Ned Flanders
Banned
Was it the expectations? I don't remember hearing much of the film before the intial run of the previews, and I don't think the comics had enough of a mainstream following to warrant a buildup of anticipated excellence for the film. So why, given that it more than likely would end up a decent comic action flick at best, was it bashed so hard when it wound up watchably (IMO) mediocre?
So the plot seemed a little dumbed down, some of the dialog was a little patronizing, and Shane West was unbarable, but all in all it wasn't nearly the schlock that the reviews made it out to be. Perhaps it's because I first saw the film post-Van Helsing, which is the very definition of "dumbed down plot, patronizing dialog, unbarable acting". But the movie seemed pretty slick and well directed IMO, and despite the sprinkling of relatively dull characters (Nemo, M, the vampire chick), others were interesting and well acted enough (Connery, Townsend, Jekyll/Hyde). And though you weren't on the edge of your seat in anticipation of the next scene, the film was relatively painless and differed from a lot of flicks that by the middle of the movie have you begging for an ending. It also, despite being perhaps slightly too effects-laden, had some pretty cool scenes.
Anyway maybe I'm bitching over something inconsequential, but it just bothers me when I feel the consensus is so far off base. Rotten Tomatoes had this movie rated around a 3-4 on average, but after seeing it I'd consider it a watchable 6.5-7. I understand that it wasn't a cinematic success in every regard, but nowadays to do as much right as LXG did in an action/adventure flick is beyond the norm. Give LXG it's marginal respect!!
So the plot seemed a little dumbed down, some of the dialog was a little patronizing, and Shane West was unbarable, but all in all it wasn't nearly the schlock that the reviews made it out to be. Perhaps it's because I first saw the film post-Van Helsing, which is the very definition of "dumbed down plot, patronizing dialog, unbarable acting". But the movie seemed pretty slick and well directed IMO, and despite the sprinkling of relatively dull characters (Nemo, M, the vampire chick), others were interesting and well acted enough (Connery, Townsend, Jekyll/Hyde). And though you weren't on the edge of your seat in anticipation of the next scene, the film was relatively painless and differed from a lot of flicks that by the middle of the movie have you begging for an ending. It also, despite being perhaps slightly too effects-laden, had some pretty cool scenes.
Anyway maybe I'm bitching over something inconsequential, but it just bothers me when I feel the consensus is so far off base. Rotten Tomatoes had this movie rated around a 3-4 on average, but after seeing it I'd consider it a watchable 6.5-7. I understand that it wasn't a cinematic success in every regard, but nowadays to do as much right as LXG did in an action/adventure flick is beyond the norm. Give LXG it's marginal respect!!
