For the most part yes.

You're all full of shit.

I watched it last night and I really dug it. I liked the effects and the story. I just had fun with it and I enjoyed it.

Not every friggin movie has to be Citizen Kane.

I got it as a blind buy and really enjoyed it a fair amount. I had a few problems with it. If they ever try and do another one I think it could be much better. I loved the cast but it took too long to rally the troops and get them off on their mission....which I might add was against one of the worst villains I've ever seen on screen. He talked big but never really did too much considering how much he was feared.

This movie was horrible, a complete mess. As a matter of fact, i just finished watching Eight Legged Freaks on cable and enjoyed it way better than this.

I had high hopes for this, but just saw it. It was average, at best. Some of the special effects were good, but the story was all over the place.

I loved the comics and knew after the reviews this summer this wasn't going to be a classic, but for the first 20 minutes or so the movie deluded me into thinking it might actually be kind of kitschy fun. Then the movie got to Venice and basically went straight into the crapper and never came out again . By the end any love I had for this bomb was mostly based upon my fond recall of the comics and original novels themselves rather than any lingering excellence in the movie itself. Feh. I'd give it **/**** and that's feeling pretty generous.

it really looked like they kept it open for a sequel. i agree about the villain...in the early parts he looked to be a really bad ass villain but that didnt end up being the case.

still i enjoyed the movie overall.

now that ive seen the movie and im going back re-reading this thread, i am so glad i dont take movies so seriously. i got to enjoy a good flick isntead of over analyzing it and comparing it to the comics or whatever crap there is. it was a fun movie...thats it. but people here are too anal about movies and have to criticize every little thing about it. my gain cuz i got to enjoy the movie while they didnt.

Just because you don't like every movie it doesn't make you anal. I enjoyed the first half of the movie. After they boarded the ship/sub the movie went downhill. It wasn't a fun movie because the sfx took me out of the movie.

I agree 100%

Bought it blind, since I'm a Connery fan and thought it was OK. Wish I could've said the same for Hulk.

Watched it last night too, thought it was a good flick. Some of the CGI effects weren't so great (the building in Kenya blowing up for one) but that was a small issue and not a deal breaker for the rest of the movie.

I think a major problem most of the people who hate this movie have is that they never actually read any classic SciFi/Horror/Adventure stories so they really don't understand these characters or their stories. The movie mimmicked the pacing and plotting of these old stories quite well. It was not just the characters that were brought over from the 19th century, it was also the way the story unfolded and was told.

In a way, what Roger Rabbit was to fans of cartoons, this movie was to fans of the classic victorian era adventure stories.

A question...

i thought it was pretty good and i own it on dvd.

i dont but people here bash every movie that isnt a classic.

I guess you've never read Stevenson's The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The Jekyll/Hyde character in LXG bears no resembalance at all to the character from the book.

This comment is interesting enough that I want to respond, even if I haven't seen the movie.

For me, every story involves a certain suspension of disbelief. I am inside the story, being led along by the creator. So long as the creator doesn't disturb me, I'll follow him anywhere.

I'll go along with the dumbest things in the world without a second glance. "Killer robots from the future driving a tow truck chasing a kid on a bike through a canal? No problem!"

If something happens in a movie that's too stupid, or too clunky, or clashes with a fact established earlier in the story, or comes out of nowhere, I lose that willing suspension of disbelief. I can't get it back. I am outside the story, and see every flaw.

Movie makers know this. It's central to their craft. If a movie is so flawed that it makes the vast majority of this board drop into analytical mode, spotting the plot holes and inconsistent effects, it's a bad movie. Folks read DVD Talk because they love movies. They wanted LXG to be a good movie. If people here didn't enjoy the movie, it was the fault of the makers, not because the people are too serious.

For that matter, Mina Harker is almost nothing like her "Dracula" character except that they're both women, Tom Sawyer I do believe never became a gun totin' car drivin' wisecrackin' secret agent in Mark Twain's novels, Dorian Gray didn't have superhuman powers to survive harm in Oscar Wilde's novel, and Allan Quatermain bore very little resemblance to an aging James Bond.

Horrible, horrible CGI -- looks like they used a program from 1990. The story was pretty banal and generic.

It's that simple. I'm extremely forgiving of movies, I'm among those who liked Daredevil and Hulk so I'm not anal, I just need to be entertained and have FX that look somewhat believable.

I shudder at thought of Hyde and the super-Hyde --- oh, save me from the CGI super-Hyde.

I kinda liked it. Definitely not one of the best of the year, but nowhere near the worst.

I would agree with this post - if you were talking about the Alan Moore GN which stayed true to the characters from their original source material. The movie just made every single one unbeatable and invulnerable so that they could have bigger explosions and lots of action. That's the pacing and plot of those old stories? No.

I enjoyed it. Wasn't great since it sadly fell short of it's potential (and was dwarfed by the superior comic book) but it was fun. But, then, this movie was never finished anyway. I remember reading that Norrington feuded endlessly with Connery (reportedly they almost got into a fist fight) and he only edited the first three reels. I think that last part may be accurate because there's a definite pacing shift shortly after the League is formed and everything feels too rushed.

Also, according to one of the audio commentaries on the DVD, Norrington was never involved in the ending of the film. The original ending was supposed to feature Campion Bond and reveal that there was a British spy hidden amongst the League (no, not Connery) and they get asked to deal with a martian invasion (hinted early in the finished film as the League is on their way to see Dorian) but Sawyer and the rest think it's nonesense There was a lot of stuff that was excised at the studios request Also, the novelization by K.J. Anderson (which was based on one of the latter versions of the script just prior to the addition of now current ending) features a lot of scenes that are also missing from the deleted scenes menu (but whose existence is acknoledged in the audio commentaries) that really fleshed out the Fantom (keeping him in full badass mode - which sadly disappeared after his ssecond appearance in the finished film) and the strife and conflict within the League itself. Had Norrington just finished editing the film and been allowed to put together the film he really wanted to present (he has gone on the record to say that he wanted the film to have a lot more introspective character moments than the studio would allow because they just wanted non-stop action with little else) it would have probably gone from an entertaining C+ to a solid B-.

That said, I still admit that I had a lot of fun with this flick but that doesn't mean I wish it could have been better.

Oh and regarding Connery's comments about not understanding The Lord of the Rings and The Matrix, in the documentary on the DVD they show him saying just that but he mentions that he thought that way because he found them to be "tricksy". He goes on to see that he didn't get how anyone was actually going to make them. So it seems it's not a case of "what the hell is this about?" but rather "and you honestly think you can do this?"

I agree.

LXG lost me when they got to Venice. There were so many things wrong with that segment, that it was impossible to keep my brain in check.



LXG didn't just require "suspension of disbelief". It required the all-out suppression of any bit of brain activity I, as a viewer, might have.

ok either you are waaaaaaaay too anal or that is the funniest post i have ever read.

This movie is terrible. For those who have not seen it, stay away and save your money and time.