The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
(Possible spoilers)
Right, thats four times I've seen it now. Once on a pirate videoCD (a mates), once at the cinema (the pirate dvd was unwatchable after 40 minutes) and twice on the flight I've just had to the States.
Each and every time I hope I will enjoy it a bit more but the fact remains, its crep. Regardless of the weak Phantom character (the bad guy is much better once its revealed to be Moriarty, of Sherlock Holmes fame), and the weak action sequences, I think I've pinned down *my* main problem with it. Hell, the introduction of Tom Sawyer and Dorien Grey isn’t a problem to me, although it dilutes the amount of time each member of the team can have.
The attitudes.
In the Book, the characters *acted* as if they were from the Victorian era. Mina is a prim and proper English lady. Quartermaine's eyes bug out when he gets a flash of ankle, and he's protectively sexist. Hawley Griffin (Rodney Skinner in the film), once freed from sight is a sexual predator and coward. Hyde is a barely controllable beast, while Jeckel is shy and withdrawn. All in all, Moore takes other peoples characters and creates his own mythology around them, succeeding magnificently in capturing the essence of the stories the characters are taken from.
In the film, these attitudes are none existent. Its simply modern day attitudes with Victorian window dressing with (poor) flash bang effects. Its soulless and empty. It very nearly succeeds in being an unintentional “Mystery Men”.
I have to praise Nottington for keeping Nemo and the majority of his crew Sikh’s again, rather than change the ethnicity of the captain from what Verne originally specified.
Alan Moore, if he were dead, would be spinning in his grave. The fact that O'Neill says it’s a good movie, shown how crazed he is (just look at his artwork for chrissake)
Oh ,the transformation sequence is appallingly bad too.
Right. I’m expecting a “just watch the damn thing” or similar response to this little post, so all I’ll say is this. If you enjoyed the film but haven’t read the book, read it. Once the final page of the book has been read, you’ll close it and think, “Wow, the film was a real piece of crep wasn’t it”.
Right, thats four times I've seen it now. Once on a pirate videoCD (a mates), once at the cinema (the pirate dvd was unwatchable after 40 minutes) and twice on the flight I've just had to the States.
Each and every time I hope I will enjoy it a bit more but the fact remains, its crep. Regardless of the weak Phantom character (the bad guy is much better once its revealed to be Moriarty, of Sherlock Holmes fame), and the weak action sequences, I think I've pinned down *my* main problem with it. Hell, the introduction of Tom Sawyer and Dorien Grey isn’t a problem to me, although it dilutes the amount of time each member of the team can have.
The attitudes.
In the Book, the characters *acted* as if they were from the Victorian era. Mina is a prim and proper English lady. Quartermaine's eyes bug out when he gets a flash of ankle, and he's protectively sexist. Hawley Griffin (Rodney Skinner in the film), once freed from sight is a sexual predator and coward. Hyde is a barely controllable beast, while Jeckel is shy and withdrawn. All in all, Moore takes other peoples characters and creates his own mythology around them, succeeding magnificently in capturing the essence of the stories the characters are taken from.
In the film, these attitudes are none existent. Its simply modern day attitudes with Victorian window dressing with (poor) flash bang effects. Its soulless and empty. It very nearly succeeds in being an unintentional “Mystery Men”.
I have to praise Nottington for keeping Nemo and the majority of his crew Sikh’s again, rather than change the ethnicity of the captain from what Verne originally specified.
Alan Moore, if he were dead, would be spinning in his grave. The fact that O'Neill says it’s a good movie, shown how crazed he is (just look at his artwork for chrissake)
Oh ,the transformation sequence is appallingly bad too.
Right. I’m expecting a “just watch the damn thing” or similar response to this little post, so all I’ll say is this. If you enjoyed the film but haven’t read the book, read it. Once the final page of the book has been read, you’ll close it and think, “Wow, the film was a real piece of crep wasn’t it”.
Page:
I loved the book, and I'm not sure that I can bring myself to watch the film if it's going to ruin it. It should be the perfect source material for a movie so I'm really peed off that - according to everybody - they've cocked it up in a big way.
Have you read From Hell? Another absolutely brilliant Alan Moore comic, which apparently made a dismal transition to cinema. Stupid Hollywood.
Have you read From Hell? Another absolutely brilliant Alan Moore comic, which apparently made a dismal transition to cinema. Stupid Hollywood.
Jive wrote:
> Wanted to see this, am now slightly hesitant as your the second person
> who's said it's "crep" or words to that effect :(
>
> Might have to go for the big rental on this one then.
