|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jan 8, 2017 20:01:41 GMT
A film I've always had a fascination with and one which, among my group of friends back in school, was genuinely cool. Part of this retro adventure wave that really exploded with movies like Mask of Zorro and then the first Pirates. Of course, I later read the comics and, well, you can guess the rest.
I revisited it not too long ago and yeah, doesn't hold up fully but I'd be lying if I said I was bored. Steampunk does tickle my fancy, and I liked Curran and Flemyng here. Anyone else?
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Mar 12, 2021 18:11:43 GMT
What's weird is, when I did rewatch, I found it less coherent than when I had seen it as a teen. I wondered if it was my memory, then I remembered - I had watched the deleted scenes and folded them back into the movie in my mind. They don't magically make it great, but it gives the characters a lot more dimension.
|
|
|
Post by fitzoliverj on Mar 12, 2021 19:38:34 GMT
It's a very good "bad movie", if that makes sense. So much of it is as dumb as can be, but it's glorious in its awfulness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2021 20:06:14 GMT
I think because of Connery it gets lumped in with The Avengers from 1998 which really IS bad. League is a reasonable attempt at an early 2000s actioner but from a studio hack in Stephen Norrington. It's a piss-poor version of Alan Moore's work but hey, that's never stopped Hollywood. Worth it for Tony Curran and Jason Flemyng on the commentary though.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Mar 12, 2021 20:24:08 GMT
LXG is a fun enjoyable film, the premise is such a good idea I'm surprised it hasn't been turned into a tv show. & of course what a lot of people don't know is that it was optioned as a movie when the comic book was first being conceived.
|
|
|
Post by grinch on Mar 12, 2021 21:38:23 GMT
This one is very much a guilty pleasure of mine. The plot has a lot of holes and some story threads go absolutely nowhere (Jekyll harbouring a secret attraction to Mina for example) but it’s a fun ride in any case.
Considering how different the characterisations of Hyde and the - sorry I mean A Invisible Man are in this I wonder what they would have done had they adapted the second volume.
It’s definitely an idea which I think would suit being adapted into a television or Netflix series although getting the rights to certain characters such as Fu Manchu or Billy Bunter would be an absolute nightmare I think.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Mar 12, 2021 21:50:19 GMT
This one is very much a guilty pleasure of mine. The plot has a lot of holes and some story threads go absolutely nowhere (Jekyll harbouring a secret attraction to Mina for example) but it’s a fun ride in any case. Considering how different the characterisations of Hyde and the - sorry I mean A Invisible Man are in this I wonder what they would have done had they adapted the second volume. It’s definitely an idea which I think would suit being adapted into a television or Netflix series although getting the rights to certain characters such as Fu Manchu or Billy Bunter would be an absolute nightmare I think. In the comic Fu Manchu was never named as such, even though everyone knew who he was, due to the rights.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Mar 12, 2021 22:25:03 GMT
I enjoyed it. It's all over the place at times and there are simply too many 'Extraordinary Gentlemen' to make a coherent film, but it's fun seeing famous characters going AWOL from their books, all together. And a very nice submarine!
Along the same lines, having heard an eye-popping reference in a Sixie story recently, I'm now waiting for BF to bring us the boxset 'Jane Austen: Vampire Slayer'. ( You're surprised? My Regency-style wig nearly flew off! )
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Mar 12, 2021 23:19:14 GMT
Worth it for Tony Curran and Jason Flemyng on the commentary though. Oh it's something else alright.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Wearer of Hats on Mar 12, 2021 23:21:40 GMT
It’s not bad bad, but it’s not good bad either. It needed to not take itself seriously and possibly have a soundtrack by Queen.
|
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,666
|
Post by shutupbanks on Mar 13, 2021 0:28:35 GMT
If it didn’t have the baggage of being adapted from anAlan Moore comic, it would be more fondly remembered, I think. I haven’t seen it for some time but it was harmless fun. I was baffled by the inclusion of Tom Sawyer, though. As one commentator said at the time, he was unnecessary unless they were trying to get some fences painted.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Wearer of Hats on Mar 13, 2021 2:03:52 GMT
All that said - I saw it twice in the cinema, both time it was all but empty and NEITHER TIME did I pay for a ticket (there was a “rent X movies from blockbuster and get a free LOEG ticket ” deal on).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2021 5:22:02 GMT
It works as a modern update of a 1930s Universal serial like Flash Gordon or Sky Raiders, but all it really shares with its namesake is a title. The comparison hurt it a lot more than it helped (there's a big lesson for how to handle intellectual property for Hollywood adaptations). If they'd just gone for an original take on a familiar idea, I think they would've fared better. It's a really different animal to its influence. Much closer to something like the Underworld series or even Phantom than the late-night BBC miniseries texture of the comics.
