The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Well that was good.
Everytime I thought it was going to do something cliched it veered off in another direction.
Good stuff.
Everytime I thought it was going to do something cliched it veered off in another direction.
Good stuff.
Page:
Is the film different when watched in another country?
Light wrote:
> As a no-brainer action movie, it just about did what it said on the
> tin.
>
> Speaking as a comics geek, and bearing in mind the source material,
> it was a hateful travesty...
i remember seeing it in america, and it was average there too. but entertaining all the same
> As a no-brainer action movie, it just about did what it said on the
> tin.
>
> Speaking as a comics geek, and bearing in mind the source material,
> it was a hateful travesty...
i remember seeing it in america, and it was average there too. but entertaining all the same
double post
Mystique wrote:
> I thought it was Dorien Gray?
Yup. My mistake. Tired, cranky and unwell.
In the books, there's a full-page illustration of a museum. Among the many in jokes there, there's a large picture of Dorien Grey on the side. He looks decomposed. The joke is that it's "under renovation" and anyone failure with the original story will realise what that means. Sure it's not a great joke, but it's a throwaway joke amount hundreds. That’s what I felt was missing from the movie. Inventiveness.
> I thought it was Dorien Gray?
Yup. My mistake. Tired, cranky and unwell.
In the books, there's a full-page illustration of a museum. Among the many in jokes there, there's a large picture of Dorien Grey on the side. He looks decomposed. The joke is that it's "under renovation" and anyone failure with the original story will realise what that means. Sure it's not a great joke, but it's a throwaway joke amount hundreds. That’s what I felt was missing from the movie. Inventiveness.
Pandaemonium wrote:
> Lorien Gray.
*****
I thought it was Dorien Gray?
> Lorien Gray.
*****
I thought it was Dorien Gray?
As a no-brainer action movie, it just about did what it said on the tin.
Speaking as a comics geek, and bearing in mind the source material, it was a hateful travesty...
Speaking as a comics geek, and bearing in mind the source material, it was a hateful travesty...
Oriental Rib wrote:
> Though I have to give it to them it stayed fairly true to
> the books.
Apart from the storyline.
Quatermain NOT being an opium addict.
Minas vampirism (She's bitten in the books, but this is releaved at the end of book 2. She's not a vampire)
The invisible man character is totally different.
Tom Sawer.
Lorien Gray.
In fact, it's totally different to the books apart from "famous literary characters from the 1800's in a group", and IMHO an appalling, appalling movie.
> Though I have to give it to them it stayed fairly true to
> the books.
Apart from the storyline.
Quatermain NOT being an opium addict.
Minas vampirism (She's bitten in the books, but this is releaved at the end of book 2. She's not a vampire)
The invisible man character is totally different.
Tom Sawer.
Lorien Gray.
In fact, it's totally different to the books apart from "famous literary characters from the 1800's in a group", and IMHO an appalling, appalling movie.
It stunk. Though I have to give it to them it stayed fairly true to the books.
Another average film.
I thought it was ok. Might watch it again now you've mentioned it :D
Page: