waste. Of the films I have seen this year, this is easily the worst.
07-16-03, 03:49 PM
#38
DVD Talk Legend
Saw it. If it weren't for the fact that it totally crapped all over everything about the comic in terms of characters, I would consider it a good action movie. As it is, it offers little more than a few cheap thrills and some rather impressive production design.
The good:
-Captian Nemo was a great bad a$$.
-The Jekyll/Hyde deal was well done in terms of the internal conflict.
-Mina Harker was pretty hot.
The bad:
-Just about everything else in this movie falls into either bad or ugly.
I just hope that if they do a rumored R rated DVD that restores Norrington's "vision", they do it immediately and don't do a DVD with the theatrical and one with the rated R a few months down the road to drain people like me for all we're worth.
(Yeah, like that's gonna happen!)
The characters at which they failed the worst were Mina, Quartermain, and the Invisible Man. Mina was not a vampire, and if she were she would never have taken pleasure in killing people, even bad guys. Quartermain was a good character but very lacking in the self-esteem department, not to mention a drug addict; Connery obviously thought he needed to make him a cool hero instead. The Invisible Man was the original scientist in the comic, and was by no means a good person. One of the more poignant moments in the comic was him brutally murdering a policeman simply because he could get away with it.
I give the movie a C, and it's lucky to get that from me. Formulaic to the max, not faithful to the source, and only moderately entertaining as a stand alone movie.
One qustion though:
The good:
-Captian Nemo was a great bad a$$.
-The Jekyll/Hyde deal was well done in terms of the internal conflict.
-Mina Harker was pretty hot.
The bad:
-Just about everything else in this movie falls into either bad or ugly.
I just hope that if they do a rumored R rated DVD that restores Norrington's "vision", they do it immediately and don't do a DVD with the theatrical and one with the rated R a few months down the road to drain people like me for all we're worth.
(Yeah, like that's gonna happen!)
The characters at which they failed the worst were Mina, Quartermain, and the Invisible Man. Mina was not a vampire, and if she were she would never have taken pleasure in killing people, even bad guys. Quartermain was a good character but very lacking in the self-esteem department, not to mention a drug addict; Connery obviously thought he needed to make him a cool hero instead. The Invisible Man was the original scientist in the comic, and was by no means a good person. One of the more poignant moments in the comic was him brutally murdering a policeman simply because he could get away with it.
I give the movie a C, and it's lucky to get that from me. Formulaic to the max, not faithful to the source, and only moderately entertaining as a stand alone movie.
One qustion though:
Spoiler:
Last edited by Dr. DVD; 07-16-03 at 03:52 PM.
07-19-03, 05:03 PM
#44
DVD Talk Hero
I'll be generous and give this ** out of *****. I won't go into what I didn't like, because several of you have. I liked Nemo and I liked seeing Peta Wilson on screen - she definitely needs to work more. The intro was probably the best part of the movie for me, too.
Last edited by B.A.; 07-19-03 at 05:06 PM.
07-19-03, 06:14 PM
#45
DVD Talk Hero
Los Angeles Times has an interesting article about the production of the film. Here are some highlights:
The whole article can be found at http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/c...n14jul14.story
I guess this a case of could have been. And a bit of that article seems to suggest (unintentionally, of course) that the reason the intro of the film was so enjoyable for those of you that have seen the film is due to the fact that Norrington was involved directly in the editing of the first part of the movie.
With $17 million of the film's budget committed to Connery, the producers didn't have the resources to hire other familiar faces to round out the cast.
"But as brilliant as the graphic novel is, it is not a movie," said the film's screenwriter, James Dale Robinson, who also is a top comic book author. "And unfortunately, the reading level of the world has declined, so [introducing the literary characters] was something that had to be dealt with head-on."
The film's original script called for the turn-of-the-century League to prevent a flesh-eating poison gas from being introduced into New York's fledgling subway system. "But after Sept. 11, [the studio] said, 'You know what? This could actually happen,' " Robinson said.
[A colleague of Norrington's] said the director, who declined to be interviewed, was uncomfortable working with large teams of actors and crew and bristled under studio supervision.
[According to two people who worked on "League"] Norrington supervised editing only three of the film's seven reels. While Norrington did offer some post-production input and suggestions, they said, he opted out of some of the traditional roles played by directors during a film's editing — adding new visual effects, presenting the film to the studio, and incorporating or fighting the studio's notes.
"The studio wanted something a little bit flashier, more of a summer movie," screenwriter Robinson said. "Stephen wanted something that was more introspective. I was relieved to find out that even though the complexity of the characters had been whittled down, the shadings of those complications still remained."
I guess this a case of could have been. And a bit of that article seems to suggest (unintentionally, of course) that the reason the intro of the film was so enjoyable for those of you that have seen the film is due to the fact that Norrington was involved directly in the editing of the first part of the movie.
07-20-03, 10:43 PM
#46
DVD Talk Legend
Saw it today (matinee price) and enjoyed it. Not great or high art, but heaps better than what most the critics said. I really wanted to see it, then saw all those negative reviews on rottentomatoes, and almost passed. Thought maybe it was another "Tomb Raider". Thankfully (for me), it wasn't. It was much better IMO. I'd give it *** out of ****. And yes, "Pirates" was better and I would recommend that one over this. But it's a decent summer action/adventure.
07-30-03, 03:17 PM
#47
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Formerly known as Groucho AND Bandoman/Death Moans, Iowa
Posts: 18,295
Received 372 Likes
on
266 Posts
I saw it last night, and I had to wonder about a few things. Why did the Invisible Man's stubble show up as dark when he put on make-up?
Why did a vampire who could heal from any wound need reading glasses?
And was(Spoilers)
M really James Moriarty, Connery says something along the lines of "Aren't you dead?" And Moriarty replies "I was, but I was reborn" or something like that, then they get interuppted. What the heck happened there?
Why did a vampire who could heal from any wound need reading glasses?
And was(Spoilers)
M really James Moriarty, Connery says something along the lines of "Aren't you dead?" And Moriarty replies "I was, but I was reborn" or something like that, then they get interuppted. What the heck happened there?
