oh the reviews for the league of ex gents are a laff riot!

and why don't they introduce the characters in the trailer? it's all "we need a super-team, the super-est team ever!" and you see quick shots of everyone but I can't imagine anyone who doesn't already know a thing or two about the movie would have any idea who they are.

And, really, it's not as bad as 90% of the folks out there make it out to be. Then again, 1) it's nothing like the Moore / O'Neill book (though the guy that wrote _Starman_ & _The Golden Age_ - James Robinson - wrote the script! there's a selling point!) and 2) people might have problems w/ the science or plot logic employed (silly comic books) and 3) for the love of guh, would someone like to tell the director to shoot a fight scene straight w/out all the edgy jittery camera movement (sheesh, it's like they're trying to hide bad CGI or crappy choreography) (as if Sean Connery in a fist fight or shoot out could ever look bad).

yeah, the ny post review is just as bad. The NY Times dismissed it in the first sentence and then just recapped the plot.

(Good points -- Peta Wilson and the guys who play Jekyll and the Invisible Man; Stuart Townsend is convincing as Dorian Gray, and yet I'm still not sure if he can act or not; lots of nice little moments here and there, especially in the corners of the frame.)

(As for the comic -- I haven't read it, but my girlfriend is a huge Alan Moore fan. She says it changes a lot plot-wise from the comic but is faithful to the ideas and concepts, and that the characters are largely the same although maybe "simplified" a little for reasons of time. There are scenes and panels from the comics which are plonked right into the movie.)

I would never have guessed this was from the director of Blade. It doesn't have his pacing at all.