I'm a bit surprised there's never been another attempt between then and now at something a bit Moore-ish, actually. Although... I suppose Penny Dreadful and similar have helped fill that gap, after a fashion, haven't they?
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Mar 13, 2021 10:17:03 GMT
Although... I suppose Penny Dreadful and similar have helped fill that gap, after a fashion, haven't they? Same reason why there's no Anno Dracula series either. Kind of took care of both (and even then, it couldn't pull another hat trick with City of Angels).
|
|
|
Post by grinch on Mar 13, 2021 10:24:51 GMT
Always find it interesting how this film’s Invisible Man (Rodney Skinner) is probably the best thing about it and he wasn’t even in the original graphic novel! I know there was a great deal of issues regarding the rights and everything but there’s something to be said with how heroic he turns out to be in direct contrast with the completely monstrous and inhuman Griffin of the original novel.
Feel like even if the first film had been a completely faithful adaptation, they’d definitely have had to tone him down.
One thing I do remember reading at the time is complaints regarding how Hyde resembles the Hulk in this. Even though, it’s completely in keeping with the ideas of the original text by Stevenson and the Hulk always had shades of Hyde about him anyway.
|
|
|
Post by fitzoliverj on Mar 13, 2021 10:38:21 GMT
I was baffled by the inclusion of Tom Sawyer, though. As one commentator said at the time, he was unnecessary unless they were trying to get some fences painted. Tom Sawyer was added because the film "needed" an American character, and Tom as a secret agent isn't a totally unreasonable extrapolation from the title of one of the later books in the series; the problem was that most people don't realise that Mark Twain wrote more than two novels about Sawyer and Huck Finn. The character I found a pointless addition was Dorian Grey.
Jason Flemyng, I vaguely remember, was the best thing about the film. Sean Connery's Home Counties accent seems indistinguishable from his Irish, Irish-American, Welsh-American, Norman French or Egyptian Spanish accents (funny, that). Richard Roxburgh is in it, despite having only recently given a dreadful performance on the BBC as Sherlock Holmes (hmm.. maybe that was part of Moriarty's plot?). Captain Nemo was twenty years ahead of the rest of the motor car industry, as well as having invented an incredible submarine that doesn't displace water. Somebody asks him if he can track another vessel, despite there being no reason why anybody would even think that was technologically possible (luckily, it is).
But, as so many people have said, why make a film about a peculiar and ambiguous woman, a drug addict and some psychopaths, if you don't want to make one?
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Mar 13, 2021 10:39:20 GMT
One thing I do remember reading at the time is complaints regarding how Hyde resembles the Hulk in this. Even though, it’s completely in keeping with the ideas of the original text by Stevenson and the Hulk always had shades of Hyde about him anyway. Yes there's a definite Jekyll & Hyde influence in The Hulk but in the original short story Hyde is a more diminutive person than Jekyll quite different to how depicted in the comic book & movie, an understandable change.
|
|
|
Post by grinch on Mar 13, 2021 10:42:04 GMT
One thing I do remember reading at the time is complaints regarding how Hyde resembles the Hulk in this. Even though, it’s completely in keeping with the ideas of the original text by Stevenson and the Hulk always had shades of Hyde about him anyway. Yes there's a definite Jekyll & Hyde influence in The Hulk but in the original short story Hyde is a more diminutive person than Jekyll quite different to how depicted in the comic book & movie, an understandable change. It’s been a while since I’ve read it but I seem to recall reading somewhere that in the original short story that it’s implied that as the Hyde persona begins to overcome Jekyll, Hyde slowly begins to grow in stature as Jekyll gets weaker. I think Moore simply expanded on that idea by showing that if the potion was to run its course Hyde would naturally grow into the hulking behemoth seen in the comics and film.
|
|
|
Post by johnhurtdoctor on Mar 13, 2021 10:51:29 GMT
Yes there's a definite Jekyll & Hyde influence in The Hulk but in the original short story Hyde is a more diminutive person than Jekyll quite different to how depicted in the comic book & movie, an understandable change. It’s been a while since I’ve read it but I seem to recall reading somewhere that in the original short story that it’s implied that as the Hyde persona begins to overcome Jekyll, Hyde slowly begins to grow in stature as Jekyll gets weaker. I think Moore simply expanded on that idea by showing that if the potion was to run its course Hyde would naturally grow into the hulking behemoth seen in the comics and film. Ah yes, I think so. Also not read it in a while but remember him being described as a smaller apeish character. I'm guessing Darwin's theory of evolution had an influence on Stevenson. I do like how in the film the 2nd Hyde looks like a Kevin O'Neill drawing.
|
|
|
Post by whiskeybrewer on Mar 13, 2021 11:34:43 GMT
As its own entity the films is quite enjoyable, but when compared to the original Comic series, it doesnt quite hold up. Its name only in that regard
|
|