# Who doesn't HATE Van Helsing?



## Turanil (Aug 28, 2005)

Well, until now, every time someone spoke of the Van helsing movie, it was to say how awful it is.

But there was a promo on amazon.fr to get the DVD for 8$, so I didn't hesitate. After having seen it, I must ask: why the hate? People want to see this film as a horror movie, but this is not. This is simply a pulp-action movie set in the Victorian period, featuring 18th level characters using a lot of action points. Once you realize that, it is on par with films such as X-Men or the like, just that the superheros live in the 19th century and fight vampires instead of supervillains. In fact, it's a gamer movie, and the action portrayed would make an excellent RPG adventure. 

Now lets flame all around...


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Aug 28, 2005)

For clarifiaction I think there is difference between disliking and hating. On that note, I dislike the movie.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Aug 28, 2005)

Turanil said:
			
		

> Now lets flame all around...




The ending was crap and forced...  Besides that I didn't really hate the movie...  I just didn't like it either.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Aug 28, 2005)

_*raises hand*_

Count me as somebody who actually enjoyed Van Helsing.  I found it to be pretty darn enjoyable.


----------



## Tolen Mar (Aug 28, 2005)

Same here, though one of my first thoughts was 'Looks like they are selling the video game.'

In fact, ask my wife, I leaned over and whispered that to her in the theatre, it was during the rapid fire crossbow scene.

I have to agree though...it was the ending that almost ruined it for me.  I just wasn't digging the monster vampire vs. monster werewolf cartoon they added at the end.

Everything else I thought was gravy.


----------



## The Serge (Aug 28, 2005)

_Van Helsing_ is an incredibly stupid movie.  And I love it.  Aside from the idiotic final battle that came out of _no where_ (well, I suppose it's for fanboys who like to see monsters fighting each other) and the idiotic take on vampiric transformation, I liked this movie tremendously.  Yes, it's dumb.  Yes, the acting is atrocious.  Yes, it butchers any kind of hope for a sequel featuring some of the key players in horror films if Sommers does it again, but I still like it.  And I _love_ Silvestri's choral theme for Dracula that starts the whole movie off.  Awesome.


----------



## RangerWickett (Aug 28, 2005)

Van Helsing was campy, and kinda fun, but just not fun enough. There wasn't enough humor. And yeah, Computer Graphic vs. Computer Graphic fights are boring!


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Aug 28, 2005)

I watched it.  And I knew it wasn't a horror immidiatley which was fine.  I could tell it was an action movie and I love action movies.  However I do not even feel it was a good action flick.  It was decent at best.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Aug 28, 2005)

Yeah, I didn't find it awful, but I suspect it's because I'd already else talk of how awful it was.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Aug 28, 2005)

I rather enjoyed it.  I'm not sure where people got the idea that it was supposed to be a horror movie as opposed to the fantasy pulp action thriller that it so clearly was.  Probably marketing issues.

Brad


----------



## Tolen Mar (Aug 28, 2005)

The Serge said:
			
		

> _Van Helsing_ is an incredibly stupid movie.  And I love it.  Aside from the idiotic final battle that came out of _no where_ (well, I suppose it's for fanboys who like to see monsters fighting each other) and the idiotic take on vampiric transformation, I liked this movie tremendously.  Yes, it's dumb.  Yes, the acting is atrocious.  Yes, it butchers any kind of hope for a sequel featuring some of the key players in horror films if Sommers does it again, but I still like it.  And I _love_ Silvestri's choral theme for Dracula that starts the whole movie off.  Awesome.





I gotta disagree, it wasnt that bad, and the acting I thought was decent.  The only ones who really couldnt act were the vampire concubines...

I didn't think it was stupid either, and don't think it was bad enough to give up all hope of a sequal.  (If they do, lets try to stay away from the mummy, ok?  Please?  Been done to death recently, in one form or another.)


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Aug 28, 2005)

Tolen Mar said:
			
		

> I have to agree though...it was the ending that almost ruined it for me.  I just wasn't digging the monster vampire vs. monster werewolf cartoon they added at the end.



It was more of what looked like a very forced death for the heroine that did it for me…  (She took far worse shots during the movie.)

One other thing was how horrible the editing was.  People moved and where not where they where suppose to be when they changed camera angles.


----------



## Digital M@ (Aug 29, 2005)

I was bad enough I would not watch it if I caught it on TV and had nothing better to do.  The crossbow was aweful.  I think it was supposed to hold 10 shots and it fired dozens and dozens without reload.  In the end it was just overused and boring.  I am not an ammunition nut but don't make a big deal out of it holding 10 shots.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 29, 2005)

I enjoyed the over-the-top fight stuff in the first twenty-minutes or so.
The it suddenly became a really boring dumb waste of time and just stayed there.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Aug 29, 2005)

I loved it. Everyone I know loved it. The only people that didn't seem to be here on ENWorld. 

It was just a fun movie. I really think that some people go to movies expecting far more than they should...especially us geeks.


----------



## Abraxas (Aug 29, 2005)

It went over well in my neck of the woods - a whole lot better than the other vamp/werewolf movie underworld.

It was a comic book onscreen and I always enjoy those.


----------



## MadMaxim (Aug 29, 2005)

I think it was a pretty good movie. I'll agree that the heroine's death was perhaps a bit forced, but I wonder how anyone else would have done in that situation. We can't all be excellent directors, right? I think people should stop being so critical and try to let themselves be entertained instead of nitpicking the flaws. Sure, it wasn't superb acting or absolute realism concerning ammunition and stuff, but relax, okay...? When you mix action and fantasy, you're bound to get something a little over the top and I think that's nice.


----------



## kirinke (Aug 29, 2005)

I actually enjoyed it. But then I also enjoy alot of B-movie flicks too. I guess I just don't have high expectations from any movie nowadays. In fact, the only movie I ever walked out of was Resident Evil.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Aug 29, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I loved it. Everyone I know loved it. The only people that didn't seem to be here on ENWorld.
> 
> It was just a fun movie. I really think that some people go to movies expecting far more than they should...especially us geeks.



 Never, _ever_ underestimate the capability of geeks to take personal offense when a movie falls short of their expectations.  If a movie (particularly a genre film) isn't as good as a geek was hoping it would be, they'll ignore any redeeming qualities the movie has and focus almost exclusively on what they hated about it.  I learned this shortly after I started posting on internet message boards and Usenet over a decade ago.


