# Van Helsing



## Liquid Snake (May 6, 2004)

I just saw Van Helsing and I can tell you it was pretty sweet. The action and special effects were great, just as expected. The story and performances were pretty solid for an action movie, the directing was good but left some plot holes and misunderstandings for me (the moon phases are kind of weird on these movie).

The monster deserve special notice because they were outsanding. Mr. Hyde (minor appearance around the beginning) is *so* much better than the 'League of...' Hyde. The Werewolves look and fight just like World of Darkness Garous in Crinos form, and that's good...very good. The Frankenstein monster is in my own view a very original and fresh new image for this classical monster. Dracula and her brides are cool and all...but I kind of prefer WoD-sort-of vampires who don't change into battle modes.   

I was pretty suprised when I saw Dave Wenham (Faramir) in the role of a non-heroic bookwormish friar. He's the movie's comic relief and he does a good job at it, I found it particularly interesting to watch Wenham in such a different role from his LoTR role.

The only thing I disliked was the ending...but I won't tell you about that.

Oh yeah and Kate Beckinsale is freakin' hot! But I guess you've already noticed that.


----------



## Djeta Thernadier (May 6, 2004)

I haven't seen it yet but it looks awesome. I'll probably go this weekend. 

The effects look amazing. The story sounds awesome. The whole visual aspect of this movie will probably be enough for me to want to see it repeatedly, from the sets to the effects to the costumes.

And I want to be Kate Beckinsale. Actually I just really dig her snazzy clothes in this movie. Ah, if only they'd let me dress like that at my office. 


And Hugh Jackman is dreamy.  

j/k that's not why I see movies.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (May 6, 2004)

GAAAAAA.

More special effects driven movies, now more and more comic book superhero inspired. Give me an old character driven movie anyday over these special effects monstrosities. The original Mummy movie, now that is a much better horror movie. When special effects are the point of the movie I no longer care to see it.


----------



## Thanee (May 6, 2004)

Seen the movie today and it's really cool!

Exactly like I thought it would be (pulp-style). Cool characters, cool story and cool visuals. 

And I tell you, Van Helsing is a Paladin (Hey, at least he can 



Spoiler



detect evil


 )!

Brown Jenkin - the movie is absolutely not about special effects only, it's quite story driven, just that the story is something completely new, which uses elements from all the stuff mixed in there (Dracula, Frankenstein, etc).

It's surely not a movie for those who only want to see the original story, or the van Helsing character from the original Dracula fiction.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 6, 2004)

I'll probably see this on Saturday. Really can't wait...I don't care if its got a good or bad plot, I want pulp type action!!


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 7, 2004)

Djeta Thernadier said:
			
		

> Actually I just really dig her snazzy clothes in this movie.




Absolutely!

... hey, I was right - Igor _was_ Beni from _The Mummy_!  I _thought_ I recognised the voice...

Heh... one bit that struck me as particularly amusing:


Spoiler



In the masquerade scene, where Dracula and Anna are dancing, and there's the mirror shot, two thoughts went through my head.  First - "Yay!  Unlike _Underworld_, the vampire doesn't show up in the mirror!"  And second - "Aw, but they screwed up - none of the _other_ dancers are reflecting either.  And that wouldn't be right unless _every single other person in the room_ were a... oh."



-Hyp.


----------



## Assenpfeffer (May 7, 2004)

Djeta Thernadier said:
			
		

> And I want to be Kate Beckinsale. Actually I just really dig her snazzy clothes in this movie. Ah, if only they'd let me dress like that at my office.




When _I_ run my own office, that sort of thing will be explictly encouraged.  If not _required._


----------



## hong (May 7, 2004)

Van Helsing reminds me of nothing less than someone's monster-hunting campaign put on the big screen. And I mean that in a good way. Just like Underworld reminded me of someone's Vampire LARP put on the big screen.


----------



## Darmanicus (May 7, 2004)

I'm soooo lookin' forward to watchin' this. A lot of people have said bad reviews etc. but, man, this looks as though it's gonna kick ass!


----------



## Villano (May 7, 2004)

I just read a review of the film which mentioned that Jackman is playing "Gabriel" Van Helsing.  Gabriel?  I admit that it's been a while since I've read the book, but isn't it Abraham?  

Okay, in the book, Van Helsing was an old man and nothing like the action hero portrayed in the flm (no to mention that the book doesn't mention the Wolfman or Frankenstein's Monster), so I'm willing to make concessions.  However, the name change does seem strange.  It's kind of like the Hammer films adaption of Jekyll & Hyde (I, Monster) in which they kept the names of all the other characters _except_ Jekyll & Hyde who for some reason became Marlowe & Blake (I think).

However, it did make me wonder if he's actually supposed to be playing the same Van Helsing or one of his relative (kind of like the Belmont clan of the Castlevania games).  Any mention of this in the film?


----------



## Desdichado (May 7, 2004)

Darmanicus said:
			
		

> I'm soooo lookin' forward to watchin' this. A lot of people have said bad reviews etc. but, man, this looks as though it's gonna kick ass!



Roger Ebert gave it a good review.  I think this is the kind of movie that if you liked the recent Mummy movies (same writer/director) then you'll probably like this for the same reasons.


----------



## shilsen (May 7, 2004)

Villano said:
			
		

> I just read a review of the film which mentioned that Jackman is playing "Gabriel" Van Helsing.  Gabriel?  I admit that it's been a while since I've read the book, but isn't it Abraham?
> 
> Okay, in the book, Van Helsing was an old man and nothing like the action hero portrayed in the flm (no to mention that the book doesn't mention the Wolfman or Frankenstein's Monster), so I'm willing to make concessions.  However, the name change does seem strange.  It's kind of like the Hammer films adaption of Jekyll & Hyde (I, Monster) in which they kept the names of all the other characters _except_ Jekyll & Hyde who for some reason became Marlowe & Blake (I think).
> 
> However, it did make me wonder if he's actually supposed to be playing the same Van Helsing or one of his relative (kind of like the Belmont clan of the Castlevania games).  Any mention of this in the film?



 I always assumed he's supposed to be an ancestor of Abraham Van Helsing. Am I wrong?


----------



## Klaus (May 7, 2004)

For quite some time now my wife has said she wants to play a swashbuckling-type, gypsy-like character. Kate Beckinsale's character just _IS_ the character she envisioned.

So yes, I'm looking forward to seeing VH. And so is my wife (yay!).


----------



## RangerWickett (May 7, 2004)

If they just called it Castlevania the movie, I'd probably be giving it less of a hard time.  He'd need a whip of course, though.


----------



## Mercule (May 7, 2004)

Villano said:
			
		

> However, it did make me wonder if he's actually supposed to be playing the same Van Helsing or one of his relative (kind of like the Belmont clan of the Castlevania games). Any mention of this in the film?



It's my understanding that Gabriel is supposed to be Abraham's "younger brother" or some such.  I'm also given to understand that the name change had more to do with the studio wanting to control some finer details of intellectual property or some such.

*shrug*

Whatever.  I've already fully dissociated it from Bram Stoker or anything similar.  It is its own universe.

Still looks fun, though.


----------



## reapersaurus (May 7, 2004)

Van Helsing rocks on toast.

I've seen a couple bad "reviews", and they really are hardly reviews.
What review would think it's a revelation to tell you the movie "is cheesy, badly-acted CGI-filled, popcorn movie with no depth"?

Well...    DUH.
Why do they think so many people are standing in line to see it?

I swear, there is a disconnect between many reviewers (and moviegoers) about modern action/effects movies.
What some people see as bad, is simply not a problem with millions of people wanting to see a great adventure. 
We don't care about somewhat-hammy dialogue.
We don't care if the actors "over-act."
We don't care if there are tons of effects that "you know aren't real."
We don't care if there not a huge character-driven story-arc, with lots of double-meanings and complexity.

We want a movie that's full of action and adventure, and monsters, and gorgeous people doing things you can't do in real life.

Van Helsing delivers those goods more than any moive in recent memory. It is really the pinnacle of popcorn monster movies to date, IMO.

If you at all liked The Mummy, or Tomb Raider, or Underworld, or LXG, do yourself a favor and see Van Helsing right away - it is EXACTLY what you'll enjoy seeing.

And Djeta - wait until you see the party scene (that Hypersmurf spoiler'ed).
My wife was going ape-. Truly the highlight of the movie for her.


----------



## Thanee (May 7, 2004)

Villano said:
			
		

> I just read a review of the film which mentioned that Jackman is playing "Gabriel" Van Helsing.  Gabriel?  I admit that it's been a while since I've read the book, but isn't it Abraham?




It's simply a completely different person, that shares the same family name and the fact, that he hunts vampires (among others). 

All the famous characters in the movie are not how you know them, not precisely. Well, just watch the movie and you'll see... 

It's really what makes the movie so cool IMHO.

When I first heard about the movie, I thought... Wow, cool, a van Helsing movie!
Then I read some teasers and thought... Frankenstein's monster... WTH ?!?
Then I saw the movie and thought... Wow, cool! 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (May 7, 2004)

@Djeta: Yes, the costumes are really, really cool. 

@Hypersmurf: Yeah, that was a great scene! 



Spoiler



Quite unexpected, too.


 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Crothian (May 7, 2004)

I thought it was okay, but it did turn out better then I thought.  They got Mr Hyde wrong, just like everyone does.  THe special effects were not that good, they were obvious, I like my CGI to be a bit more seemless.  They also had too much hulking monsters, not a fan of that.  It's overdone and looks bad.  Frank;s Monster though did very well, I actually liked him and thought they did a good job representing him.  THe movies was a bit obvious, only the scene talked about above suprised me.


----------



## Thanee (May 7, 2004)

Yeah, Mr Hide really was... overdone...



Spoiler



Mr Hide actually also was the hunchback (quasimodo) or not? Wasn't that Notre Dame where they fought?



Bye
Thanee


----------



## reapersaurus (May 8, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> They got Mr Hyde wrong, just like everyone does.
> 
> THe special effects were not that good, they were obvious, I like my CGI to be a bit more seemless.
> 
> They also had too much hulking monsters, not a fan of that.



Nice to see someone dictating their intepretation of Mr. Hyde and foisting it on everyone as a "mistake" of the movie.  (edit - where the heck did the rolleyes smilie go??) 

It's kind of hard to make CGI for the characters and creatures they chose to use to be "seemless". How you're gonna make a 12' werewolf do anything on screen and seem "seemless" is beyond me.

And if you're not a fan of hulking monsters...  seriously, _why did you go to see it?_
What did you expect from the movie, if not hulking monsters? They're all over the trailers and merchandising....


----------



## Tonguez (May 8, 2004)

*One question only*

How does it rate when compared to the Rocky Horror Picture Show?



			
				Villano said:
			
		

> I just read a review of the film which mentioned that Jackman is playing "Gabriel" Van Helsing.  Gabriel?  I admit that it's been a while since I've read the book, but isn't it Abraham?




I was watching an Interview with Hugh Jackman (can't remember who with) and he claims that the name was changed to Gabriel because the writer apparently though it sounded sexier than Abraham (it also invokes the Angel thing) - obviously the writer was a LARPer


----------



## Crothian (May 8, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Nice to see someone dictating their intepretation of Mr. Hyde and foisting it on everyone as a "mistake" of the movie.




In the book Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, Mr Hyde is different.  I'm not interpreting the character, I'm basing it on the orginal.  Now in the comic they may have used this version of Mt Hyde and it could be based on that.  I'm not foistering my opinion on anyone.  I do beleive the point of this thread is for opinions on the movie.  But since I'm one of the few who am not praising it, I expected this type of response.   :\ 



> It's kind of hard to make CGI for the characters and creatures they chose to use to be "seemless". How you're gonna make a 12' werewolf do anything on screen and seem "seemless" is beyond me.
> 
> And if you're not a fan of hulking monsters...  seriously, _why did you go to see it?_
> What did you expect from the movie, if not hulking monsters? They're all over the trailers and merchandising....




The were wolves actions were jerky and too fast.  It was like they didn't want to use detail so they made him a blurr.  Trailers are worthless and as mercandising to figure out what a film is like.  And thankfully the hulking monsters were not the focus of the movie, there was an actual story involved.  That's what I wanted to see and why I went.  THe monsters would have been just as effective if they weren't hulking.  That's just the latest fade of these types of movies.


----------



## reapersaurus (May 8, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> In the book Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, Mr Hyde is different.  I'm not interpreting the character, I'm basing it on the orginal.
> 
> That's just the latest fade of these types of movies.



Now I'm REALLY curious - why do you expect to see a book-based version of Mr. Hyde in the movie Van Helsing?
(I'm seriously interested in your answer/opinion on this question)

And I'm guessing you meant to say "fad" - if so, I'm a big fan of the "hulking monster" "fad."


----------



## Crothian (May 8, 2004)

Frankenstein Monster was actually pretty well done in comparison to the book, as was Dr Frankenstien himself.  Obvious Dracula they have greatly altered from the book, but it is not the first time and its become customary to alter vampires.  The werewolf was really not detailed enough to compaire it to anything.  It was a beast and little more.  But all those parts were pretty important to the movie.  There was no reason to use Mr Hyde and in fact they could have insorted any monster and it would have worked.  

But one of the reasons I am more crytical on Mr Hyde besides the fact he wasn't needed, is I'm a big fan of the story.  I think it is easily one of Stevensons best creations and they did it a real diservice by presented it as such.  If they are going to use a literary creature they should expect to get critized for it.  

Am I nit picking?  Very possibley, I do usually hold movies to a higher standard then most people, especially these types.  I think Hollywood can do them better and make them a bit more accurate and smart and not scare off the core audience.

Edit: almost forgot, what other version of Mr Hyde should I be expecting?  What other is there?  It's not like there has been an over use of this character, least that I've seen.


----------



## shoes (May 8, 2004)

Van Helsing = cheesy Castlevania videogame wannbe...

...but other then that, it was decent. Maybe not good, but not bad.


----------



## Axelos (May 8, 2004)

Hey I can give you all a different reason for the "Gabriel" thing.

His name is not Gabriel Van Helsing.  The only person in the whole movie who calls him Gabriel is Dracula.  The only person who knows Van Helsing's true identity is Dracula; not even Van Helsing knows (amnesia and all that).

So his assumed name is Van Helsing.  Dracula knows him from the good old days (and I mean old days) and knows him as Gabriel.

If that's not enough for you, here's four more key words from the movie:  

Left Hand of God.

(Pay attention, it's all there.)


----------



## Dimwhit (May 8, 2004)

Great movie! Just saw it with my wife. I'm not sure what all the complaints are. The CGI was on par with every other FX-heavy movie I've seen, the dialogue wasn't the train wreck it was made out to be, and Kate Beckinsale...well, need I say more?

I really enjoyed it. It was exactly the kind of movie I was both expecting and hoping for.


----------



## Axelos (May 8, 2004)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> The CGI was on par with every other FX-heavy movie I've seen




Then I presume you haven't seen the Lord of the Rings, any of the Matrix films, or, well, Hellboy...

Seriously, there were some good CGI shots, but some were just...eh.  Most of the shots involving werewolves could have been better, and the flying vampires sometimes had some weird problems.


----------



## Piratecat (May 8, 2004)

We had a grand time. I had fun, and I had expected to have fun.  

The real weirdness was not with the CGI, but with the really convenient physics on the cables! But really, I couldn't care less. And Mr. Hyde was one of my favorite parts of the movie.


----------



## Banshee16 (May 8, 2004)

Liquid Snake said:
			
		

> I just saw Van Helsing and I can tell you it was pretty sweet. The action and special effects were great, just as expected. The story and performances were pretty solid for an action movie, the directing was good but left some plot holes and misunderstandings for me (the moon phases are kind of weird on these movie).
> 
> The monster deserve special notice because they were outsanding. Mr. Hyde (minor appearance around the beginning) is *so* much better than the 'League of...' Hyde. The Werewolves look and fight just like World of Darkness Garous in Crinos form, and that's good...very good. The Frankenstein monster is in my own view a very original and fresh new image for this classical monster. Dracula and her brides are cool and all...but I kind of prefer WoD-sort-of vampires who don't change into battle modes.
> 
> ...





As much as I wanted to like this movie, I walked out of there realizing I'd just lost 2 hours I'll never get back, and spent $20 to boot.  This was as bad as the D&D movie or Weekend and Bernie's 2.

I guess everyone has their own tastes.  It looks like they blew their budget on special effects, which weren't even that good, then checked the story at the door.

Banshee


----------



## gregweller (May 8, 2004)

I haven't seen it yet--I'm looking forward to seeing it Sunday. Meanwhile, I'm keeping myself amused by reading all the bad reviews. My favorites are the ones complaining that the makers of the original 30s movies didn't rely on CGI ...well, duh...there wasn't CGI in the 30s. Do you think for a moment that James Whale wouldn't have used CGI if he had it available--those movies used the special effects of the day that were available. I keep thinking of the quote about nostalgia--'nostalgia is the irrational longing for restrictions.'  And then there are the reviews complaining that an action movie actually has action in it.  It's as amusing to read these as it was to read Harold Blooms screeds against the Harry Potter books.


----------



## Thanee (May 8, 2004)

Axelos said:
			
		

> Left Hand of God.




Exactly.

Gabriel / van Helsing has nothing to do with Abraham van Helsing.

And Crothian... I'm pretty sure that Mr Hyde isn't really Mr Hyde either... see last post on first page for other observations...

It's quite obvious, that people who expect to see the original characters will be disappointed, since not much there is actually equal or even very similar to the original. Most characters just use some of the original and replace the rest with something completely different.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## hong (May 8, 2004)

"I'm sick of being the left hand of God. He keeps using me to do all His sticky business."


Hong "next, on Greatest Lines Never Said" Ooi


----------



## reapersaurus (May 8, 2004)

Axelos - thanks for putting that clear as day. We totally missed the Gabriel reference.
That is so VERY cool.


----------



## Thanee (May 8, 2004)

BTW, the God / Gabriel / Dracula part of the story (while it really had nothing to with it directly) reminded me somewhat to another vampire movie I have seen (don't remember the name, tho - but luckily there is my extended memory, aka google... Wes Craven's Dracula), where Dracula was in fact 



Spoiler



Judas


.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Assenpfeffer (May 8, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> What did you expect from the movie, if not hulking monsters?




Why, <I>The Godfather</I> or <I>Citizen Kane</I>, of course.


----------



## Dimwhit (May 8, 2004)

Axelos said:
			
		

> Then I presume you haven't seen the Lord of the Rings, any of the Matrix films, or, well, Hellboy...
> 
> Seriously, there were some good CGI shots, but some were just...eh.  Most of the shots involving werewolves could have been better, and the flying vampires sometimes had some weird problems.




OK, I'll give you the LotR Trilogy and the FIRST Matrix movie. The CGI in the other two were no better than Van Halsing, IMO. As for Hellboy...I really liked it, but I don't remember the CGI all that well. But I didn't see a major problem with the CGI in Van Helsing, so...


----------



## Argus Decimus Mokira (May 8, 2004)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> OK, I'll give you the LotR Trilogy and the FIRST Matrix movie. The CGI in the other two were no better than Van Halsing, IMO. As for Hellboy...I really liked it, but I don't remember the CGI all that well. But I didn't see a major problem with the CGI in Van Helsing, so...




Seconded.  Hellboy and the Matrix sequels (and Harry Potter, for the lighter side) are about on par with van Helsing - some parts better, others far worse.

Is it just me, or is this movie screaming for a sequel/prequel?  Gabby and Drac seem to have a lot of barely-hinted-at backstory.  And, I mean, this movie is from the same writer/director that made a prequel to the Mummy, in which the events surrounding a minor character in the sequel were laid bare!  :\ 

Thanks
-Matt


----------



## Mog Elffoe (May 8, 2004)

I rated it a 4.  If I were grading it I'd give it a C-.  I really wanted to like this movie.  It's the kind of stuff that I normally love.  I love the IDEA of this movie.  It could've been great.  Some of it was great.  Most of it doesn't work, for me, anyway.

I wanted some atmosphere.  I wanted the movie to be spooky as well as fun.  I wanted the characters to be COOL, but the movie never slows down enough for us to really care about them, and they do say some dumb, DUMB stuff.  (Especially the bit about the bomb with the power of the sun and not knowing how it'll come in handy against vampires!  What!?  They all knew what the standard vampire's weaknesses were--he was loading Van Helsing up with stakes, crosses, holy water, etc.--but he doesn't know how a sunlight bomb could ever come in handy!?)

I'm all about cool special effects, but I want to be able to actually SEE them.  The camera is constantly whizzing around and the creatures are almost always a blur.  When the vampire brides and the werewolves actually stood still I thought they looked great.  If you have a good effect, like this movie did, SHOW IT OFF.  

I did NOT like the makeup on Frankenstein's Monster at all.  The neon green lightning in his head really, really bothered me.  I didn't care for his character and place in the plot either.  Every time he spoke (I mean bellowed) I cringed.  He may as well have just broke out into 'Putting On the Ritz'.  

What was with all the swinging?  I understand that it's a swashbuckling action film and that's what these kinds of characters are apt to do, but this movie had more swinging in it than Spider-Man 1 and all of the Tarzan movies ever made combined.  

I hated, hated, HATED the score.  It just never let up.  It was constantly blaring.  I mean, Van Helsing is strolling down a corridor and we're pounded with music that makes it seem like he's zooming through the Death Star.  I kept wanting to tell this movie to JUST SHUT UP.  Music is an important part of a movie, but when it's overused or used inappropriately it loses all effectiveness.

There were a lot of things that I did like in the movie.  I liked all of the main actors quite a bit.  They were really into it and really tried.  They just had some really, really lame dialog to work with.  I dug all of the castles and giant sets, along with the costume design.  The production was top notch.  I liked the creature designs for the vampire brides and werewolves a lot.  I just wished that they'd slow down a bit so that I could enjoy them more.

Not that I minded really--I thought the whole bit with the full moon was fun in the movie--but it didn't seem that lycanthropy was really that much of a curse.  So you're a werewolf?  OK, just stay inside.  As long as the light of the full moon doesn't touch you you'll never change.  It'd just be a bit of an inconvenience, is all.


----------



## Branduil (May 8, 2004)

As I said on the other thread, this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The movie had no story- everything just happened randomly with no setup. The plot justifications of having all these different monsters together was ridiculous. And the characters were as flat as could be. Terrible.


----------



## buzzard (May 8, 2004)

Branduil said:
			
		

> As I said on the other thread, this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The movie had no story- everything just happened randomly with no setup. The plot justifications of having all these different monsters together was ridiculous. And the characters were as flat as could be. Terrible.




You know while I agree, I don't think you go far enough. This movie was wretched. I was considering walking out at many points. Pretty much any scene with the brides of Dracula in them made me cringe. The special effects for the sake of special effects got old so quickly that it wasn't even funny. I find it utterly amazing that this was from the man who made the Mummy, which is a movie I like a great deal. 

You don't even have to begin to nitpick to find bad things in this move. It is pretty much awful on all layers. I kept wondering how many pages the script had to been since it was most likely written in crayon. 

I wouldn't even reccomend that someone bother to rent in. Heck, I'd avoid it on TV. 

buzzard


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (May 8, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> BTW, the God / Gabriel / Dracula part of the story (while it really had nothing to with it directly) reminded me somewhat to another vampire movie I have seen (don't remember the name, tho - but luckily there is my extended memory, aka google... Wes Craven's Dracula), where Dracula was in fact
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That made the movie (Wasn't it Dracula 2000?) for me.  I'm a sucker for hinted backstory, which helped with this one, too.

Brad


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (May 8, 2004)

buzzard said:
			
		

> You don't even have to begin to nitpick to find bad things in this move. It is pretty much awful on all layers. I kept wondering how many pages the script had to been since it was most likely written in crayon.




Personally, I thought it rocked on toast.  I *think* that the idea behind the movie was not to be really serious, but to be as campy and cliched as possible.

Brad


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (May 8, 2004)

Haven't seen it.  Not planning on spending hard-earned coin at the cineplex to see it either.



			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> We don't care about somewhat-hammy dialogue.
> We don't care if the actors "over-act."
> We don't care if there are tons of effects that "you know aren't real."
> We don't care if there not a huge character-driven story-arc, with lots of double-meanings and complexity.



 What's this "we" garbage?  Are you royalty?

 I, for one, don't understand why these things can suck and it's still an OK film.  The special effects guys aren't writing the dialogue (or ARE they?), a writer is.  So, either they take the time and money to write a good script because they care about making something of quality, or they don't because they know you'll give them a free pass.

 WHY do the actors have to over-act?  Watch Jackman in X-Men and X-2, similarly FX-heavy films.  He's actually pretty good in those.  We get a sense of Logan as a man as well as a fighting machine.  What's the difference?  Bryan Singer is a good director, Stephen Sommers is adequate.

 But who cares, it's just an eye candy movie right?  Except they didn't even bother to put good eye candy _in the previews_.  The Wolfman looks BAD.  The vampire brides look BAD.  The transforming Dracula CGI looks BAD.  I'm not asking for photorealism here, but these things look more like video game sprites than monsters.

 And why can't we have a "huge character-driven story-arc, with lots of double-meanings and complexity" AND have special effects and action?  Is there some golden Hollywood rule that says if you have more than one action sequence in your film then you are not allowed to have believable characters, emotional resonance, or story depth?  

 A-list talent and great special effects cost money, no doubt.  But it doesn't really cost that much more to have a good script than it does to have a bad script, and that's the knock I keep hearing on this movie.  Thus, no Tarrasque Wrangler dollars shall it see.  I'm just getting fed up with this whole mentality that we should excuse lazy filmmaking because it's genre or something.  An action/scifi/fantasy/horror/whatever film that works as art CAN BE MADE.  Ask Peter Jackson.


----------



## Desdichado (May 8, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Am I nit picking?  Very possibley, I do usually hold movies to a higher standard then most people, especially these types.  I think Hollywood can do them better and make them a bit more accurate and smart and not scare off the core audience.



What's accurate?  The literary version?  The old black and white movie version?

Like it or not, these monsters have entered the collective modern mythology, so to speak.  "Original source material" has little meaning anymore.


----------



## Desdichado (May 8, 2004)

Branduil said:
			
		

> As I said on the other thread, this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The movie had no story- everything just happened randomly with no setup. The plot justifications of having all these different monsters together was ridiculous. And the characters were as flat as could be. Terrible.



  Dude, if this is one of the worst movies you've ever seen, you need to see more movies!


----------



## Crothian (May 8, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> What's accurate?  The literary version?  The old black and white movie version?
> 
> Like it or not, these monsters have entered the collective modern mythology, so to speak.  "Original source material" has little meaning anymore.




The literary version is accurate.  Why? Becaue its the birth of the character.  Other monsters have entered in the modern mythology, but Hyde is rarely used.  Orginal source material has full meaning, becasue its the orginal.  Without it you have no Hyde.


----------



## Crothian (May 8, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Dude, if this is one of the worst movies you've ever seen, you need to see more movies!




I would say he's just seeing the wrong movies then.  I've seen plenty worse, and I've seen plenty better.


----------



## Dark Jezter (May 8, 2004)

Just got back from the movie a few hours ago, and I can say that I really enjoyed it.  It had all the action and special effects I was hoping for.  Yeah, the dialogue was a little hammy, and Kate Beckinsale's Transylvanian accent was awful, but if you were going into this movie expecting to see _The Godfather_ or _The Return of the King_, then you probably need to get your head checked.

To paraphrase something that Josh said in another thread related to this movie, Why should we expect every movie to be brilliant when not every movie is trying to be?  Some movies just aspire to entertain and provide a cheap thrill, not provide a life-changing expirience.

Oh, and like many other posters in this thread, I _loved_ the party scene.


----------



## Banshee16 (May 9, 2004)

buzzard said:
			
		

> You know while I agree, I don't think you go far enough. This movie was wretched. I was considering walking out at many points. Pretty much any scene with the brides of Dracula in them made me cringe. The special effects for the sake of special effects got old so quickly that it wasn't even funny. I find it utterly amazing that this was from the man who made the Mummy, which is a movie I like a great deal.
> 
> You don't even have to begin to nitpick to find bad things in this move. It is pretty much awful on all layers. I kept wondering how many pages the script had to been since it was most likely written in crayon.
> 
> ...





This is exactly what I was thinking.  This guy made The Mummy, The Mummy Returns, and even the Scorpion King.  All 3 were campy, and kind of cheesy, yet cool at the same time.  But Van Helsing.....it just didn't compare.  It came across as childish, pedantic, and stupid....like we were expected to just ignore the numerous faults for the sake of the special effects.

One thing I never got.  Vampires having babies?  Ok.  But why did Dracula need to create babies if he could create other vampires?  I mean, he created the brides, but also that whole castle full of vampires.  So why did he need to create children?

Banshee


----------



## Crothian (May 9, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> if you were going into this movie expecting to see _The Godfather_ or _The Return of the King_, then you probably need to get your head checked.
> 
> To paraphrase something that Josh said in another thread related to this movie, Why should we expect every movie to be brilliant when not every movie is trying to be?  Some movies just aspire to entertain and provide a cheap thrill, not provide a life-changing expirience.




I don't know of anyone who went into this thinking it was going to be the Godfather.  People have been accused of that though.  I wasn't expecting it to be brilliant or life changing, as so very few movies are.  I was actually expecting it to be much worse.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 9, 2004)

Apart from the fact that the film was UK-rated 12a (twelve year olds can go and see it) and I found it full of some of the most horrific images I recall seeing at the cinema... (it dwarfed the horror of most 18 cert films I remember seeing a couple of decades ago. Go figure)... I enjoyed the film.

I liked Hyde at the start. I liked the "underground resistance", I liked frankenstein.

One thing that I really liked was at the very end of the movie 



Spoiler



Major character dies, without even any last words! Excellent! Makes a change to see a film with guts like that



One thing that seemed a little puzzling 



Spoiler



van Helsing seems to take it with remarkable nonchalance that he himself was obviously 400+ years old, but there is no indication about how he might have managed that feat



One thing that seemed very silly: How long does it *take* for a clock to strike 12 in Transylvania? Honestly!

Cheers


----------



## Branduil (May 9, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Dude, if this is one of the worst movies you've ever seen, you need to see more movies!




Perhaps, but though other movies I've seen may be worse in most regards, they didn't have a multi-million dollar budget. For the price spent on this thing there's no excuse for not having an adequate story. If I'm harsher on this film because of that, then it's because I feel a film like this must live up to higher expectations.


----------



## buzzard (May 9, 2004)

Actually I went into it with pretty low expectations. The WSJ reviewer tore it a big one, and I usually respect their reviews. I certainly didn't expect it to be a great movie. However I did not expect to be cringing all the time from horribly bad acting and direction. Honesty I felt pity for Jackman, since it appeared he was doing the best he could, but it was far too stacked against him. 

buzzard


----------



## Thanee (May 9, 2004)

buzzard said:
			
		

> Actually I went into it with pretty low expectations.




Why do you watch movies that you expect you don't like? 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (May 9, 2004)

Branduil said:
			
		

> The movie had no story- everything just happened randomly with no setup.




I actually liked that the story was very consistent in itself.

Sure, it had some flaws, like 



Spoiler



the whole vampire baby thing


 or 



Spoiler



how Igor and the little dudes managed to get into dracula's real castle


, but the story as a whole was consistent and there was a decent reason why everything happened. It surely wasn't just random action scenes pasted together.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Branduil (May 9, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> I actually liked that the story was very consistent in itself.
> 
> Sure, it had some flaws, like
> 
> ...






Spoiler



-Why can only a werewolf kill Dracula?

-Why does Dracula need to create children when he can just bite lots of people and make them vampires?

-Why does Dracula not care/know that Van Helsing and co. are hanging out in the place that leads directly to his lair?

-On that note, why does Dracula have no guards or lookouts whatsoever?

-If Dracula keeps the Werewolf antidote around in case he gets attacked by one, why does he keep it in an isolated room, contained in an acidic substance? Shouldn't he keep it on his person?

-Is Dracula so stupid that he doesn't realize the possibility that having werewolf's fight for him is really dumb, seeing as they could bite his enemy, who would then turn into a werewolf and be able to kill him?

-How does Frankenstein's monster survive the fire?

-Why are stagecoaches combustible?

-Why is Frankenstein encased in ice in that one scene? How does he know Dracula has a werewolf antidote?

-Why is Mr. Hyde in Paris?


----------



## Thanee (May 9, 2004)

Branduil said:
			
		

> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well, as I said, there certainly are some flaws, but the story in itself is consistent. Most of the stuff that happens (not speaking of every little detail, just the plot-relevant stuff) makes sense (altho that sense is kinda weird in some parts).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (May 9, 2004)

I don't even fell like typing about this move it was so bad...  Well bad is harsh, I just wasn't entertained and even the special effects where rather lack luster. 

It’s in the trailers so I think I need to point this out but….



Spoiler



When Dracula and Anna are dancing and they go before the mirror the effect just breaks down.  They had it but they continue from the same camera for to long and when they twirl away it’s ungodly ugly….


----------



## buzzard (May 9, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Why do you watch movies that you expect you don't like?
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




Because I hoped to be surprised and I like Hugh Jackman. I was sadly mistaken. Also the director made the Mummy which I like a great deal. The movie potentially had a great deal going for it. All was completely squandered. 

buzzard


----------



## Piratecat (May 9, 2004)

Branduil said:
			
		

> And the characters were as flat as could be. Terrible.




You clearly weren't looking at Kate Beckinsale or the vampire brides.


----------



## Piratecat (May 9, 2004)

Branduil said:
			
		

> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Spoiler



These, at least, are easily answered. The stagecoach roof was covered in the friction-activated explosive that Carl demonstrated back in Vatican City. They did so to stop vampires from jumping on it. I was okay with that.

They state that Mr. Hyde had fled London for Paris after murdering too many people.



We found a few other plot holes - 



Spoiler



the cycle of the moon, how the werewolf gets to the stagecoach, why the flying vampires didn't see both stagecoaches, why there were two parallel roads through a thick forest -


but no big deal. Out of the four of us, three had fun and enjoyed it for what it was.


----------



## Felon (May 9, 2004)

Branduil said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but though other movies I've seen may be worse in most regards, they didn't have a multi-million dollar budget. For the price spent on this thing there's no excuse for not having an adequate story.




This sort of comment always puzzles me. Just to make this clear for everyone: not only does spending lots of money on a movie do *nothing* to improve the quality of the story, but the more money that's spent on a movie, the dumber you can in fact expect it to be. A big-budget blockbuster is going to have a dozen different writers on the payroll. Although they may be credited as "concept designers", "story contributors", or any of a dozen different other titles, don't be fooled: they're writers. And none of them can simply say "hey, this is great!" and pass it on. Perfectly decent scenes are re-written, new scenes are added on, and senseless plot twists occur for no discernable reason. 

The production staff calls the director in for meeting after meeting, watching the movie's development like a mother hen because of all the money they're investing. Nobody wants another _Dune_. And they can't just say everything's great either. They have a whole franchise they want to protect. After all, movie tickets are only a small slice of the pie. Can you do some product-placement--maybe Van Helsing likes eating subway sandwiches or can catch a monster by using candy as bait? Can we have some scenes where you're driving something we can sell as a toy? Can you use more gadgets (for the same reason)? 

Focus groups get in on the act. Can you have that character murdered without having any blood spilled so the movie stays PG-13? Can there be more romance, but less sex? Can the female character be tougher, yet more vulnerable too? The cravenly monk tested well--give him more cooky stuff to say. 

In the end, it's a miracle if even a single intelligent moment has managed to survive. Instead of subtlety or sincerity ou can expect lots of cute one-liners interspersed with explosions and people leaping across chasms.

Van Helsing is a big, fun, loud movie that joins the ranks of _Independence Day_, _Charlie's Angels_, and _Armageddon_. But anyone who wasn't expecting a dumb spectacle was really kidding themselves, and their complaints about plot holes are a bit on the absurd side. Branduil, do you get how posting that long, long list of questions about every detail of the plot like that is kind of like detailing why a knock-knock joke doesn't follow consistent rules of logic?

You get quality big-budget movies once in a while when the director's emotionally-invested in the project (e.g. _LotR, Batman, Titanic_). These guys were willing to put their careers on the line (and in Cameron's case, his house and a heap of his own money) to have final cut. But this is just a paycheck movie for Sommers. Universal called him up and said "we want to cash in on all of these monsters we have rights to--can you direct something we can turn into a new theme-park ride?"


----------



## Felon (May 9, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> We found a few other plot holes -
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Oh, my favorite bit has to be 



Spoiler



the arrangement of having the prisoner exchange be conducted in a highly visible public place because the indestructable, invincible lord of monsters wouldn't want to make a scene that would have the local constabulary called in, right?


----------



## The Forsaken One (May 9, 2004)

Spoiler



Well, dracula had his plans foiled once before by an angry mob and so could be done again, dracula might not be killed but his "life's" work my well be. That was enough reason for me to have his existance hidden from the world or as much concealed as possible.

As for the werewolf @ the coach, it was most likely airlifted in by the brides  And the roof on fire was from the nitroglicerine indeed. The thick forest was probably just the reason why the brides didnt spot the other coach and why there were to parellel roads one not even having a bride across the chasm. Only god knows  (Or appearantly his left hand for that matter)


----------



## MEG Hal (May 9, 2004)

Well I saw it last night and thought it was OK, I did expext more because of the writer/director but I did not consider my time wasted.  It had flaws and mistakes etc but what movie does not.  Kate was hot and Hugh was cool, but why does he have the lower face mask on in Paris (even in the wanted ad) and never used it again?  The Gabriel thing was a cool idea and he even had a memory of something from 48 AD ( I think) my group discussed it after the movie, so his memories are fleeting but he lives on I guess.

C+ but I was expecting such.  Will not see it again ('cept on dvd) but was not sad when I left the theatre either.


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 9, 2004)

on the scale I gave it a 7 - I enjoyed it but thought the computer graphics while good went overboard.  Yes, it had some holes in it but they were not too bad but the music was terrible, it did not flow and lend itselt fo the movie, it should have been background to enhance.

The mask was an interesting thought and during the movie I wondered if the symbol on it was some from of protection, to keep monsters from making eye contact; never went into it.  

Kate is just...hot.

Hugh is a cross between the sterotypical witch-hunter and highway man.


----------



## Desdichado (May 9, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> The literary version is accurate.  Why? Becaue its the birth of the character.  Other monsters have entered in the modern mythology, but Hyde is rarely used.  Orginal source material has full meaning, becasue its the orginal.  Without it you have no Hyde.



As I said, more people remember Hyde from the old black and white movie than from the original literary version.  Heck, more people know of Dr. Jekyll from comic books and cartoons like Scooby Doo than they do from the book.  Claiming that only the book's interpretation is valid because it's the original isn't a good position to take.  Like I said, these monsters have all entered the collective mythology now; they have a life of their own completely independent of the original literary source material.  Given that, claiming that the version in the movie is "wrong" seems a difficult position to defend.


----------



## Dimwhit (May 9, 2004)

Argus Decimus Mokira said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or is this movie screaming for a sequel/prequel?  Gabby and Drac seem to have a lot of barely-hinted-at backstory.  And, I mean, this movie is from the same writer/director that made a prequel to the Mummy, in which the events surrounding a minor character in the sequel were laid bare!  :\
> 
> Thanks
> -Matt




You know, I would agree, but 



Spoiler



I'm not sure a sequel/prequel would be worth it without Kate in it.


----------



## jasamcarl (May 9, 2004)

Wow alot of post modernism running through this thread. "Yeah it was bad, but it was very good at being bad, so it was good!!!" And please don't throw up a lame strawman about how some were irrationally expecting this to be Hamlet. Most of the negative prof reviews i've seen make clear upfront that they were willing to accept the movie on its own terms, but were simply worn out by the repetitive reliance on special effects and general lack of suspense; there were no grand expectations involved, they simply didn't enjoy it. It even got a negative comparison to the Mummy (which i hated) in that respect.

So I think the key question is if you didn't think that this (apparently) awful film was bad, have you ever really seen a movie that you'd be willing to label as bad or that you simply didn't enjoy on any level? Is any artistry or tact required at all, even in B-movie genre pictures; or are you simply conditioned to respond to any CGI craptacular with feelings of excitment? Or to get preemptivly defensive in expectation of the inevitable criticism that the movie, however lamely TRIED to feed into your nerdy appetite? Was your enjoyment of this film even sincere?


----------



## Dimwhit (May 9, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> So I think the key question is if you didn't think that this (apparently) awful film was bad, have you ever really seen a movie that you'd be willing to label as bad or that you simply didn't enjoy on any level?




League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Crapfest.

I didn't really think Van Helsing was a 'bad' movie done well. I just liked it. I got out of it exactly what I thought I would. I didn't think the CGI was that bad, the story was fine...it was a great popcorn movie for me. I fully expect that after the summer it over, there will have been several movies I liked better than this one, but that's just fine with me.


----------



## Piratecat (May 9, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> Or to get preemptivly defensive in expectation of the inevitable criticism that the movie, however lamely TRIED to feed into your nerdy appetite?




If you're going to ask this fairly interesting question, please do so without the insults. (Unless I'm misunderstanding you and you're not being insulting; it's not entirely clear.)


----------



## KidCthulhu (May 9, 2004)

It could have been a lot better movie, with some more logic.  But hey, I went expecting popcorn and cheesy, and that's what I got.  I was upset by the amount of CGI.  When I get 2 hours of build up of the fight between Van Helsing and Drac, I want to see them fight, not giant CGI monsters.  If I want to see CGI monsters fight, I can stay home with my PS2.

Then again, I was really pleasantly surprised by David Wenham, who submerged his looks and dignity into a cheesy comic relief role and ended up being the best thing in the movie.  It's hard to do that kind of role well, and to sell some of the more flimsy comic moments and not look like a goof, but Carl was my favorite thing about the movie.  And, let's remember, that despite the hunky male lead, the dippy monk (err, friar) was the only person in the movie who got any!


----------



## jasamcarl (May 9, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> If you're going to ask this fairly interesting question, please do so without the insults. (Unless I'm misunderstanding you and you're not being insulting; it's not entirely clear.)




'Nerdy' is as much self deprectating as anything. I mean, I'm one to talk given the board i frequent. I don't mind nerd films, as long as they well done and have some conceivable appeal to those who aren't obsessed with aren't prone to become obsessed with any mythology presented.


----------



## Morpheus (May 9, 2004)

Axelos said:
			
		

> Hey I can give you all a different reason for the "Gabriel" thing.
> 
> His name is not Gabriel Van Helsing.  The only person in the whole movie who calls him Gabriel is Dracula.  The only person who knows Van Helsing's true identity is Dracula; not even Van Helsing knows (amnesia and all that).
> 
> ...




Yes, that makes sense. It also clears up the biggest plot hole for me.


----------



## Crothian (May 9, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> As I said, more people remember Hyde from the old black and white movie than from the original literary version.  Heck, more people know of Dr. Jekyll from comic books and cartoons like Scooby Doo than they do from the book.  Claiming that only the book's interpretation is valid because it's the original isn't a good position to take.  Like I said, these monsters have all entered the collective mythology now; they have a life of their own completely independent of the original literary source material.  Given that, claiming that the version in the movie is "wrong" seems a difficult position to defend.




The old black and white movie was pretty accurate.  And the day we start basing characters of the scooby doo interpretations is a sad day indeed.  Heck, warner brothers version was pretty accurate as well, least they got the look of Mr Hyde right.  

Just because people have been messing it up for 100 years is no excuse.


----------



## theburningman (May 9, 2004)

I liked Sommers's Huckleberry Finn adaptation, haven't seen his Jungle Book adaptation, dug Deep Rising, loved The Mummy, disliked The Mummy Returns (pretty much just The Mummy all over again, but with more special effects and less of that pesky dialogue and plot).

If you take away David Wenham's friar and Kate Beckingsale's...well, never mind, I can't decide if Van Helsing was 1/2 hour too long, or 2 1/2 hours too long.

And by the way...



> You get quality big-budget movies once in a while when the director's emotionally-invested in the project (e.g. LotR, Batman, Titanic). These guys were willing to put their careers on the line (and in Cameron's case, his house and a heap of his own money) to have final cut. But this is just a paycheck movie for Sommers. Universal called him up and said "we want to cash in on all of these monsters we have rights to--can you direct something we can turn into a new theme-park ride?"




I don't really think this was a "paycheck movie" for Sommers.  The final credits included a dedication to his dad.  Unfortunately that doesn't make the movie any better.


----------



## Desdichado (May 9, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> The old black and white movie was pretty accurate.  And the day we start basing characters of the scooby doo interpretations is a sad day indeed.  Heck, warner brothers version was pretty accurate as well, least they got the look of Mr Hyde right.



Consider it a sad day, then.  I've never read _Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde_ and I've never seen the old black and white movie either.  I've seen him tons on shows like Scooby Doo and Loony Toons, though.  

I'm not really defending the movie.  It wasn't really that good.  It was _League of Extraordinary Gentlemen_ when I was hoping for something more in _The Mummy_'s quality range.  It had it's moments, it wasn't horrible, but it wasn't really that hot either.  Don't know if I'll see it again anytime soon, or buy it on DVD, although I'm toying with the idea.


----------



## Thanee (May 9, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> So I think the key question is if you didn't think that this (apparently) awful film was bad, have you ever really seen a movie that you'd be willing to label as bad or that you simply didn't enjoy on any level?




Yeah. Highlander 2. 

Havn't seen the Hulk, but I'm sure it would also end up on that level.
Oh, and don't forget Matrix 3.

Also the awful Final Fantasy movie, which had nice computer graphics but well... nothing else. Nice computer graphics alone don't make a movie.



> Is any artistry or tact required at all, even in B-movie genre pictures;




It surely wasn't _that_ bad.



> or are you simply conditioned to respond to any CGI craptacular with feelings of excitment?




Well, actually I don't care. I don't care if the CGI is the best in the world or not. In van Helsing, while there certainly was a lot of CGI, it seemed good enough most of the time. Most of the computer animated stuff looked pretty cool and worked fairly well, really.

What made the movie so fun for me was the combination of fast pace, a decent (altho quite simple) story, which was pretty much consistent and not completely random, cool characters, great scenery and costumes. All this together as a whole make the movie as entertaining as it was.



> Or to get preemptivly defensive in expectation of the inevitable criticism that the movie, however lamely TRIED to feed into your nerdy appetite?




*shrug*

I just wanted to see a fun, entertaining movie, and that was what I got.



> Was your enjoyment of this film even sincere?




It surely wasn't the best or even one of the best movies I have ever seen, but it surely was way above the average stuff that finds its way into the cinema.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Wereserpent (May 10, 2004)

Those of you complaining about too much CGI are really showing your age.  

I loved the movie and thought it was really cool.


----------



## jasamcarl (May 10, 2004)

A fine review:

_Deleted_

*Do not link sites which are not Grandmother-safe. You must know this; what in the world were you thinking?

~ Piratecat*


----------



## Dimwhit (May 10, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> A fine review:
> 
> Link deleted




I feel dumber having read just a part of that review.


----------



## Crothian (May 10, 2004)

Wow, I read a line before I realized I didn't care what that reviewer had to say.


----------



## jasamcarl (May 10, 2004)

Yeah, it's one of Filthy's more 'direct' reviews, but he really is great. Under all the profanity and blue collar outrage is a real voice which remains remarkably consistent. Having read him for years, I've gotten to the point where i can predict his rating to the nearest finger.


----------



## buzzard (May 10, 2004)

I think I've figured out the real value of this sort of thread. It allows me to know which posters views I should value when I'm choosing a movie. 

Now don't take this as a slam. It is merely an acknowledgement that I agree with some and disagree with others. Before I burn another seven bucks on a movie like this I'll check to see which people liked it. If that includes certain people, and excludes others, I will pass. 

buzzard


----------



## Kai Lord (May 10, 2004)

buzzard said:
			
		

> I think I've figured out the real value of this sort of thread. It allows me to know which posters views I should value when I'm choosing a movie.
> 
> Now don't take this as a slam.



I hear ya man.  I've also noticed that the people on this thread and the other one ripping the movie apart the most are for the most part the exact same people I disagree with about nearly _every_ movie.     Of course that puts you in the esteemed company of Richard Roeper and Leonard Maltin, two other guys who if they say a movie's great, I know it'll suck, and if they say it sucks, its probably pretty sweet.


----------



## Crothian (May 10, 2004)

Wow, Leonard Martin really hated this film.  I disagree with some of the things he had to say and its obvious this movie was not aimed at him.


----------



## Thanee (May 10, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> ..., but he really is great.




Maybe he should learn how to express himself? 

I guess that review is supposed to be 'funny' while also showing his opinion.

Well he certainly succeeded in the latter, but not so in the first.

I couldn't care less about what this guy writes...

Maybe he should read some of his own complains... like 'noisy', 'uncharismatic', etc. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Piratecat (May 10, 2004)

Jasamcarl, posting links like that (ie profanity) is enough to get a person booted for a week. Don't do so again, please. You have 1500 posts and have been here for _years_; what the heck made you think that this was a good idea, or even close to permissable?

It's the same reason I never link reviews by Mister Cranky, who's often pretty funny but definitely not Grandma-friendly.

Email me if you want to discuss this in more detail.


----------



## Desdichado (May 10, 2004)

jasamcarl, you make a good point, about how we sometimes want to like a movie so bad that we convince ourselves that we do.

I went with five other guys, and all of us liked the movie.  Ironically, (at least I think so) almost every one of these guys was ripping _LXG_ a new one for flaws that were in the same league (no pun intended) as Van Helsing.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say that _Van Helsing_ and _LXG_ had as much in common as just about any recent movies I've seen.  The two are very directly comparable.

So why did they dislike _LXG_ so much and like _Van Helsing_?  Maybe because they wanted to so much?  Because the actors were arguably more charismatic?  Because the comic relief was a bit better?  I don't know.  I liked them both equally, i.e., they were relatively brainless action/FX films made by committee.


----------



## jasamcarl (May 10, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Maybe he should learn how to express himself?
> 
> I guess that review is supposed to be 'funny' while also showing his opinion.
> 
> ...




Um, because he was expressing a sincere emotion of disgust at the movie as oppossed to simply trying to pummel the audience out of any critical faculties, I don't think that 'noisy' for him carrys the same implication as it does for a ponderous two hour spectacle. 

But its your loss. The guy is actually inciteful, and the profanity is (usually) not gratuitous, but makes sense in the context of his 'character'. Though i understand how some can get off on a bad start with Filthy, so it's best to read more than one review. 

If you want a more traditional and overtly erudite panning of this film, you can't go wrong with the guys at the New York Times:

http://movies2.nytimes.com/2004/05/07/movies/07VAN.html


----------



## jasamcarl (May 10, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> jasamcarl, you make a good point, about how we sometimes want to like a movie so bad that we convince ourselves that we do.
> 
> I went with five other guys, and all of us liked the movie.  Ironically, (at least I think so) almost every one of these guys was ripping _LXG_ a new one for flaws that were in the same league (no pun intended) as Van Helsing.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say that _Van Helsing_ and _LXG_ had as much in common as just about any recent movies I've seen.  The two are very directly comparable.
> 
> So why did they dislike _LXG_ so much and like _Van Helsing_?  Maybe because they wanted to so much?  Because the actors were arguably more charismatic?  Because the comic relief was a bit better?  I don't know.  I liked them both equally, i.e., they were relatively brainless action/FX films made by committee.