Seriously, I love the graphic novels and wished I loved the film. Don't waste your time or money just to be disappointed.
> Wanted to see this, am now slightly hesitant as your the second person
> who's said it's "crep" or words to that effect :(
>
> Might have to go for the big rental on this one then.
Seriously, I love the graphic novels and wished I loved the film. Don't waste your time or money just to be disappointed.
I agree that the majority of books are better, but what I'm trying to say with League, is that although the original graphic novel couldn't have been filmed and been given justice, the chosen plot falls flat on its face. With the film, they had a perfect opportunity to create something close to the spirit of the GN, but with a plot more suitable to film. They screwed it up.
Jaws, the original novel, focus on the relationship between Brodys wife and the shark expert called in (can't remember the characters name, Richard Drefus in the film), who she has an affair with. There’s next to no "creature feature thriller" as you excellently put it.
The Harry Potter books are ok, not particularly well written but literary crack. Once you pop, you just can't stop. On holiday, my mate’s wife who hasn't read a book since school picked up the first one after watching the film and belted through it in an afternoon due to being totally hooked. The films do suck however. By the numbers and again, soulless. I hope the new director (name escapes me at the moment, and I can’t be @r5ed to to to IMDB) for number three gives it a bit more belt, as I’ve never liked Chris Columbus as a director. Regardless though, if the films encourage children (or even adults) as in the case mentioned above, to pick up and start reading, I think it is a positive thing.
Books will always IMHO be better than films (with certain exceptions), as they make the reader use their imagination, but I always like to see a good film and someone else’s interpretation and vision of the source material, but when its a bit flat, cowardly and insipid, I get a little annoyed. Especially if its done just to make money, with no thought towards the feeling of the fans who the people who have brought it to the attention of the studios to start with.
Jaws, the original novel, focus on the relationship between Brodys wife and the shark expert called in (can't remember the characters name, Richard Drefus in the film), who she has an affair with. There’s next to no "creature feature thriller" as you excellently put it.
The Harry Potter books are ok, not particularly well written but literary crack. Once you pop, you just can't stop. On holiday, my mate’s wife who hasn't read a book since school picked up the first one after watching the film and belted through it in an afternoon due to being totally hooked. The films do suck however. By the numbers and again, soulless. I hope the new director (name escapes me at the moment, and I can’t be @r5ed to to to IMDB) for number three gives it a bit more belt, as I’ve never liked Chris Columbus as a director. Regardless though, if the films encourage children (or even adults) as in the case mentioned above, to pick up and start reading, I think it is a positive thing.
Books will always IMHO be better than films (with certain exceptions), as they make the reader use their imagination, but I always like to see a good film and someone else’s interpretation and vision of the source material, but when its a bit flat, cowardly and insipid, I get a little annoyed. Especially if its done just to make money, with no thought towards the feeling of the fans who the people who have brought it to the attention of the studios to start with.
Wanted to see this, am now slightly hesitant as your the second person who's said it's "crep" or words to that effect :(
Might have to go for the big rental on this one then.
Might have to go for the big rental on this one then.
OK, but I did say "most", there are always exceptions. Fight Club was an awsome film, and I haven't read the book, Misery is Stephen King I think, and his books are, imo crap with a penchant for crap endings, Jaws is a tension based creature feature thriller, which is always going to be better conveyed on film and The Godfather is an absolute epic, breaking the general rule of squeezing an extensive piece of writing into Hollywood's percieved audience attention span of 80 minutes.
But in general, books are better than films. I hope for the sake of mankind, for example, that the ary Potter books are better than the films. I was made to sit through the Philosopher Stone a while back, and it's one of the most diabolically crap pieces of film I've ever wasted time staring at. If that's what all the fuss is about, then a lot of people worldwide have become dumb.
But in general, books are better than films. I hope for the sake of mankind, for example, that the ary Potter books are better than the films. I was made to sit through the Philosopher Stone a while back, and it's one of the most diabolically crap pieces of film I've ever wasted time staring at. If that's what all the fuss is about, then a lot of people worldwide have become dumb.
Insane ßartender wrote:
> That can be said of most films which are adaptations of books though.
>
> How many books have you read and thought "oh, the film
> adaptation was far superior"? I certainly never have.
"Fight Club", apart from the ending. The books original was far superior.
"Misery", once the period drama rubbish was stripped from the film, IMHO was better than the book.
"Jaws" - The book is terrible.
"The Godfather" - Mario Puzo's writing is weak at best.
There are some, but I feel with League they missed a golden opportunity to make a cracking film.