----------



## Mystery Man (Aug 29, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> _*raises hand*_
> 
> Count me as somebody who actually enjoyed Van Helsing.  I found it to be pretty darn enjoyable.




Yeah, I thought it was OK. I dug the music score.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Aug 29, 2005)

MadMaxim said:
			
		

> I think it was a pretty good movie. I'll agree that the heroine's death was perhaps a bit forced, but I wonder how anyone else would have done in that situation. We can't all be excellent directors, right? I think people should stop being so critical and try to let themselves be entertained instead of nitpicking the flaws.




Sorry, but it blew my suspension of disbelief. *shrug*


----------



## Umbran (Aug 29, 2005)

Was it Deathless art?  No.  Did it have many flaws?  Sure.  Was it "great (or even really good) cinema"?  Probably not.

But, while watching it, I enjoyed myself.  It gave me pretty much what I expected, and that was okay by me.


----------



## David Howery (Aug 29, 2005)

not the best of movies, but not the worst either.... 5 out 10 stars...


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Aug 29, 2005)

The Setup
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Stage 5

And everyone has left out _a sword fight in high heels!_

The Auld Grump


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Aug 29, 2005)

Rather liked it, but I hated the vampire-babies. And the "I'm not a monk, I'm a friar."


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Aug 29, 2005)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> Rather liked it, but I hated the vampire-babies. And the "I'm not a monk, I'm a friar."




I *so* want to make a D&D monk joke here.

Brad


----------



## solkan_uk (Aug 29, 2005)

I thought it was a passable pulpy flick.
Not something I'd pick up on DVD or probably watch more than once, but not a waste of an hour and half (or however long it was).


----------



## Hammerhead (Aug 29, 2005)

I liked it. Stupid, but fun. Plus, the guy who played the Monster was excellent.


----------



## ecliptic (Aug 29, 2005)

I thought it was decent.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 29, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Van Helsing was campy, and kinda fun, but just not fun enough. There wasn't enough humor.



Aren't you the guy that laughed at all of Arnold Schwarzeneggar's punchlines?   

It was a cool movie, until the girl dies. If there's a sequel, I'd watch it.


----------



## Harmon (Aug 29, 2005)

It was awful, it just wasn't a movie that I would have paid more then.... oh, four bucks to see.  

It was all about the plot holes and such, which are way to numberous to put here, and I would have to watch the movie twice to try to get them all.

Interesting CG, nice clothes for one or two of the female characters    and things like that.  If you haven't seen it- don't take a recommendation to see it, just see it so you can't blame anyone.


----------



## kingpaul (Aug 29, 2005)

I liked the movie. I went into the theater expecting a good, fun, action romp; and that's what was delivered to me. I got it for Christmas on DVD.


----------



## Cyberzombie (Aug 29, 2005)

On the Netflix scale of 1-5 stars, I would probably give it a 2.  It's pretty badly written and the plot, such as it is, sucks.  But the acting is decent, even good in places, and it's pretty.  It's not one I would rewatch.

So it's not horrible, but I wouldn't rate it as average, either.  So two stars it is.  I don't hate it, there are MUCH worse movies out there, but it wasn't good, either.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Aug 29, 2005)

I don't dislike it, basic mass market action flick, but the music I dislike with a passion and I think hurt the enjoyment factor for me.


----------



## shilsen (Aug 29, 2005)

I got to see it while on holiday in India for 50 rupees (roughly $1.20) and found it enjoyable. If I was paying any more I probably wouldn't have


----------



## Tetsubo (Aug 29, 2005)

I disliked it, I didn't hate it. 

Things that bugged me: Why did Vlad need to "create" life? He already had a gaggle of vampire spawn. What, they hadn't lived up to his expectations...?

The main female can go toe-to-toe with major Bad Guys but is killed by being tossed onto a sofa?

But as CZ said, it was pretty and it did have some good action.


----------



## Psychic Warrior (Aug 29, 2005)

I found Van Helsing dull and forgettable.  I don't hate it as it didn't inspire any emotion in me at all.


----------



## Lucky Number (Aug 29, 2005)

I watched it only when it started showing on cable, but i found it to be in the "Starship Troopers" group of scripts so lousy it must have been intentional (only it wasn't as funny as Starship Troopers). Still, the bit with the rapid fire crossbow (how exactly was the string automatically retracting, and how was it doing it that fast?) was painful for me, as was nearly everything about the way they characterized particular monsters. I'm still waiting for a version of Frankenstein's monster that looks like the costume designer actually read the description from the book.

For what it was- an action movie about a monster slayer -there's just so many better examples in film. Everything from the original Buffy to the Vampire Hunter D sequel (how often is an anime sequel actually superior in animation quality?), i'd say.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 29, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> And everyone has left out _a sword fight in high heels!_




Hold on a sec.  Posting on a site that's all about pretend characters doing impossible things like shoot fireballs out of their hands, flying wihtout the aid of machinery, and falling inane distances and getting up and walking away, and you're concerned about the reality of someone's footwear?

If so, I'm sorry, but in a movie with vampires, werewolves, and living creatures assembled from corpses, the shoes just don't cut it as a complaint.  Perspective, dude, perspective.


----------



## Mystery Man (Aug 29, 2005)

Lucky Number said:
			
		

> I watched it only when it started showing on cable, but i found it to be in the "Starship Troopers" group of scripts so lousy it must have been intentional (only it wasn't as funny as Starship Troopers). Still, the bit with the rapid fire crossbow (how exactly was the string automatically retracting, and how was it doing it that fast?)





If you were paying attention they were gas propelled.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Aug 29, 2005)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> If you were paying attention they were gas propelled.



They should have dropped it as a crossbow and just may it a speargun (painball weapon)


----------



## Mystery Man (Aug 29, 2005)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> They should have dropped it as a crossbow and just may it a speargun (painball weapon)




And instead of paint, holy water. Actually, not a bad idea really. Like Constantine I think...


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Aug 29, 2005)

Bad, stupid movie.  It meets most or all of the criteria necessary to be considered among the all-time bad.  

