Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [SFC] League of Extraordinary Gents

Expand Messages
  • Amy Harlib
    aharlib@earthlink.net I think you pinpointed the problems with LXG quite accurately! Amy
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 1, 2003
      aharlib@...
      I think you pinpointed the problems with LXG quite accurately!
      Amy

      > At this time I would like to invite aharlib, dburgess5, mjbphotos and
      > raybell_scott to join me in critiquing the movie, since it has been a
      > month since it hit the shores of dear ole blighty and Wildfire has
      > shown no interest in viewing it. All those not mentioned above should
      > not read further since the entire posting is spoilers.
      >
      > Sorry for the delay. I hope that waiting for the Welshman ( :) )
      > hasn't dimmed the recall of those who wanted to participate.
      >
      > I will get the ball rolling by asking how you felt the special
      > effects came across. For all the froofaraw I was generally plaesed by
      > them. I didn't think the Jeckle/Hyde transormation was as bad as any
      > of the newspaper critics did. The invisible man was superb.
      >
      > My bad feelings about the movie stem from the all-too frequent times
      > when something jarringly inconsistent happened. For example, the
      > introduction of a modern, streamlined automobile at that time, along
      > with the idea that the roads (built for horses and carts) would
      > support it speeding along at umptytump miles per hour. The way Sean
      > Connery leapt from it at high speed and landed as though he had
      > jumped from a stationary plinth. The way Nemo is thrown fifty feeyt
      > through the air against a concrete wall, then simply gets up.
      >
      > It is possible to suspend disbelief to the point that laws of physics
      > don't matter (such as in any Jackie Chan kung fu sequence) but this
      > was just too much for me, and quite spoiled the flow.
      >
      > The story itself was ridiculous. If Moriarty wanted to kill all those
      > capable of derailing his plan, why not just gas them/shoot
      > them/poison them at the inital gathering in his library? This, when
      > all was said and done, made me feel that the film maker was just lazy
      > and had no respect for his audience.
      >
      > I doubt I would see this movie again as a pay-to-play experience. I
      > am uncertain whether I would watch it as a freebie.
      >
      > Steve
      >
      >
      >
      > To unsubscribe:
      > sciencefictionclassics-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > To see the group page:
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciencefictionclassics/
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >
    • derhexer@aol.com
      In a message dated 8/31/2003 12:38:58 PM Central Daylight Time, ... I hope I m not excluded just because I live on the other side of the pond. I m not sure I
      Message 2 of 2 , Sep 2, 2003
        In a message dated 8/31/2003 12:38:58 PM Central Daylight Time,
        ss1400@... writes:

        > At this time I would like to invite aharlib, dburgess5, mjbphotos and
        > raybell_scott to join me in critiquing the movie, since it has been a
        > month since it hit the shores of dear ole blighty and Wildfire has
        > shown no interest in viewing it. All those not mentioned above should
        > not read further since the entire posting is spoilers.
        >
        >
        >
        > I will get the ball rolling by asking how you felt the special
        > effects came across. For all the froofaraw I was generally plaesed by
        > them. I didn't think the Jeckle/Hyde transormation was as bad as any
        > of the newspaper critics did. The invisible man was superb.
        >
        > My bad feelings about the movie stem from the all-too frequent times
        > when something jarringly inconsistent happened. For example, the
        > introduction of a modern, streamlined automobile at that time, along
        > with the idea that the roads (built for horses and carts) would
        > support it speeding along at umptytump miles per hour. The way Sean
        > Connery leapt from it at high speed and landed as though he had
        > jumped from a stationary plinth. The way Nemo is thrown fifty feeyt
        > through the air against a concrete wall, then simply gets up.
        >

        I hope I'm not excluded just because I live on the other side of the pond.

        I'm not sure I can agree w/Steve that the physics were inconsistent w/ithe
        movie. Remember, the movie was taken from a comic strip where the laws of
        physics are, at best, advisory. IMHO, within the comic book universe, characters
        can make astounding leaps and submarines can be the size of aircraft carriers.


        I agree w/Steve that Moriarty could have come up w/a better (simpler and more
        foolproof) way of killing the League. But, this is the fault of any comic
        book or adventuire/spy villain - they always seem to pick the most complex and
        Rube Goldbergish method of execution. (BTW, see The Top 100 Things I'd Do If
        I'd Do if I Ever Became An Evil Overlord at <A HREF="http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html)">
        http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html)</A>

        The invisible man was great.

        My objection to the movie was the characters themselves. They didn't seem
        real to me. Nemo had almost no personality, and his few displays of emotion
        were obviously forced; Mina Harker tried too hard to be feminine and reserved
        while hinting at her dangerous powers. I found Quartermain to be just flat as a
        character, which was disappointing because Connery can do better work, even
        with poor roles.

        I know I said the physics was inconsistent, and that didn't really bother me
        that much, but the technology was inconsistent for the late 19th Century. I
        don't believe that mass production of tanks would have been possible in 1899.
        And, the tank that was shown in the opening sequence was close to WWII quality
        - much beyond what the British fielded at Cambrai in 1917.





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.