OT: The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (For Literary Gurus, as well)

[Swaggs]

Saw it today, and found it suprisingly enjoyable.

For those that do not know, the basic premise is that literary heroes from the late 1800s unite to stop a great evil. I won't go into it any further than that, but I do have a question.

The film features characters I am familiar with (Alan Quartermain, The Invisible Man, Jekyl/Hyde, Mina from Dracula, an adult Tom Sawyer, w/ a few others sprinkled in), but two that I am not familiar with:

Dorian Gray. I just know that he is from a short Oscar Wilde story.

Dr. Moriarty. Do not know anything about him.

Anyone know anything of these two?

[JeeberD]

Dr Moriarty was Sherlock Holmes' arch-enemy. He was the guy who wound up killing Sherlock in the books.

That's about all I know about the guy...

[Swaggs]

Who would have thunk it: JeeberD, Literary Guru.

[CamEdwards]

Here's some info on Dorian Grey (http://www.freeessays.cc/db/10/bwa14.shtml) .

[MikeVic]

I saw a movie on Dorian Grey... he had a painting that would age instead of him, leaving him young all the time, but leaving the painting hideous-looking.

I think by the end of the movie, he slashes up the painting because he can't age with his loved one.. or something.

[bbor]

Originally posted by Swaggs
Who would have thunk it: JeeberD, Literary Guru.



LMAO!

[Honolulu_Blue]

I'd highly recommend the comics. The first series (4 issues) is out in a graphic novel of sorts. The second series may or may not be already completed. Excellent work. Done by Alan Moore of "Watchmen", "V for Vendetta", and "From Hell" fame. The comics are great stuff and from my understanding much better than the movie. There is no Dorian Grey or Tom Swayer in the books.

[NoMyths]

A sort of literary fetishist myself, I was hoping to enjoy this movie more than I figured I would. Bad news. Too much action shoot-em-up ala Wild Wild West (toss advanced weaponry into historic settings, stir), not enough what it's like to be Alan Bloody Quartermain post-legend. Or Tom Sawyer watching a vampire flit about...long way from the Mississippi. Long way from Jim.

Not to mention that the script was pretty terrible (Sean Connery's role seemed mostly reduced to punching people and reciting expository dialogue about himself), the visuals were too obviously green screen, the plot made no sense, the big villain mostly just shows up to A) taunt the main characters--oh yes, in the flesh, at their bloody headquarters--B) reveal all of his plans (with the "clever" scriptwriter having him meta the revelations by framing them with a "I know you're not supposed to tell your plans..." bit--which, by the way, is even less funny than it plays onscreen--and C) SPOILER!!! get shot from 900+ yards away with an 1899-era Winchester in the hands of someone who is both a preturnatural shot as well as a wizard at physics, accounting for both gravity and wind velocity in an exploding palace across a gale-force windscape. There's plenty else wrong. Go see that Pirates film instead--I've heard it's got a great Johnny Depp performance, which to the uninitated may sound vaguely WHA?!-ish but to the gourmands is a treat...if you're digging on some great acting from people you'd never expect it from, rent What's Eating Gilbert Grape and stare, slack-jawed, as Leonardo DiCaprio proves that he was once a beautiful actor before discovering coke and broads. Which, I suppose, is the downfall of most of us.

Thumbs down, abandon all hope all ye who enter here, a pox on the houses of both Sean Connery and whatever misbegotten director they dug up from the Jerry Bruckheimer School of How to Make Blurry Action Scenes that will Bore and Aggravate. All fifty-three of them. Houses. Not bad directors. Then again, there's always that new Dumb and Dumber film to prove the old adage: given the choice between meaningful film and crap, most people will choose the film that works on them the least . Just like I did tonight, all because of some girl. :kiss:

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by NoMyths
A sort of literary fetishist myself, I was hoping to enjoy this movie more than I figured I would. Bad news. Too much action shoot-em-up ala Wild Wild West (toss advanced weaponry into historic settings, stir), not enough what it's like to be Alan Bloody Quartermain post-legend. Or Tom Sawyer watching a vampire flit about...long way from the Mississippi. Long way from Jim.