*  Essentially unlimited budget -- no excuses about how I couldn't do the effects I wanted, or shoot on the locations I wanted
*  Written and directed by the same person -- clearly someone else needed to smack him once or twice and stop him from doing some of the most egregious things.  A pet project gone horribly awry.  Kind of a shame, since 'The Mummy' was good, the sequel was ok, and 'Deep Rising' is a guilty pleasure
*  Tried way too hard to be to be too many things -- sometimes it wanted to be camp, sometimes spoof, sometimes tongue-in-cheek romp, sometimes horror, etc.  A really inconsistent tone, it failed at all of them.
*  Way to many things that were stupid, over the top, or just plain nonsensical when they didn't have to be.   Contrast Bruce Willis using the fire hose to swing down from the roof with the Spiderman-esque swinging in Van Helsing, for example.  One is over the top, but still plausible and consistent with the setting of the movie.  The other is just stupid and lazy.

I saw this with a bunch of my friends (gamers and genre fans all) for my birthday last year, and every single one of us hated it.  And we're the ones that just watched Highlander 2, Speed 2, and Caddyshack 2 in one sitting, so you know our tolerance for bad cinema is legendary


----------



## devilbat (Aug 29, 2005)

> Perspective, dude, perspective.




Exactly.  

I thought it was an ok way to spend a couple of hours.  Yes, the heroin death was forced, yes the howling at the moon in the end was cheesy.  Yes, fighting in high heels is probably not the best way to go about.  BUT, I thought the weapons were cool, in a Deadlandsy sort of way, and I loved the vampire ball scene.


----------



## Wereserpent (Aug 29, 2005)

I liked it a lot too.


----------



## ragboy (Aug 29, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I enjoyed the over-the-top fight stuff in the first twenty-minutes or so.
> The it suddenly became a really boring dumb waste of time and just stayed there.





I agree (and I saw it for free). There were a couple of interesting things, but overall, I thought it _was_ a video game. If I wanted to watch a video game, I'd stay at home in front of my computer... blah. hated it.


----------



## Arnwyn (Aug 29, 2005)

I'm one of those that thought it was okay.

But I went in with very _very_ (did I mention 'very'?) low expectations. (Pretty much: if they put the pointy hat on him, I was sold.)


----------



## Captain Tagon (Aug 29, 2005)

It wasn't great cinema or super memorable, but I enjoyed it.


----------



## Henry (Aug 29, 2005)

Another for the "I Like it, not loved it" Chorus.

The actors did a good job, the sets were awesome, the CGI looked well done, and I enjoyed the jokes. It ended on a bit of a downer with the death of Beckinsale's character, but Richard Roxburgh's performance was FANTASTIC!!!! He chewed the scenery and stole the show, which is what a major villain is supposed to do in a film like this (Like what Wesley Snipes did with Demolition Man 15 years ago).

Something I didn't notice till jsut now -- Robbie Coltrane did Hyde's voice in this one! Excellent choice.


----------



## WayneLigon (Aug 29, 2005)

Turanil said:
			
		

> Well, until now, every time someone spoke of the Van helsing movie, it was to say how awful it is.




Well, it was pretty bad but it wasn't a total waste of time. There were some good scenes with the crazy female vampires and the werewolf fight scenes. I wouldn't say I _hate _ it; I'd probably see it again if I caught it on TV and nothing else was on.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Aug 29, 2005)

I'm watching it right now.  Maybe not a masterpiece, but quite good for the genre.


----------



## MadMaxim (Aug 29, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Sorry, but it blew my suspension of disbelief. *shrug*



Oh, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular, Brother Shatterstone. It's just that I seem to see more people dislike movies because they weren't EXACTLY the way they thought it would be. Nothing wrong with expectations, but people should perhaps lower them a bit instead of thinking that they're seeing the top of an art form. This is just an action movie, nothing more nothing less.


----------



## Mercule (Aug 29, 2005)

I was an acceptably entertaining movie.  Not great, but worth watching, maybe even a second time.  That places it above many movies that I hear quite a few people absolutely rave about (say, "Kill Bill", which wasn't a complete waste of my time, but I have no intent of seeing it again).


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 29, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I loved it. Everyone I know loved it. The only people that didn't seem to be here on ENWorld.
> 
> It was just a fun movie. I really think that some people go to movies expecting far more than they should...especially us geeks.




The only people?  Well, now I beg to differ.  It didn't flop, but it was so expensive to make that it didn't do that well, relatively speaking.


----------



## takyris (Aug 29, 2005)

I caught it on cable, and recorded it. My wife and I watched it later and MST3k'd it, and by those standards, it was a hoot.

That said, if I'd paid money to go see it, and had been in a theater where I couldn't riff on the stupid lines, stupid action, stupid logic, or general stupid choice in the movie, I'd have been sorely disappointed.

Aside from the sidekick guy, who appears to be giving the fake-crippled guy from "There's Something About Mary" and the annoying sidekick guy in Jackie Chan's "The Medallion" a run for his money as "Most annoying British sidekick EVAR", I found most of the badness to be enjoyably silly badness -- like Kate Beckinsale face-planting into a concrete pillar, flying through the air to face-plant into a wall, crashing into all kinds of scenery, and coming up just fine, but when Wolf-Helsing knocks her into a cushioned couch, she dies. It was quite possibly the first time I'd ever seen hit points so blatantly used in a movie. "No, no, that concrete pillar face-plant only took her to 19 hit points. She's fine."

The wives were awesome, if only because I have a goofy nostalgia for old Meatloaf videos, and my wife kept singing "And I would do *any-thing* for *looooove*... but I *won't* do that... hey-yeaaaaaaah...." every time they appeared. And my wife has a voice that can carry this off.

The convoluted logic of "Werewolves can kill Dracula, therefore he must keep a cure for lycanthropy on hand at all times" was awesome. Uh, honestly, if I was the Drac, and I knew that werewolves could kill me, I wouldn't have a cure for lycanthropy lying around. I'd have, y'know... *silver*.

Honestly, I saw this as a movie with a lot of potential, a movie that was obviously made with a lot of love. But love isn't a substitute for ability, and it was made so sloppily, so stupidly, and just so generally badly that it pretty much qualified as a colossal failure in my view. But a colossal failure made with love can still be fun to watch... provided you're allowed to make fun of it.


----------



## frankthedm (Aug 29, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> It was a cool movie, until the girl dies. If there's a sequel, I'd watch it.