Believe me, it's something i've been guilty of in the past.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm not trying to dog on those who sincerly liked the movie for whatever reason. I was just trying to counter the vibe of 'a movie like this doesn't have to be good, and critics to aknowledge and celebrate this' that i'd been getting from some of it's proponents.


----------



## WayneLigon (May 10, 2004)

Axelos said:
			
		

> Hey I can give you all a different reason for the "Gabriel" thing.



From IMDB...

So that the production company can hold certain rights to the character, the original character from the Dracula series Abraham Van Helsing was changed to the new 'kid brother' Gabriel Van Helsing instead.

Director Stephen Sommers claimed in an interview he changed the main character's name from "Abraham Van Helsing" to "Gabriel Van Helsing", as he did not think he could have a lead character named "Abraham". The Irishman who wrote Dracula, Bram Stoker, named the character after himself - Bram being a shortening of "Abraham".

Which are obviously two different explanations. Which is correct, I have no idea. I'd probably go with the one about rights; usually if there is an otherwise inexplicable change to a literary character, that's the reason to go with. The other one being 'I just felt like it' on the part of the director


----------



## WayneLigon (May 10, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> So why did they dislike _LXG_ so much and like _Van Helsing_?



I liked both of them, for different reasons. Probably the reason they didn't like LXG was that they'd read the comic and expected it (certainly not an unreasonable expectation) to stay very close to the source material? If I'd gone to see LXG 'cold' -- without being told by several sources that they'd taken a great number of liberties with the graphic novel -- I probably would have felt the same way, or maybe not; they were so different from each other that I might have been able to do what I actually did do: enjoy the film on it's own merits. 

In general I liked Van Helsing; I went to see it Fri, then again Sun with a different group of people. I didn't go into expecting anything more or less than what I got. so I was pretty happy with it.


----------



## Thanee (May 10, 2004)

jasamcarl said:
			
		

> Um, because he was expressing a sincere emotion of disgust at the movie... Though i understand how some can get off on a bad start with Filthy, so it's best to read more than one review.



 That might be, but to me it looked very much like an extreme case of exaggeration, which only has a single goal... to please his fan base, who surely expect him to write bad reviews in this style!

 I cannot take the opinion of a person like that seriously, sorry. 

 Bye
 Thanee

 P.S. the link above doesn't work without registering, and I hate to be forced to register to read a public review or anything, so well... they can keep it to themselves in that case.


----------



## Harp (May 10, 2004)

While having nothing but the utmost respect for Eric's grandmother, I must say that the Filthy Critic has a new convert.  The following quote so totally sums up my feeling about the movie:



> Van Helsing is like riding shotgun with an ADD meth freak who keeps swerving onto sidestreets because "there's something totally cool I want to show you in this dumpster," when all you really want to do is get home. Maybe a couple detours are cool, but when the entire trip is nothing but aimlessly digging through strangers' trash, it gets...old fast.


----------



## Piratecat (May 10, 2004)

After scanning the site, I think his reviews are surprisingly insightful, too; they just aren't appropriate to be posted here due to language.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (May 11, 2004)

I think the horrible plot problems (the timing of the werewolf curse, the 12 strokes of the bell that took a good five minutes, Van Helsings mysterious past being vaguely hinted at rather than revealed, 



Spoiler



and just why the heck did Van Helsing have Dracula's ring anyway?


) I actually managed to enjoy the movie.

I think this was because I couldn't believe just how fast paced it was. Any dialogue or meaningful plot was dealt with as quickly as possible so that we could get on with the next action sequence. The comedy sidekick was probably the best acted, and certainly had all the best lines.


----------



## Alzrius (May 11, 2004)

On a related note, has anyone read the one-shot Van Helsing comic from Dark Horse Comics? "Beneath the Rue Morgue" takes place just after his encounter with Mr. Hyde, but before he returns to Vatican City. It's quite good, serving as a nice little extra to the movie.


----------



## Mistwell (May 11, 2004)

I just saw this movie.

I both liked it and hated it.

I liked some parts, because they entertained me.  I hated so many other parts that, overall, I cannot reccommend the movie.

This movie had the exact same problems that the later Batman movies had - massively hyped pacing at the expense of total lack of committment to character development.  You cannot develop more than 3 characters (including the villian) in a movie unless the whole movie slows the pace down (which is what good movies like X-men and Lord of the Rings did - slow the pacing to develop the larger number of characters).  You simply cannot develop a lead (Van Helsing), his sidekick (the fryer), his romantic interest and ally (Anna), his other ally (F's Monster), a half-ally/half-enemy (Anna's brother), his opponant (Dracula), and his opponant's ally's (3 wives, Igor, an undertaker, and his werewolves), all in the same fast-paced movie and expect me to give a damn about any of them.

And that is what happened.  I couldn't have cared less if most of these characters had died.  I didn't care about any of them in any way.  Heck, I barely knew anything about them.  Sure, I knew a couple of tidbits about their past, and that was it.  Motivations? They were at best surface motivations, done so sparsely that it looked like the writer was checking off boxes on a list and got to "motivation" and put "family business" or "likes science" and that was it for a particular character.  

If only they had cut way back on the number of characters, or slowed the pacing, this could have been a good movie.  You don't need Frankenstein's monster, or Igor.  You don't need Anna.  You don't need werewolves or Dracula's 3 brides or his children.  All that was needed to make this a good movie was Van Helsing, the Fryer, and Dracula.  That's it.  Focus on those three characters, really develop them, and focus on their conflict.  Forget the other characters, because they are mere distractions from the task at hand - which is telling a good story.  If you love those other characters enough - leave them for a second movie.


----------



## Krug (May 11, 2004)

There's no way they wouuld have gone without a love interest.. and if not for Kate, doubt if I would have bothered to watch it. 

Hmm is this like the 2nd movie that Kate is in where a werewolf fights a vampire lord?


----------



## Piratecat (May 11, 2004)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> You don't need Anna.




Heretic.  

Incidentally, how many folks hadn't realized that the friar was Faramir from LotR?


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 11, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Incidentally, how many folks hadn't realized that the friar was Faramir from LotR?




I hadn't realised going in.

In the first shot of him on screen, I thought "Isn't that...?", but it wasn't until about the third shot that I could see him clearly enough to be sure.

I was pretty pleased with myself for recognising Kevin J O'Connor under the Igor make-up, though 

-Hyp.


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 11, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Heretic.
> 
> Incidentally, how many folks hadn't realized that the friar was Faramir from LotR?



I knew him from someplace but could not for the life of it remember where.  

Igor's (Kevin J O'Connor) voice gave him away.


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 11, 2004)

Krug said:
			
		

> There's no way they wouuld have gone without a love interest.. and if not for Kate, doubt if I would have bothered to watch it.
> 
> Hmm is this like the 2nd movie that Kate is in where a werewolf fights a vampire lord?



I think she realizes there is a slot for "lead female" in pulp movies.  Its a niche market but you can build a fan base and have steady work.


----------



## Desdichado (May 11, 2004)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> I think she realizes there is a slot for "lead female" in pulp movies.  Its a niche market but you can build a fan base and have steady work.



Although casting rumors I read the other day have her as the front runner for the female lead in Ron Howard's adaptation of _The DaVinci Code_ which is certainly not a niche market work.


----------



## hong (May 11, 2004)

Krug said:
			
		

> There's no way they wouuld have gone without a love interest.. and if not for Kate, doubt if I would have bothered to watch it.
> 
> Hmm is this like the 2nd movie that Kate is in where a werewolf fights a vampire lord?



 Yep, and there's most likely going to be a third.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0401855/

I've figured out why I liked Van Helsing.

Okay, so it has a paper-thin premise, a silly plot, gaping logic holes, silly accents, and no chemistry between the leads. It also has a group of mismatched heroes, non-stop action (even when you'd rather it slowed down, it just keeps going), outrageous stunts (even if they're CGI), evil monsters to kill, great star power at least on Jackman's part, and some quite funny bits. It takes itself seriously enough that you know they're making an effort, but also not so seriously that it doesn't have fun with the premise (eg Carl, and the vampire brides acting like something out of the Rocky Horror Show).

In other words, it's exactly like the sort of action-adventure campaign I aspire to run. Plot and backstory? Couldn't really care, as long as long as there's at least a show of having one. Depth of characterisation? Eh, as long as your attack bonus and saves are done right, I'm happy. Logic? That's what the non-stop action is for, to keep you from noticing the holes. A party of mismatched types? Fits every game I've ever been in. Over-the-top action, larger-than-life heroes and villains, and plenty of horrible monsters to kill? That's where it's at.

Other recent movies that fit this template, more-or-less: SWAT (the latter half of this is basically one big dungeon crawl) and Underworld (a LARP set onscreen).


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 11, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Although casting rumors I read the other day have her as the front runner for the female lead in Ron Howard's adaptation of _The DaVinci Code_ which is certainly not a niche market work.



By niche I meant female lead in action based movies, Sigourney Weaver being one of the last ones, much like Ashley Judd in murder/mystery dramas and Julia Roberts in romantic comedies.


----------



## Radiating Gnome (May 11, 2004)

Huh.  I was looking for some sort of confirmation that the person walking around being called Van Helsing was actually not human at all -- and that Dracula calling him Gabriel was hinting that he's actually, in some form or another,  the Archangel Gabriel, fallen to earth and stripped of his memories.   

I couldn't quite make it work in the movie, though.  But that was the only thing that made Dracula knowing Van Helsing make any sense to me at all.  

Overall I liked the film -- had a very good time, laughed a lot at the little homages and outright swipes . . . and I had a completely similar reaction to the Ballroom mirror scene.  I didn't think the effects were all that great -- often very cartoon-y.  It was a nice touch that you never saw Dracula's demonic form until the very end of the film.

PLot stuff did nag at me a bit, though.  I mean, if Dracula can summon up an entire ballroom full of vampires for one little dance, and vampires procreate by killing people, why did they need to revive their little alien pod vampire children in the first place?   

Overall, dumb but fun.  It's a summer movie.


----------



## Dimwhit (May 11, 2004)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> By niche I meant female lead in action based movies, Sigourney Weaver being one of the last ones, much like Ashley Judd in murder/mystery dramas and Julia Roberts in romantic comedies.




Although, to be fair, she's pretty good in the romantic comedy. Saw Serendipity with the wife, and it was good. Kate did quite a good job.

I still can't believe she was in Much Ado About Nothing...so she has some Shakespeare in her background, too.


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 11, 2004)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Although, to be fair, she's pretty good in the romantic comedy. Saw Serendipity with the wife, and it was good. Kate did quite a good job.
> 
> I still can't believe she was in Much Ado About Nothing...so she has some Shakespeare in her background, too.



She been great in everything, I just think females in Hollywood come and go based on whos hot and what buzz they get.  Getting in the pulp (action/fantasy/sci-fi/spy) movies builds a resume' and a (loyal) fan base greater than any other type of movie, just wait one day she may be a GENCON.


----------



## kingpaul (May 11, 2004)

Radiating Gnome said:
			
		

> PLot stuff did nag at me a bit, though.  I mean, if Dracula can summon up an entire ballroom full of vampires for one little dance, and vampires procreate by killing people, why did they need to revive their little alien pod vampire children in the first place?





Spoiler



I really think that is linked to Drac's comments to Kate's brother about proving that not only God could create life. IF he could pulll this off, perhaps the devil, whom he had a deal with, would be able to have a better chance on taking on Heaven.


----------



## barsoomcore (May 11, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> I've figured out why I liked Van Helsing.
> 
> It's exactly like the sort of action-adventure campaign I aspire to run.



That's not a bad way to consider things. There's certainly no shortage of good game ideas in the movie.

But I find that good movies don't often resemble good campaigns, and vice versa. What works in one form doesn't work so well in another.

I mean, imagine if my players said, "Okay, so we'll take the Monster out of Romania in a stagecoach. And we'll send a SECOND stagecoach as a decoy ahead of the other."

I'd say, "Okay. So first the vampire chicks catch up with the rearward stagecoach, that has the actual monster and no Van Helsing in it, and they (roll, roll) kill everyone. What do you do next?"

You know? This isn't the best example because it doesn't work in the movie and it also wouldn't work in a campaign, but you get the idea. If my players were put up against a villain as stupid as Dracula is in this movie, the adventure would be over in half an hour. In a movie, the characters have to follow the dictates of the creators, and so the plot can progress in the appropriate manner. There was a time when as a DM I thought I could run games like that.

A wide variety of players over many years have disabused me of that notion. 

But like I say, there's lots of good game ideas in this movie (vampires using unwilling werewolves as minions, Dracula's castle, the "frost portal", the Monster hiding under the burned-out windmill, etc, etc). For me, that's what movies and books are more useful as -- a source of "raw material" rather than "finished products", if you know what I mean.


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 11, 2004)

I think a lot of people compare this movie to Dracula but it needs to be compared to House of Frankenstein (1944).
.


----------



## rollnrocker (May 11, 2004)

Overall would you guys recommend seeeing the movie in the theatres???


----------



## kingpaul (May 11, 2004)

rollnrocker said:
			
		

> Overall would you guys recommend seeeing the movie in the theatres???



I didn't feel that my $6.75 admission was wasted...I went in expecting a fun romp and got just that.


----------



## rollnrocker (May 11, 2004)

Well then i guess i know where i'll be spending this sunday afternoon..


----------



## Crothian (May 11, 2004)

rollnrocker said:
			
		

> Overall would you guys recommend seeeing the movie in the theatres???




I think its a more wait and see..if you can see it at a discount theater that would be good


----------



## buzzard (May 11, 2004)

rollnrocker said:
			
		

> Overall would you guys recommend seeeing the movie in the theatres???




Be careful who you ask. 

I would reccomend checking reviews of other films by the people here and finding views you are congruent with. 

I'd say don't bother going, but then maybe I'm picky. I also didn't like League of Extraordinary Gentlemen or Attack of the Clones (though this was worse than either). 

Van Helsing made me cringe repeatedly and considering leaving. I rarely ever consider leaving. 

buzzard


----------



## Thanee (May 11, 2004)

rollnrocker said:
			
		

> Overall would you guys recommend seeeing the movie in the theatres???




Well, that fully depends on what you expect.

If you want to see something similar to the various originals, then you will hate the movie.

If you want to see oscar-worthy acting (or anything oscar-worthy ) you shouldn't watch it either.

If you want to see the best CGI ever, there are certainly some better movies out there.

If you want to see the best monster-based story of all times, no you won't get that either.

If you just want to have two hours of fun, watching a light-hearted movie about fictional characters that have few similarities to other fictional characters but are not necessarily the same, in a never-ending stream of action scenes bound into an interesting, but quite simple story, then I can recommend it to you. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Dimwhit (May 11, 2004)

buzzard said:
			
		

> I'd say don't bother going, but then maybe I'm picky. I also didn't like League of Extraordinary Gentlemen or Attack of the Clones (though this was worse than either).




Man, I'm the complete opposite. If I had to choose between watching LEG, Attack of the Clones, or Van Helsing at any given time, I'd choose to watch Van Helsing every time, hands down.

But, alas, everyone has their own opinion, which is as it should be. As to watching it in the theater this Sunday, I'd say go for it, but that's me. Go in the afternoon for a matinee and save a few bucks.

And let me add this...if you're expecting that the movie will be bad, based on the reviews, you'll likely hate it. This seems like a love it or hate it movie, and I'd bet that low expectations going in will only be confirmed. Apparently not always the case with high expectations, though... [/end ramble]

Funny side note to Van Helsing (well, funny to me): My wife likes Hugh Jackman, for obvious reasons. I like Kate Beckinsale, for the same obvious reasons. Naturally, this was the perfect movie for us to see together (my wife jokingly suggested we sit on opposite sides of the theater). Anyway, we get in to the theater, the lights finally go out and the movie starts. My wife goes into her purse and takes out the candy we snuck in...er, I mean, purchased...then she hands me one our old baby bibs. For the drooling. She brought one for herself.

Anyway, I laughed. I've got a cool wife...


----------



## Crothian (May 11, 2004)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Man, I'm the complete opposite. If I had to choose between watching LEG, Attack of the Clones, or Van Helsing at any given time, I'd choose to watch Van Helsing every time, hands down.




Well, you could at least make the choice with movies that were at least good.


----------



## Thanee (May 11, 2004)

Hey, Attack of the Clones wasn't _that_ bad (it did have a certain video game feel, tho), at least it was much better than Shadow Menace. 

Still no match for the original trilogy, tho.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Dimwhit (May 11, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Well, you could at least make the choice with movies that were at least good.




I was just going with the movies mentioned by buzzard and...hey, at least one of them was good!


----------



## Piratecat (May 11, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Hey, Attack of the Clones wasn't _that_ bad...




"I don't like sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere. Not like here. Here everything is soft and smooth."


----------



## buzzard (May 11, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> "I don't like sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere. Not like here. Here everything is soft and smooth."




"Oh... Anakin"
"Oh... Padme"


----------



## Krug (May 11, 2004)

Frankly, save your money for *Troy*. You'll forget *Van Helsing* and realise why Sommers is just a hack after watching it.


----------



## Umbran (May 11, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> We found a few other plot holes - ...




Personally, I found these less annoying than the rather basic ones that revolve around our main character.  Honestly, it reminded me of Star Trek...



Spoiler



In the "What does God need with a starship?" sense.  Did it only annoy me that after implying there's an archangel walking around on Earth, they do nothing to tell us why he's got no memory, and how in Heaven's name (literally) he's susceptible to lycanthropy?


----------



## Umbran (May 12, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Incidentally, how many folks hadn't realized that the friar was Faramir from LotR?




Or how about the fact that Richard Roxburgh, who plays Dracula, also played M in _LXG_, and played The Duke in _Moulin Rouge_?


----------



## barsoomcore (May 12, 2004)

*leaps boldly to the defence of Steven Sommers*

Sommers has brought me too much cinematic joy to write him off as a hack. Sure, _The Jungle Book_ was all kinds of hideous, but _Huck Finn_ was "good enough," and _Deep Rising_ is one of my favourite stupid monster movies of all time -- with great effects, sparkling chemistry between a couple of great leads and a story that charges full steam ahead and never apologises for coolness. _The Mummy_ is a classic in our household, a movie Mrs. Barsoom and I watch again and again. _The Mummy Returns_ was nothing very special but had four stomp-down awesome action scenes (swordsman attack the mansion, mummies attack the double-decker bus, Ank-Sun-Amun vs Nefertiri and Rick vs Imhotep and the Scorpion King).

I think he over-reached himself on _Van Helsing_ and tried to cram too complicated a story into this movie (thus inflicting painful amounts of exposition on us as he tries to explain all the details), but I'm not going to just let people call him a hack and get away with it!



I totally get Sommers' taste. And usually share it perfectly. This time he went in a direction I didn't enjoy, but I'll see his next picture. Guarantee.


----------



## Thanee (May 12, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> ... but I'll see his next picture. Guarantee.




Van Helsing 2 ? 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## barsoomcore (May 12, 2004)

Yer darn tooting. If it's as much an improvement over the second as _The Mummy Returns_ was a drop from its original -- slam-dunk, baby!


----------



## Kai Lord (May 12, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Or how about the fact that Richard Roxburgh, who plays Dracula, also played M in _LXG_, and played The Duke in _Moulin Rouge_?



Or that Hugh Jackman (Van Helsing) was also the same guy who played Wolverine!


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (May 12, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Personally, I found these less annoying than the rather basic ones that revolve around our main character.  Honestly, it reminded me of Star Trek...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I really, really, really don't think that.



Spoiler



While he kicks a lot of tail, I'd expect an archangel to mop the floor with Dracula, the Brides, and the entire Kingdom of Romania, at once.  I'm pretty sure that he's a human, if a probable Wandering Jew-like immortal.  He may even have been born Gabriel Van Helsing and gained immortality as a side effect of a curse when he murdered Dracula.  Of course, this is guessing...but it does leave room for a sequel that explores his past in more detail.



Brad


----------



## Umbran (May 12, 2004)

cignus_pfaccari said:
			
		

> I really, really, really don't think that.
> ...snip...
> 
> 
> ...




Yes, but...



Spoiler



Perhaps I misheard, but I believe inthe film our hero mentions one thing her remembers - dealing with _Romans back in forty-mumble AD!_.  That makes him much older that Dracula.  And starts to make the name and epithet imply much more...



DOn't you love these spoiler conversations?


----------



## buzzard (May 12, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Yes, but...
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Spoiler



Yes, when asked about the only thing he remebers he talks of fighting the Romans at Masada. That would place his memory as going back to 72 AD.



If course why I remember something like that from a movie I abhor, I don't understand. 

buzzard


----------



## Arken (May 12, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Or how about the fact that Richard Roxburgh, who plays Dracula, also played M in _LXG_, and played The Duke in _Moulin Rouge_?




Or that David Wenham (Faramir and Carl fame) is also the transvestite audrey in Moulin Rouge in the scene where they sing the hills are alive with the sound of music.


----------



## Thanee (May 12, 2004)

I smell a conspiracy of australian actors, here... what is next!? 

 Anyways, Umbran, like a friend of mine who said, he liked that the movie didn't actually explain some of that stuff, I also think that this is much better left a mystery.



Spoiler



It could also be, that Gabriel is actually the archangel and van Helsing is just a vessel used to execute his will. He could simply be an ordinary human, not even having killed Dracula himself, tho Dracula sees beyond that and talks to him as if it was the actual archangel, who had him killed a couple hundred years ago, either by himself or using another such vessel. When the priest talked to van Helsing in rome, he mentioned, that they found him on the doorsteps, badly wounded or something. Maybe he had died, if not Gabriel had selected him at that moment for this task.


 
 You never know. 

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Thanee (May 12, 2004)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> "I don't like sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets everywhere. Not like here. Here everything is soft and smooth."



  Heh. There must be a reason, why they didn't become a couple there. 

 Also I found it quite funny, how Padme Amidala told Anakin, that it's not going to work out, dressed up like she actually wanted to tell him something completely different... 

  Bye
  Thanee


----------



## Umbran (May 12, 2004)

sorry. double post.


----------



## Umbran (May 12, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> You never know.




Oh, of course, one can come up with dozens of possible explanations.  That's not the point.  

I don't mind a bit of mystery, in general...  



Spoiler



But in this case, that mystery was about as major a plot point as the movie had, and it didn't get resolved.  They lean heavily on the "go to Transylvania to learn your past", and then only pony up part of the answer.  That's just mean.

Worse so because, the questions will likely never be answered.


  A sequel is unlikely.  The studio wanted one big monster bash because they had the rights to them all.  And they got it.  But now, they have no material left for sequels.  

"Hey, Van Helsing!  You say you've got no memory of the past?  Maybe those adamantium bones and claws are a clue!"


----------



## Bass Puppet (May 12, 2004)

Saw it two nights ago. 

Just like so many movies I've seen lately, it had so much potential but missed badely. I couldn't wait for the movie to end, while my girlfriend fell asleep halfway through the movie. 

Yeah, it was that bad.


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 12, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> the rights to them all.  And they got it.  But now, they have no material left for sequels.




In the misquoted words of Buffy vs Dracula - I have seen your movies, you always come back!.


----------



## Thanee (May 13, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I don't mind a bit of mystery, in general...




Well, I didn't see it as a vital part of the story... everything vital was explained, just not the details of his past.

Of course, it would have been interesting to know, but I found it equally good to not reveal that beyond what was needed to make the story work.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (May 13, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> A sequel is unlikely.  The studio wanted one big monster bash because they had the rights to them all.  And they got it.  But now, they have no material left for sequels.




Oh, they'll pull *something* out of thin air if it does well enough.  He doesn't have to just hunt down Universal movie monsters.

Brad


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (May 13, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Yes, but...
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Spoiler



That's why I mentioned the Wandering Jew, last I heard called Ahusereus (sp?).  Were I tasked with writing the prequel, he'd have made a remarkably poor bargain with the Devil at some point, got cursed with immortality as a result, became a bad, bad, bad guy, and then when he murdered (not killed, murdered) Dracula, got cursed even more until he finally comes crawling to the Church for redemption.





> DOn't you love these spoiler conversations?




Hey, I just figured out how to write spoilers quoting your text.  :-D

Brad


----------



## Villano (May 13, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> "Hey, Van Helsing!  You say you've got no memory of the past?  Maybe those adamantium bones and claws are a clue!"




We do know that Wolverine has no memory and is over 100 years old.  Considering what happens to Van Helsing at the end of this film, it _would_ explain how Wolvie got his healing factor.  Hmm, I think you're on to something there...

Well, I just got back from Van Helsing.  With all the bad press this has gotten, I went in with lowered expectation.  Usually, this results in my enjoying the film.  I saw The Punisher ready for something on par with a Jess Franco film, but left the theatre pleasantly surprised and hoping for a(n admittedly better) sequel.

I went into Van Helsing not expecting much.  I enjoyed The Mummy and The Mummy Returns, so I didn't go in with any baggage against Stephen Sommers.  I was prepared for a dumb popcorn film.  I'm even a "monster rally" fan and am extremely forgiving when it comes to monster vs monster movies.  

I left the theatre very, very disappointed and hoping that any planned sequels never come about.    

This movie was overdone.  Everything was taken to the extreme.  Every character possessed a Xena-like capability.  Granted, in action films, the hero is expected to be able to do things better than any real human, but Anna getting tripped up at the beginning and doing a (wire assisted) somersault or crashing through tree branches with the force that would break every rib (if not kill you outright) and then landing perfectly on her feet would have had even Xena throwing up her hands in disbelief.  



Spoiler



Hell, even the cow was indestrucible!


  And don't even get me started with Van Helsing's embarrassing "grappling gun of infinitely long wire".   

The acting was pretty terrible, with Richard Roxburgh as Dracula as the worst offender.  He was laughable.  No, seriously, people in the audience actually laughed at him.  It was in the scene 



Spoiler



after the 1st vampire bride was killed, when Dracula burst out of his ice (?!) coffin, screamed her name, and floated to the ground in that weird, ballerina-like pose.  They also laughed later in the scene when he walked up the wall.


  When they started to laugh, I felt embarrassed to be a horror film fan.  I guess you can label his performance as "embarrassing", too, then.

And, dear Lord, the Igor make-up was terrible! 

I'll concede that there were indeed some good moments.  The sets were nice and most of the cgi was actually pretty good.  The Wolfman (the main one, that is) I found to be really, really nice.  I thought it looked terrible in the commercials, but, on screen, it looked quite good.   When the movie centered around his scenes, I found myself enjoying it.  The first and last werewolves didn't look as good, though.

Also, the black haired vampire bride was pretty hot.  I'd take her over Beckinsale.   

Oh, and I admit there was one good jump scene involving the 



Spoiler



vampire baby


, and the surprise fate of one of the characters was quite unexpected and a nice chance for a film like this to take.   

The Dracula creature looked okay, but didn't really do much in the film.  I would have preferred the all cg Dracula over Roxburgh, but, then again, a broom with a wig on it would have been better than him.

Finally, we have the Frankenstein's Plot Device, er, Monster.  Did he actually do anything in the film.  I mean besides whining?  During the coach scene with the werewolf, I was expecting a good Wolfman/Monster fight.  Unfortunately, Franky doesn't even seem capable of 



Spoiler



breaking the bicycle chain on his ankle


 during the climax.  Storm had more of a reason to be in the 1st X-Men film than Franky did here, which is a shame because I thought he looked pretty good.  Okay, I didn't like the steam coming out of his leg.  However, I wouldn't mind picking up a toy of him if there was one.

In the end, this movie was something as imagined by a couple of 9 year olds, sitting around planning the ultimate monster movie.  It may sound cool until you realize the writing ability of the average 9 yr old.   "Hey, let's have Frankenstein's Monster swing on a rope for, like, a mile!"  "Yeah, and we can have Van Helsing fire his grappling hook from the castle to the mountains 1,000 feet away!  That'll be so cool!"

The last time Universal tried to do a monster rally featuring their classic monsters, it was the mini-series remake of House Of Frankenstein.  As terrible as that film was, it was much, much better than this.  

Okay, maybe not.  HoF ('97) has a 4.6 on IMDb.  However, Van Helsing, even as a new, big budget action film, is barely pulling average with a 5.2.   

The Punisher, btw, has a 6.5.  That tells you all you need to know right there.


----------



## Wereserpent (May 13, 2004)

Villano said:
			
		

> We do know that Wolverine has no memory and is over 100 years old.  Considering what happens to Van Helsing at the end of this film, it _would_ explain how Wolvie got his healing factor.  Hmm, I think you're on to something there...
> 
> Well, I just got back from Van Helsing.  With all the bad press this has gotten, I went in with lowered expectation.  Usually, this results in my enjoying the film.  I saw The Punisher ready for something on par with a Jess Franco film, but left the theatre pleasantly surprised and hoping for a(n admittedly better) sequel.
> 
> ...




Yup, all gamers do is nitpick.  

Hehe, just playing with ya.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 13, 2004)

Villano said:
			
		

> Granted, in action films, the hero is expected to be able to do things better than any real human, but Anna getting tripped up at the beginning and doing a (wire assisted) somersault or crashing through tree branches with the force that would break every rib (if not kill you outright) and then landing perfectly on her feet would have had even Xena throwing up her hands in disbelief.




Oh, I think you're underestimating the lengths of ludicrousness some of Xena's stunts went to 

-Hyp.


----------



## Harp (May 14, 2004)

Villano said:
			
		

> In the end, this movie was something as imagined by a couple of 9 year olds, sitting around planning the ultimate monster movie.  It may sound cool until you realize the writing ability of the average 9 yr old.   "Hey, let's have Frankenstein's Monster swing on a rope for, like, a mile!"  "Yeah, and we can have Van Helsing fire his grappling hook from the castle to the mountains 1,000 feet away!  That'll be so cool!"




That's almost exactly the imagery I use when describing this film to folks, a couple of hyperactive 9-year-olds.  "And then and then the wolfman jumps on dracula and they crash down a hundred feet and then and then anna swings from one side of the castle to the other and catches the syringe in mid-swing yeah yeah and then all the little baby vampires _explode_ yeah and then..." ad nauseum.  Of course, that imagery first occurred to me after watching LXG, which seems to be a common point of comparison for Van Helsing.


----------



## Elemental (May 16, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I mean, imagine if my players said, "Okay, so we'll take the Monster out of Romania in a stagecoach. And we'll send a SECOND stagecoach as a decoy ahead of the other."
> 
> I'd say, "Okay. So first the vampire chicks catch up with the rearward stagecoach, that has the actual monster and no Van Helsing in it, and they (roll, roll) kill everyone. What do you do next?"




I viewed it more that they were playing a game that allows players some control over the plot (such as Adventure! or Buffy) and the players spent some plot / drama points to retroactively have there be a second coach when the first went into the chasm.


----------