Not to mention that the script was pretty terrible (Sean Connery's role seemed mostly reduced to punching people and reciting expository dialogue about himself), the visuals were too obviously green screen, the plot made no sense, the big villain mostly just shows up to A) taunt the main characters--oh yes, in the flesh, at their bloody headquarters--B) reveal all of his plans (with the "clever" scriptwriter having him meta the revelations by framing them with a "I know you're not supposed to tell your plans..." bit--which, by the way, is even less funny than it plays onscreen--and C) SPOILER!!! get shot from 900+ yards away with an 1899-era Winchester in the hands of someone who is both a preturnatural shot as well as a wizard at physics, accounting for both gravity and wind velocity in an exploding palace across a gale-force windscape. There's plenty else wrong. Go see that Pirates film instead--I've heard it's got a great Johnny Depp performance, which to the uninitated may sound vaguely WHA?!-ish but to the gourmands is a treat...if you're digging on some great acting from people you'd never expect it from, rent What's Eating Gilbert Grape and stare, slack-jawed, as Leonardo DiCaprio proves that he was once a beautiful actor before discovering coke and broads. Which, I suppose, is the downfall of most of us.

Thumbs down, abandon all hope all ye who enter here, a pox on the houses of both Sean Connery and whatever misbegotten director they dug up from the Jerry Bruckheimer School of How to Make Blurry Action Scenes that will Bore and Aggravate. All fifty-three of them. Houses. Not bad directors. Then again, there's always that new Dumb and Dumber film to prove the old adage: given the choice between meaningful film and crap, most people will choose the film that works on them the least . Just like I did tonight, all because of some girl. :kiss:

a perfect post.

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by NoMyths
...... There's plenty else wrong. Go see that Pirates film instead--I've heard it's got a great Johnny Depp performance, .......

Great post, I agree as well. I saw Pirates 3 nights ago and thought it was the best movie I have seen this year. The next night, I ended up going to see League of Extraordinary Gentlemen at the end I felt cheated and wanted my $9 back. Because they had just ripped me off, I walked into the Pirates showing next door and saw the final 45 minutes again and that alone was worth the money.

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen reminded me of the remake of The Time Machine a couple years ago, like a very bad B-Movie. Pirates had great sets, a great score and one of the best characters/performances I have ever seen in Jack Sparrow.

[Swaggs]

Well, to make me feel better, I only spent $3.50 on the film.

[NoMyths]

No shame, Swaggs. :)

[Easy Mac]

Working at a movie theater for the summer, I can say I've heard nothing but bad things about LXG. Everyone I talked to said it was one of the worst movies they had seen in a while.

Conversely, Pirates has been sold out at nearly every showing since it was released on Wednesday (making it a bitch to clean... people, if the credits are just starting to roll, don't fucking walk in the theater while people from the last showing are leaving, you wont get a clean fucking theater.) Almost everyone I've talked to loved the movie.

Oh, and you know its bad when a 7 pm showing of Finding Nemo gets more people than LXG at the same time.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Very disappointing to see the reaction of LXG, which I've been looking forward to as a rare "Daddy-only" movie.

But I'll join in the applause for Pirates which was seen on my son's persistence but turned out to be the best movie I've seen in quite a while. Depp really does give a quality performance in a quirky role. Every now & then one of these roles with odd characters gets captured by an actor & that's my take on Depp as Jack Sparrow. One review compared it to the way Dudley Moore handled being Arthur and that's a decent comparison IMO.

[Fritz]

Another thumbs down for League.

[Swaggs]

I saw Pirates today. I really enjoyed it, as well. Depp was excellent, and the jokes and effects were not overdone, which is sometimes a rarity. I also thought it was cool that they incorporated some of the ride's touches (the captured Pirates trying to get the dog to give them the key, the "Pirates Life" song, etc.) into the film, without getting too crazy. Suprisingly, it was probably one of the best movies I imagine I will see this year.

Disney is definitely pumping out their "ride-movies," because I saw a preview for the "Haunted Mansion" (I believe that was what it was called), as well.

[Tekneek]

Haunted Mansion has been in the works almost as long as Pirates has.

[thealmighty]

League -- sucked. I thought the special effects sucked, too, which says something for an fx based movie.

Pirates -- very enjoyable

best movie I've seen this summer -- 28 Days Later (I recommend it highly, for what that is worth)