Boo hoo, some trashy eye candy dies rather than living to the end, to be replaced by another actress when the original becomes too old for the sequal. Hollywood is too addicted to having the heroine live to the end so she can ride off with the hero. 

I think croaking her helped the movie, allowing for the audience to see Gabe has little to no luck in such matters. Plus i found the unrersolved question at the end amusing.

Overall the movie was fun and dumb and a passable stand-in for a Castlevania movie.  Dracula even took an End Boss form.

The First werewolf was really cool, Crinos [ogre] sized and moving like a furred bullet. The Black furred one looked pretty cool.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Aug 29, 2005)

I actually enjoyed it.  I actually started watching it figuring I'd hate it.  VH isn't great by any means, but it was a fun movie that I didn't feel like I wanted that hour and a half of my life back.

Kane


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Aug 29, 2005)

I was just disappointed in it.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Aug 29, 2005)

MadMaxim said:
			
		

> Nothing wrong with expectations, but people should perhaps lower them a bit instead of thinking that they're seeing the top of an art form. This is just an action movie, nothing more nothing less.



Which wasn’t the case for me…  I did like Phantom Menace after all. 

They screwed the pooch on the screenplay and/or how they went off and killed the female lead.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Aug 29, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Hold on a sec.  Posting on a site that's all about pretend characters doing impossible things like shoot fireballs out of their hands, flying wihtout the aid of machinery, and falling inane distances and getting up and walking away, and you're concerned about the reality of someone's footwear?
> 
> If so, I'm sorry, but in a movie with vampires, werewolves, and living creatures assembled from corpses, the shoes just don't cut it as a complaint.  Perspective, dude, perspective.




Answer: I do not know how magic works, I do know how fencing works. If the physics of the world are such as to allow magic then there is no problem with its use, however sword fighting in high heels is asking for a broken ankle. It is something that exists, and should be handled appropriately.

The Auld Grump


----------



## IcyCool (Aug 29, 2005)

I thought Van Helsing was great!  Fun fight scenes, mediocre acting, and great monsters.  The casting and costuming for Dracula was terrific.


----------



## Mystery Man (Aug 30, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Answer: I do not know how magic works, I do know how fencing works. If the physics of the world are such as to allow magic then there is no problem with its use, however sword fighting in high heels is asking for a broken ankle. It is something that exists, and should be handled appropriately.
> 
> The Auld Grump





So just how many times _have_ you fenced in high heels? Yes, let us get your expert opinion on this...


----------



## Mercule (Aug 30, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Answer: I do not know how magic works, I do know how fencing works. If the physics of the world are such as to allow magic then there is no problem with its use, however sword fighting in high heels is asking for a broken ankle. It is something that exists, and should be handled appropriately.




The physics are, of course, that Kate Beckinsale's rear is magical, and when properly activated (by high heels and leather pants), it allows her to perform amazing athletic feats.

Run with it, man, that's pretty close to the truth, in this case.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Aug 30, 2005)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> So just how many times _have_ you fenced in high heels? Yes, let us get your expert opinion on this...



Let’s be realistic…  Its hard to walk in high heals with out practice let alone fence in them...  I do believe that anything is possible with practice but this is somewhat of a stretch...


----------



## Umbran (Aug 30, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Answer: I do not know how magic works, I do know how fencing works. If the physics of the world are such as to allow magic then there is no problem with its use...




The high-heels are merely one element of an overall alteration to physics - an adaptation of the rules of the universe to allow high-action.  Fencing in heels is no more problematic than some of the Tarzan action, or werewolves clinging to walls like spiders, or compressed-air powered firearms in a victorian setting.  You post here - the odds of you not being familiar with high-action settings is virtually nil.   Why can't you accept it as a high-action, swashbuckling setting?

Or do you just dislike any fiction that allows for feats beyond what normal human beings can physically perform?


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Aug 30, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Or do you just dislike any fiction that allows for feats beyond what normal human beings can physically perform?




In general, yes I do dislike such nonsense, which includes most (but not all (anymore)) anime. Despite that, aside from the high heeled fight scene, I actually rather enjoyed Van Helsing - which reminded me of Captain Chronos: Vampire Hunter! 

On the other hand I hated Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon - but liked the original Chinese Ghost Story, so I am not always consistent.

The (inconsistent) Auld Grump


----------



## David Howery (Aug 30, 2005)

Mercule said:
			
		

> The physics are, of course, that Kate Beckinsale's rear is magical.



I don't know about _magical_, but it was certainly one of the more interesting features of the movie.  Didn't anyone else like this just because of the hot vampire chicks?


----------



## Mercule (Aug 30, 2005)

David Howery said:
			
		

> I don't know about _magical_, but it was certainly one of the more interesting features of the movie.  Didn't anyone else like this just because of the hot vampire chicks?




Well, not _just_ because of those.


----------



## Pants (Aug 30, 2005)

I didn't really care for it.  Not enough to go out of my way to bash it, but enough to go out of my to not ever watch it again. It had some neat ideas that were handled poorly...


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 30, 2005)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Boo hoo, some trashy eye candy dies rather than living to the end, to be replaced by another actress when the original becomes too old for the sequal. Hollywood is too addicted to having the heroine live to the end so she can ride off with the hero.



Perhaps, but that is one formula that always worked with the movie audience, unless you're a direct-to-video fan, you know, the kind of lesser known films that ended up on late-night TV programming as fillers for local TV stations (simply because they can't get some informercial sponsors to pick that timeslot).

Only _Revenge of the Sith_ got the "kill the heroine" plot right, having the lead character killed his wife and mother of his children in anger.


----------



## Dougal DeKree (Aug 30, 2005)

Some of you guys go to see Van Helsing, where the summary states that Frankensteins monster is chased by a vampire so he can have living children and is plagued by werewolf infestation, which calls the Vatikan onto the stage.

And you really ask for a plot? And for consistency?

After reading the summary i went to see the movie to be entertained. I did not want a plot, a deeper meaning, consistency or award-winning drama. I wanted action, monsters, jokes and nice chicks. I got all that plus a exaggerated kitschy ending that spat on all those hollywood happy endings that are a must (SADLY!). I bought the DVD as soon as the extended version came out and still watch it every now and then. I certainly is better than many other movies that make it into cinema (like IMO e.g. War of the worlds or League of extraordinary gentlemen). 

Dougal


----------



## glass (Aug 30, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> _*raises hand*_
> 
> Count me as somebody who actually enjoyed Van Helsing.  I found it to be pretty darn enjoyable.



Me too.

I mean, it wasn't the pinacle of cinema as an artform, but for two hours entertainment I've seen a lot worse.


glass.


----------



## glass (Aug 30, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Hold on a sec.  Posting on a site that's all about pretend characters doing impossible things like shoot fireballs out of their hands, flying wihtout the aid of machinery, and falling inane distances and getting up and walking away, and you're concerned about the reality of someone's footwear?
> 
> If so, I'm sorry, but in a movie with vampires, werewolves, and living creatures assembled from corpses, the shoes just don't cut it as a complaint.  Perspective, dude, perspective.



Plus which, people can and do dance in high heels. It's not that much of a stretch from there to fighting.


glass.


----------



## glass (Aug 30, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> (Like what Wesley Snipes did with Demolition Man 15 years ago).



Demolition Man was 15 years ago? Wow, I must be getting old.  


glass.


----------



## Taelorn76 (Aug 30, 2005)

Lump me in with people that liked it as well. True it wasn't a great movie, but it a fun 2  hours.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 30, 2005)

It was a fun movie. Nice entertainment. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 30, 2005)

Bad acting?

Poor plot?

If the vampire brides hadn't been so annoying....

If everything hadn't been named "Dracula" like his castle.

If the actor wasn't playing Wolverine again "I have no memory..."

If the actor who claims he has no memory didn't mention that his first memory was from A.D. 66! I mean how much more does the guy want to remember?

Etc... etc.. etc...


----------



## Hand of Evil (Aug 30, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> *If the vampire brides hadn't been so annoying....*
> 
> *If the actor wasn't playing Wolverine again "I have no memory..."*
> 
> Etc... etc.. etc...




Brides had no nipples, they give Batman nips and BAMB, but vamps don't get them and POW!

Typecasting - God help us if he becomes Bond.


----------



## Ferret (Aug 30, 2005)

I would (still) hate it if I thought of it as a vampire/werewolf/frankenstein film. But its not, just forget all that mythology and it not bad, action, bit of acting, naked women.....


----------



## takyris (Aug 30, 2005)

Dougal DeKree said:
			
		

> Some of you guys go to see Van Helsing, where the summary states that Frankensteins monster is chased by a vampire so he can have living children and is plagued by werewolf infestation, which calls the Vatikan onto the stage.
> 
> And you really ask for a plot? And for consistency?




Yes. Yes I do. Really. 

An over-the-top premise is not a license to slack on the execution. And honestly, it's a real shame that so many people seem to think it is, because that's what lets dreck like this get produced. I give them credit for having a fun over-the-top idea, and I also give them credit for botching it in just about every way it could have been botched. It was obviously a labor of love, and it's great that they got their labor of love made, but labors of love don't automatically get a "It would have sucked, but this is a special case" sticker slapped on them to excuse shoddy worksmanship. Or shouldn't, anyway.

I can come up with ten over-the-top ideas before breakfast. I write over-the-top ideas. So if I go to a movie, seeing an *idea* isn't going to impress me all by itself. What impresses me is if that wacky idea is carried out well.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Aug 30, 2005)

takyris said:
			
		

> An over-the-top premise is not a license to slack on the execution. And honestly, it's a real shame that so many people seem to think it is, because that's what lets dreck like this get produced.




Ahhh, so its a shame that I like this movie even though I don't agree with you about the execution? I loved it. I thought the movie was great, it was fun, and I had no problems with it. But I'm sorry that I liked it, and I'll make sure to stop enjoying the movies that entertain me so you don't have to waste your time with obvious dreck.


----------



## takyris (Aug 30, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Ahhh, so its a shame that I like this movie even though I don't agree with you about the execution? I loved it. I thought the movie was great, it was fun, and I had no problems with it. But I'm sorry that I liked it, and I'll make sure to stop enjoying the movies that entertain me so you don't have to waste your time with obvious dreck.




Don't be deliberately obtuse, Ankh.  You don't agree that the movie was poorly executed. That's fine. I disagree with you, but that's how the market works.

I was responding to somebody who said that an over-the-top premise like Van Helsing's meant that you didn't *need* a plot or consistency. As, you know, mentioned in the part I quoted. If you have to be sarcastic and snippy, please be sarcastic and snippy for a cause other than an aggrieved defense of an attack I didn't make.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 30, 2005)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> Brides had no nipples, they give Batman nips and BAMB, but vamps don't get them and POW!
> 
> Typecasting - God help us if he becomes Bond.




Well really, if you're going for the T&A bit, do it right with a rated R movie. At least give the audience what they want.

I know opinions differ of course, but I think the thing I hated most about this movie, was it took a lot of attention away from a movie I thought had better plot, acting, lines, and well, overall character, good old Hellboy.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 30, 2005)

Ferret said:
			
		

> But its not, just forget all that mythology and it not bad, action, bit of acting, naked women.....



Not nearly naked enough, nary a nipple*.  

*Unless you count Jackman's. Sorry, not a fan of man-nips.


----------



## barsoomcore (Aug 30, 2005)

No, taky, tell us what you REALLY think. Don't hold back.



I'm with you. _Van Helsing_ was crap crap crappity crap crap. I was pretty excited about it since I greatly enjoyed MOST of Sommers' previous films. I love _Deep Rising_ and _The Mummy_ and enjoyed most of _The Mummy Returns_. His version of _The Jungle Book_ blows huge chunks though, so he's not a solid always-home-run director.

The problem with VH isn't the fencing in heels. It isn't the liberties it takes with old legends. It's that it's dull. It uses lots of flashes and noise to distract you from how dull it is, but ultimately it's boring, it will die and nobody will remember it, and I wasted my time watching it.

What's worst is that twenty minutes in I turned to my wife and said, "This is AWESOME!" and right at that moment (the end of the village fight) is when the whole contraption went off the rails and died.

Sommers dropped the ball in, as taky says, pretty much every way he could have.

One further note: a movie isn't a really really great idea. It's MILLIONS of really really great ideas, all pulled together and drawn into a functioning package of really really great ideas. ANYBODY can have a great idea. It's continuing to produce great ideas and organizing them that creates great films.

And films are either great or crappy. There are no crappy films that are worth watching. _Sister Street Fighter_ is a great film. _Them!_ is a great film. _Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter_ is a pretty good film. So the argument "Entertainment doesn't have to be great art," doesn't fly with me because BY DEFINITION great art is entertaining. If it's entertaining, it's good.

And if VH entertained you, then great. But I found it dull as frickin' dishwater. And for a movie with Frankenstein, Dracula and the Wolfman to be DULL is the most unpardonable sin I can think of.

Final point: Turanil, what made you think MOST ENWorlders hated this film? It scored a solid 7-8 on it's "Rate This Film" thread. Most ENWorlders (as evidenced by the responses in this thread) liked it.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Aug 30, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> And films are either great or crappy. There are no crappy films that are worth watching. _Sister Street Fighter_ is a great film. _Them!_ is a great film. _Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter_ is a pretty good film. So the argument "Entertainment doesn't have to be great art," doesn't fly with me because BY DEFINITION great art is entertaining. If it's entertaining, it's good.





Except that the vast majority of what most of us view as "good art" is really just what we enjoy.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Aug 30, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Well really, if you're going for the T&A bit, do it right with a rated R movie. At least give the audience what they want.
> 
> I know opinions differ of course, but I think the thing I hated most about this movie, was it took a lot of attention away from a movie I thought had better plot, acting, lines, and well, overall character, good old Hellboy.



Yea, that brothered me too as Hellboy was the better movie.


----------



## barsoomcore (Aug 31, 2005)

Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> Except that the vast majority of what most of us view as "good art" is really just what we enjoy.



Uh, didn't I JUST SAY THAT? What part of your statement is not in complete agreement with every part of my statement?

If you hadn't included "Except that" in your post, it would have been a straightforward "Me too," post, but you make it sound like you're disagreeing with me when you're just restating exactly what I said. I don't understand.


----------



## Mystery Man (Aug 31, 2005)

I thought you were saying "Jesus Christ! Vampire Hunter was a good film" until I googled it. There really is a film (Kung-Fu Action / Comedy / Horror / Musical) called Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter! I think I'll take Van Helsing over that one thanks.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Aug 31, 2005)

I found it good, not great, but with a great soundtrack.  It was well worth the price of admission.  Considerably better than The Mummy Returns, a big step down from The Mummy and Deep Rising.

Of course, The Mummy Returns deserves undying hatred for turning one of the best main female characters in recent cinema into the usual one-note cliche.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Aug 31, 2005)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> I thought you were saying "Jesus Christ! Vampire Hunter was a good film" until I googled it. There really is a film (Kung-Fu Action / Comedy / Horror / Musical) called Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter! I think I'll take Van Helsing over that one thanks.



It's really fun. It's so wonderfully wacky.


----------



## Mark Chance (Sep 1, 2005)

Well, _Van Helsing_ was a good deal better than _Revenge of the Sith_.

Not that that's an accomplishment requiring much effort.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 1, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> The problem with VH isn't the fencing in heels. It isn't the liberties it takes with old legends. It's that it's dull.




Bingo!!



Of course, one thing I REALLY liked was that they released sets with all the classics on DVD as promo.  I snapped all six of those up.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Sep 1, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Uh, didn't I JUST SAY THAT? What part of your statement is not in complete agreement with every part of my statement?
> 
> If you hadn't included "Except that" in your post, it would have been a straightforward "Me too," post, but you make it sound like you're disagreeing with me when you're just restating exactly what I said. I don't understand.




Well I thought wasn't what you were saying. It came across to me more as you saying "there is only one great art and it is what I like."


----------



## Morpheus (Sep 1, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> _*raises hand*_
> 
> Count me as somebody who actually enjoyed Van Helsing.  I found it to be pretty darn enjoyable.




Count me in too...I enjoyed it for what it was...popcorn action flick. I never pretended it was anything else and I think I'm happier for it.


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 1, 2005)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> There really is a film (Kung-Fu Action / Comedy / Horror / Musical) called Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter! I think I'll take Van Helsing over that one thanks.



I watch films, then decide. I like doing it that way. But whatever works for you.


			
				Captain Tagon said:
			
		

> Well I thought wasn't what you were saying. It came across to me more as you saying "there is only one great art and it is what I like."



You're doing it again. That IS what I'm saying. I'm saying that "what I like" is exactly equal to "great art". In both directions. What I like is, by that definition alone, great art. What is great art is, again, self-definingly, what I like. I like great art. Great art is what I like. There do not exist works of great art that I don't like, nor do there exist things I like that are not great art.


			
				Morpheus said:
			
		

> I enjoyed it for what it was...popcorn action flick. I never pretended it was anything else and I think I'm happier for it.



I just have to say that this attitude always comes across as tremendously arrogant, though I'm sure you don't mean it to. But what you're suggesting is that people who didn't like the film are A) incapable of understanding what it REALLY is, and B) less happy than you as a result.

A) I know my popcorn cinema. I LOVE good popcorn movies. I didn't dislike VH because I don't like popcorn movies. I disliked VH because it sucked.

B) My happiness doesn't depend on what flashy noises get displayed in front of me.

Sorry, cranky mood. Just venting. Feel free to flame.


----------



## David Howery (Sep 1, 2005)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> Brides had no nipples, they give Batman nips and BAMB, but vamps don't get them and POW!



well, yeah, not in their butt-ugly flying bat forms, but who cares?  When they looked like normal women, they were hot!  The redhead one was a knockout...


----------



## Abraxas (Sep 1, 2005)

> You're doing it again. That IS what I'm saying. I'm saying that "what I like" is exactly equal to "great art". In both directions. What I like is, by that definition alone, great art. What is great art is, again, self-definingly, what I like. I like great art. Great art is what I like. There do not exist works of great art that I don't like, nor do there exist things I like that are not great art.




Do you also mean that anything you do not like can not be great art to someone else who does like it?  Cause thats what I think Captain Tagon was refreing to.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Sep 1, 2005)

Hmmm, I like quite a few things that I do _not_ think of as great art. And hate a few that I do think highly of in other ways. (I _hated_ Kiss of the Spider Woman[/i], but think that for all my hatred it was a good movie, albeit one that I did not like...)

Van Helsing was a _horrible_ movie, albeit one that I enjoyed. (Along with Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow!)

The Auld Grump, or the Thousand Fingers of Doctor T...


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 1, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Van Helsing was a _horrible_ movie, albeit one that I enjoyed. (Along with Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow!)



You think _Sky Captain_ is also a _horrible_ movie?


----------



## Mark Chance (Sep 1, 2005)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I watch films, then decide. I like doing it that way. But whatever works for you.




After being slapped in the face, Mystery Man is given permission to not watch a movie.


----------



## Dougal DeKree (Sep 1, 2005)

takyris said:
			
		

> I was responding to somebody who said that an over-the-top premise like Van Helsing's meant that you didn't *need* a plot or consistency.QUOTE]
> 
> Takyris, i think you seperated that part from the context of my post. As I explained in the next paragraph, in that particular context, i expected to see a fun movie with nothing else to it. The movie met that expectation and  i had fun with it. Your issue seems to be that you expected something from that movie that it didn't provide und thus you feel the movie is crap. We are on the same side here: I like a movie if it meets my expectation and i don't like it if it doesn't, too.
> But please don't push me into a corner or generally accepting crappy movies as soon as they are "over-the-top", which i don't.
> ...


----------



## JediSoth (Sep 1, 2005)

My wife and I enjoyed it. Sure, it wasn't Oscar-material, but I found it more than suitable for an afternoon of turning off my brain and just being entertained. I don't think it tried to be more than just simple popcorn-entertainment, and I didn't have any expectations for it to be the best action/horror/fantasy movie ever.

JediSoth


----------



## Mystery Man (Sep 1, 2005)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> After being slapped in the face, Mystery Man is given permission to not watch a movie.




Call me crazy, but sometimes I like to make up my mind based on information I recieve _before_ I actually waste my time.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Sep 1, 2005)

Mystery Man said:
			
		

> Call me crazy, but sometimes I like to make up my mind based on information I recieve _before_ I actually waste my time.



Y'mean, like if everybody's praising it?

It's fun!


----------



## Captain Tagon (Sep 1, 2005)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> Do you also mean that anything you do not like can not be great art to someone else who does like it?  Cause thats what I think Captain Tagon was refreing to.




Yeah, that's basically what I meant. Of course, on a bigger scale I believe there is such an absolute concept as "good art". However in our day to day examinations of art, personal preference comes into play a lot more than an objective standard.


----------



## Mystery Man (Sep 1, 2005)

Viking Bastard said:
			
		

> Y'mean, like if everybody's praising it?
> 
> It's fun!




Not so much that...see now you're forcing me to treat this seriously...

I'll almost never go by what other people say about a movie or a book and base my desicion on that. I'll take the overview, or the description and using that I'll base my decision on it. I'll know if it fits my tastes. Based on (and we'll just use it as an example) Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter's description from a couple different resources that I've found I know that I would find this film not only offensive but irritating 15 minutes into it. Being 36 years old, I pretty much know what I like and what I don't. Granted there are times when I'm pleasantly surprised that I'm wrong but I'm usually not. I had a hunch I wouldn't like The Day After Tomorrow, 15 minutes into it I was right, thank goodness I didn't front the money for the rental on that one. So I've learned to trust my instincts!

That is to say I would never say that Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter is a bad film, or put it down, or say that it sucks etc., nor would I recommend that folks not see it. I just know that I would not like it.


----------



## DonTadow (Sep 1, 2005)

I actually thought hte movie was ok, but I couldn't hate it because I saw it after the last Harry Potter movie and after seeing the HORRIBLE werewolf transformation and potrayal in that movie, van helsing looked like star wars special effects.


----------



## sniffles (Sep 1, 2005)

I certainly don't hate it, or even dislike it. I hadn't heard of people hating it, though of course there's always going to be someone who hates any movie - the world is full of Mikeys (Let's get Mikey to try it! He hates everything!).

I liked it even better than I thought I would. It was funny and entertaining. I liked Van Helsing's gadgets. I was glad that Karl wasn't a comedy relief buffoon, and it was fun seeing David Wenham playing a character entirely unlike Faramir (so much unlike him that at first I didn't recognize the actor). Kate Beckinsale's character was a little silly, but not so much that it annoyed me, and it was amusing to see her as a vampire hunter just after seeing her as a vampire in "Underworld". I really loved Frankenstein's monster; he was just great, and the action scenes with him were a hoot even if they were completely ridiculous. I also liked the guy who played Vlad - he was appropriately creepy in my opinion. 

But I realize it probably wasn't everyone's cup of tea. Que sera, sera.


----------



## David Howery (Sep 1, 2005)

uh... I didn't recognize Wenham either... which part did he play?


----------



## BlackSilver (Sep 1, 2005)

David Howery said:
			
		

> uh... I didn't recognize Wenham either... which part did he play?




Faramir's actor was the same actor that played Karl- the gadgeteer monk.  I didn't reconize him myself until three quarters of the movie had past and I have seen all three LotR movies a dozen times.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 1, 2005)

BlackSilver said:
			
		

> Faramir's actor was the same actor that played Karl- the gadgeteer monk.  I didn't reconize him myself until three quarters of the movie had past and I have seen all three LotR movies a dozen times.



But he wasn't in the _Fellowship of the Ring_ film.   

At least he got some acting range. He can be funny.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 1, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Of course, The Mummy Returns deserves undying hatred for turning one of the best main female characters in recent cinema into the usual one-note cliche.




Gosh, you just gave me a horrible flashback to "Revenge of the Sith". IYKWIMAITYD.


----------



## orchid blossom (Sep 3, 2005)

I rented Van Helsing expecting a pulpy action flick with plenty of camp.  Probably on the scale of something Bruce Campbell would make.  Not particularly good, but entertaining for my $3.75.

We popped it in, turned it off after 45 minutes, and watched The Terminal again instead.  It was a cringe-fest, and I just couldn't take it.


----------



## Blue_Kryptonite (Sep 3, 2005)

Without comment on the above, my wife and sons and their friends and fiancee frequently watch the DVD we bought when it was released. One of our favourite films. My wife wants me to run a campaign in a hybrid LXG (another favourite)/Van Helsing setting. Now, I found the D&D movie to be a great film, too, so I realize that removes my credibility in its entirety from this particular group. 



			
				Mystery Man said:
			
		

> I thought you were saying "Jesus Christ! Vampire Hunter was a good film" until I googled it. There really is a film (Kung-Fu Action / Comedy / Horror / Musical) called Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter! I think I'll take Van Helsing over that one thanks.




MM, Google Ultrachrist.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Sep 3, 2005)

That's Faramir? Awesome 

Am I the only one who thought he looked/sounded like Danny Kaye?


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 3, 2005)

John Q. Mayhem said:
			
		

> That's Faramir? Awesome
> 
> Am I the only one who thought he looked/sounded like Danny Kaye?



He could do a biographical movie of him. I mean, he's got the nose.


----------



## barsoomcore (Sep 4, 2005)

Abraxas said:
			
		

> Do you also mean that anything you do not like can not be great art to someone else who does like it?



Not at all! I'm saying it MUST BE great art to someone else who does like it. And what I find fascinating (and don't worry, I know I'm in the minority here) is discussing the whys and wherefores of WHY we like what we like. But comments like, "It wasn't great art but I enjoyed it," shut down conversation about the qualities of the film by suggesting that the very idea of treating the film seriously is foolish.

Which is frustrating for me.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 25, 2005)

Just watched it on cable for the first time.

And I hate it.

Why? Where to begin?

Richard Roxbourgh as Vladislav Draguilia (Dracula) was terrible. I've never seen him in a performance I liked. He wasn't menacing in Moulin Rouge, he wasn't Machiavellian in LXG and he sure as hell doesn't convey "Dracula" to me. No authority, no intimidation, no nothing. And that hair (and its 80's hair clip) were atrocious.

The werewolves. The transformation itself had no coherence. Sometimes they ripped the skin, sometimes the fur grew traditionally. Once they turned into werewolves, ripping skin and clothes, they shouldn't be clothed when turning back. Yet they are.

The vampire offspring. "So this is what happens when vampires mate... They have Gremlins". Ugh. Just sire an entire village, Vlad.

The Frankenstein Monster. Those computer LEDs were terrible. The actor was terrible. I'd rather have the monster from The Young Frankenstein ("Frankonsteen!!!!").

The monk. "I'm not a monk, I'm a friar". So? You're still clergy, dude. That line makes no sense at all!

The monk and the monster riding inside a burning carriage and no sign of flames until the werewolf rips the top open? And what, the werewolf's claws are filled with gasoline or something? Not to mention the flying horses...

The CGI vs. CGI battle in the end.

The constant Tarzan impressions. "What do we do?" "I know! Let's swing from a rope!"

In the opening scene, the villagers go through a forest to reach the castle, and from there they chase the monster into a windmill. But once Van Helsing get to the same village, the castle is right ACROSS THE STREET!!!!

The villagers all go nuts when Van Helsing kills a vampire, but they had no qualms in working with Anna, even though HER FAMILY KILLS VAMPIRES FOR 400 YEARS???

So Van Helsing is the top operative for the Vatican? Why? Jekill/Hyde dies from an accident, he misses, like, 586.980 crossbow shots, he manages to get infected by the werewolf he manages to kill... Some sign of competence here, please?

The vampiresses attack during the day. They only hide when the sun breaks through a very thin layer of clouds. Were they dark gray stormclouds that dimmed the lighting of the scene, I could buy it. But the scene was clear as day!

Deus Ex Machina. The "sunlight bomb" (created by absolute accident), the "werewolf can kill dracula", the "Frankenstein monster smashing through window and hits vampire bride", "Van Helsing gets werewolf powers before turning into a werewolf, so they can enter the castle"...

There were two towers on Castle Dracula, one with the contraption, one with the cure. Anna is trapped waaay up there with the last vampire bride. The F-Monster swings around helping the monk, and it clearly shows that he's far below the towers. Yet he smashes through the tower window 1,000 feet above him???

Full Moon??? When VH and the monk arrive, Anna's brother (as a werewolf) attacks. It is clearly a full moon. When they take Frankenstein's Monster to Budapest, it is clearly a full moon. So why the heck does the monk tell VH that his first full moon will be in TWO DAYS???

Anna's father was called King of the Gipsies, yet he lived in the largest mansion in town? Gipsies! Wandering around in wagons! Fortune-tellers! Not "Houses of the Rich and Famous"!

The only enjoyable parts about this movie were Kate Beckinsale (even though her lines blew) and Josie Maran (even though she was the first bride to go).


I could've slept, but instead I stayed awake to watch this movie. I should've gone to bed...


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Sep 27, 2005)

"The opposite of Love is not Hate; it is Indifference." - I think Diane Chambers (Shelly Long) said that on _Cheers_.

I am very indifferent to *Van Helsing*.


----------



## Pale Violet Light (Sep 27, 2005)

Thousands of consistency errors aside, I didn't hate it. It was clear from about 15 minutes in that the brain needed to be shut down very quickly if any enjoyment was to be had. After that, it was kind of fun in a campy way, and I much prefer Wenham in this role than as Faramir. Analysing all the holes in the plot after the movie was kind of fun, too.

What did get me was the really bad computer animations in the Dracula vs. Wolfman fight, which was a big letdown. If you're going to spend millions of bucks on an action flick then you might as well do it right. Two guys in rubber suits would have been more convincing. It reminded me of the "Hell" scenes in Spawn, which ruined an otherwise almost tolerable movie by their sheer badness.

But back onto Van Helsing, more nipples would certainly have been good.


----------



## humble minion (Sep 27, 2005)

I don't _hate_ Van Helsing.  It simply isn't worth investing that much emotion in.  Instead, I look down upon Van Helsing, I gaze upon Van Helsing with mild contempt, I sneer disdainfully at Van Helsing and then turn crushingly away.

Just because a common-as-dirt dumb action film has vampires and werewolves in it doesn't make it any good, my geekdom notwithstanding.  I much prefer a movie in which plot has a purpose of its own, rather than just being there as flimsy justification for the next FX shot/future video game sequence.

Yes, Kate Beckinsale and the Brides looked great, but can anyone name a female Hollywood action hero who doesn't?  The one unambiguously well-done thing about the movie was the werewolf effects, which moved beautifully and _were not bald_, which is something of a relief after other recent films... *cough*Underworld*cough*


----------



## Zappo (Sep 27, 2005)

I don't hate Van Helsing. I was in England at the time, and the initial scenes made me feel good, 'cause the cardinal's Italian accent is worse than mine.


----------