> That can be said of most films which are adaptations of books though.
>
> How many books have you read and thought "oh, the film
> adaptation was far superior"? I certainly never have.
"Fight Club", apart from the ending. The books original was far superior.
"Misery", once the period drama rubbish was stripped from the film, IMHO was better than the book.
"Jaws" - The book is terrible.
"The Godfather" - Mario Puzo's writing is weak at best.
There are some, but I feel with League they missed a golden opportunity to make a cracking film.
That can be said of most films which are adaptations of books though.
How many books have you read and thought "oh, the film adaptation was far superior"? I certainly never have.
How many books have you read and thought "oh, the film adaptation was far superior"? I certainly never have.
(Possible spoilers)
Right, thats four times I've seen it now. Once on a pirate videoCD (a mates), once at the cinema (the pirate dvd was unwatchable after 40 minutes) and twice on the flight I've just had to the States.
Each and every time I hope I will enjoy it a bit more but the fact remains, its crep. Regardless of the weak Phantom character (the bad guy is much better once its revealed to be Moriarty, of Sherlock Holmes fame), and the weak action sequences, I think I've pinned down *my* main problem with it. Hell, the introduction of Tom Sawyer and Dorien Grey isn’t a problem to me, although it dilutes the amount of time each member of the team can have.
The attitudes.
In the Book, the characters *acted* as if they were from the Victorian era. Mina is a prim and proper English lady. Quartermaine's eyes bug out when he gets a flash of ankle, and he's protectively sexist. Hawley Griffin (Rodney Skinner in the film), once freed from sight is a sexual predator and coward. Hyde is a barely controllable beast, while Jeckel is shy and withdrawn. All in all, Moore takes other peoples characters and creates his own mythology around them, succeeding magnificently in capturing the essence of the stories the characters are taken from.
In the film, these attitudes are none existent. Its simply modern day attitudes with Victorian window dressing with (poor) flash bang effects. Its soulless and empty. It very nearly succeeds in being an unintentional “Mystery Men”.
I have to praise Nottington for keeping Nemo and the majority of his crew Sikh’s again, rather than change the ethnicity of the captain from what Verne originally specified.
Alan Moore, if he were dead, would be spinning in his grave. The fact that O'Neill says it’s a good movie, shown how crazed he is (just look at his artwork for chrissake)
Oh ,the transformation sequence is appallingly bad too.
Right. I’m expecting a “just watch the damn thing” or similar response to this little post, so all I’ll say is this. If you enjoyed the film but haven’t read the book, read it. Once the final page of the book has been read, you’ll close it and think, “Wow, the film was a real piece of crep wasn’t it”.
Right, thats four times I've seen it now. Once on a pirate videoCD (a mates), once at the cinema (the pirate dvd was unwatchable after 40 minutes) and twice on the flight I've just had to the States.
Each and every time I hope I will enjoy it a bit more but the fact remains, its crep. Regardless of the weak Phantom character (the bad guy is much better once its revealed to be Moriarty, of Sherlock Holmes fame), and the weak action sequences, I think I've pinned down *my* main problem with it. Hell, the introduction of Tom Sawyer and Dorien Grey isn’t a problem to me, although it dilutes the amount of time each member of the team can have.
The attitudes.
In the Book, the characters *acted* as if they were from the Victorian era. Mina is a prim and proper English lady. Quartermaine's eyes bug out when he gets a flash of ankle, and he's protectively sexist. Hawley Griffin (Rodney Skinner in the film), once freed from sight is a sexual predator and coward. Hyde is a barely controllable beast, while Jeckel is shy and withdrawn. All in all, Moore takes other peoples characters and creates his own mythology around them, succeeding magnificently in capturing the essence of the stories the characters are taken from.
In the film, these attitudes are none existent. Its simply modern day attitudes with Victorian window dressing with (poor) flash bang effects. Its soulless and empty. It very nearly succeeds in being an unintentional “Mystery Men”.
I have to praise Nottington for keeping Nemo and the majority of his crew Sikh’s again, rather than change the ethnicity of the captain from what Verne originally specified.
Alan Moore, if he were dead, would be spinning in his grave. The fact that O'Neill says it’s a good movie, shown how crazed he is (just look at his artwork for chrissake)
Oh ,the transformation sequence is appallingly bad too.
Right. I’m expecting a “just watch the damn thing” or similar response to this little post, so all I’ll say is this. If you enjoyed the film but haven’t read the book, read it. Once the final page of the book has been read, you’ll close it and think, “Wow, the film was a real piece of crep wasn’t it”.
Page: