# Rate Van Helsing



## Krug (May 5, 2004)

So what did you think? (1= terrible, 10 = excellent)


----------



## milotha (May 5, 2004)

Is this on a scale of 10 being excellent and 1 being terrible?


----------



## Krug (May 6, 2004)

Miotha> Yeap.


----------



## Felon (May 6, 2004)

I give it an 8. I already supplied my reasons in another post. It's a fun ride.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 7, 2004)

Interesting polarisation of votes


----------



## reapersaurus (May 7, 2004)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Interesting polarisation of votes



Simple explanatoin:
Some people are fans of the genre, and have actually SEEN the movie, while others aren't or haven't.

I gave it an 8, ALMOST a 9. It's hard to think of a much better action monster movie.


----------



## Crothian (May 7, 2004)

4, below average.  the CGI was destracting, the solution was strained, the use of Hyde was both badly done and completely not needed.  It did have some good parts like the sets, and Franks Monster.  But overall I was not imp[ressed with the movie.


----------



## Wombat (May 7, 2004)

Just got back from it.  I wasn't expecting it to be very good, so I wasn't disappointed that way.  Lots of flash, lots of special effects, no discernible plot, but a lot of hoopla.  In many ways, my feeling from watching the teaser bits remains:  it equals League of Extraordinary Gentlemen in that this film had lots of potential, all of it wasted.

I bow my head to the horror movies of the 30s and 40s that were so shamelessly ripped off.

My buddy both enjoyed it more and had more to gripe about; he has apparently read the comic book, which I didn't even know about.  I couldn't keep up with half the things he said "just weren't right", but he is also a special effects nut and was drooling over several new effects types being used in the film.


----------



## Thanee (May 7, 2004)

I gave it an 8 as well.

It was exactly like I expected, some light-hearted pulp-action fun.

I didn't expect a great story and I was actually positively surprised, that it even had a discernable story, which was quite simple, but surely not that bad. Some parts were a bit strange, but worked very well in context (like 



Spoiler



vampire's bearing children


).

I like the way the completely different sources were mixed together and something new was formed out of that conglumerate, instead of trying to actually live up to the various originals.

The visuals (locations, costumes, etc) were very, very good.

Of course, anyone who wanted to see the original van Helsing should much rather watch Bram Stoker's Dracula. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Crothian (May 8, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Some parts were a bit strange, but worked very well in context (like
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I thought the idea on this was interesting but the exucution was terrible.


----------



## reapersaurus (May 8, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> the CGI was destracting,



I'm curious - list the movies that haven't had distracting CGI for you.


----------



## Felon (May 8, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> 4, below average.  the CGI was destracting, the solution was strained, the use of Hyde was both badly done and completely not needed.




Not needed? The Hyde sequence is the prologue that puts Van Helsing and his capabilities into context. This is the way of things with larger-than-life heroes. Remember Indiana Jones' initial brush with Belloq before he gets dragged into the search for the arc? Or how about the opening scenes from any James Bond movie? They're not relevant to the rest of the story, but they serve a purpose. First the auidence gets to see the hero in action, then you dive into plot and exposition.


----------



## Avarice (May 8, 2004)

I went into this movie with fairly low expectations, and came out moderately impressed.  The special effects were dazzling, the plot was fast paced and fun (if not especially deep), and of course, there were some seriously buxom vampires in there - always a plus.    

That said, I found the acting of the guy who played Dracula to be pretty flat.  I don't think there was a point in there where I actually found him frightening.  It seems to me that a character like that should be played with a bit more subtlety, and a stronger sense of inner conflict.  Of course, YMMV.

Overall, I gave it a 6.  Not terrible, by any means, but nothing I'm going to be rushing out to see again.


----------



## Thanee (May 8, 2004)

Yeah, there are like a thousand actors out there, that could have portrayed the count better.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Heinrich_Uberlich (May 8, 2004)

3 of the four main actors in the movie were Australian!
God bless AUSTRALIA!


----------



## Thanee (May 8, 2004)

I think that must be the most evenly distributed collection of opinions about a movie I have ever seen. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## spider_minion (May 8, 2004)

I also gave it a 4.

That was the loudest movie I've seen in a long time.  Just when things got quiet, BOOM!, a fight would break out.  That movie thrived off lame movie cliches.  The plot revolved around the fact that Dracula, a werewolf, and Frankenstien's monster were all in a movie together (though I'm told its been done before, and better).  There was no character development either . . . now, I'm normally the last to complain about such things, but in this movie neither the action nor the story kept me interested.  It started to pick up a bit halfway through, once some unexpected things began to happen (



Spoiler



when Frank's monster joins the team and Helsing catches lycanthropy


).  The fight with Mr. Hyde was really pointless, and wasn't all that great either.

Overall, it just wasn't interesting and my ears won't forgive me.  They should have just boiled Van Helsing down to its core components and made it a 90 minute film.


----------



## spider_minion (May 8, 2004)

And another thing . . . since when did an interesting story and CGI effects become mutually exclusive options?

Really, they're already spending million on the special effects, why not a bit on some quality writers?


----------



## Taelorn76 (May 8, 2004)

I watched it last night, and I thought it was a good movie (8). I went in to it not expecting much, so it was not a let down for me, if anything it was better that I thought it would be. I liked the Jeckle story because it set up who Helsing was. There were other parts that I enjoyed but I don't want to spoil it for anyone.

One part that I did not like was the end.



Spoiler



When Anna dies, I thought that was complete BS. I mean she is tossed around, falls hundreds of feet, slamed into castle walls, and much more. And Van hits her once and she dies. That was my major gripe with the movie.


----------



## hong (May 8, 2004)

Taelorn76 said:
			
		

> One part that I did not like was the end.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler



Well, you know, that's what happens when you run out of hero points.


----------



## Crothian (May 8, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> I'm curious - list the movies that haven't had distracting CGI for you.




Matrix, Lord of the rings, Harry potter, Pitch Black....


----------



## Crothian (May 8, 2004)

Felon said:
			
		

> Not needed? The Hyde sequence is the prologue that puts Van Helsing and his capabilities into context.




Hyde was not needed, I never said the sequence was not.  They could have used any supernatural creature and I think it would have been better with a made up one.  THere was no reason to use Hyde.


----------



## Branduil (May 8, 2004)

I gave it a 1. Terrible, terrible, terrible. There was no story, just a bunch of coincidences strung together to resemble one. Truly one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The fact it is a huge hollywood feature makes it all the more embarrassing.


----------



## buzzard (May 8, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Simple explanatoin:
> Some people are fans of the genre, and have actually SEEN the movie, while others aren't or haven't.
> 
> I gave it an 8, ALMOST a 9. It's hard to think of a much better action monster movie.




Hmm, I'm a fan of the genre. I've seen it. I was looking for a zero to put as my rating. That movie was utterly horrible. 

As for thinking of a better action monster movie, well Aliens, the Mummy, the Thing, do you need more? There are plenty of movies far better than this one. 

buzzard


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 9, 2004)

7 - I enjoyed it but it had some slow points and they over did the computer graphics, which were good but too overboard.


----------



## barsoomcore (May 9, 2004)

I gave it a four.

Steven Sommers can do better than this. It was much worse than _The Mummy_ or even _The Mummy Returns_. The plot holes were just too huge to overlook, the lack of characterization kept me from engaging and it just got too complicated -- which was a problem not because I couldn't follow the story but because they kept having characters explain things as they happened which got tedious fast.

I felt myself unable to sustain my involvement in the movie as the stagecoach chase progressed. That's where it really started to go off the rails for me. And things just got worse and worse from there on.

It's too bad. I really enjoyed the opening twenty-thirty minutes. There just wasn't any heart to it, and I need that in a movie if I'm really going to enjoy myself.

The creature effects were GREAT, and many of the landscape shots were very cool. The climactic battle was awful (compare with the final fight in _The Mummy Returns_) -- if that had delivered I'd've upped my rating by a couple of points I'm sure, but it was just watching a couple of cartoon characters move around on the screen. Lame.

Not sorry I saw it, and recommended for fans of monster movies, but definitely sub-par.

(cracks knuckles, waits for reaper to launch his attack)


----------



## Capellan (May 9, 2004)

I rated it a 6.  To paraphrase a friend (arwink, actually): "It's ninety minutes of entertainment in a two hour film."

David Wenham was great, there were some cool visual scenes ... but most of the movie was a confused hodge-podge, Richard Roxbrough was badly mis-directed as Dracula and as for Kate Beckinsale ... she's gorgeous, but the sooner she realises she is totally godawful as an action star, the better.  Utterly unconvincing throughout the film.

And don't get me started on Dracula's Castle, and its rooms that apparently move up and down like elevators.


----------



## theburningman (May 10, 2004)

I gave it a five.  My eyes didn't bleed while I was watching it, but I won't be renting or buying it later.

Like I said on the other thread, I can't decide if it was 1/2 hour too long, or 2 1/2 hours too long.


----------



## Kai Lord (May 10, 2004)

I gave it an 8.  This movie _rocked,_ I loved it.    Good, clean monster fun.  Blew away both Mummy movies by a *long shot*.  The monsters were cool, the effects were cool for the most part (and what the hell was up with Mr. Hyde, those were _Gollum_ quality effects!), Jackman was well suited for the part and Beckinsale was absolutely stunning.

The story was all over the place but fun.  I think its funny that clouds blocking the moon made werewolves change back into humans, but going inside buildings didn't have the same effect.    

And a little more exposition on just how being "the Left Hand of God" allowed Van Helsing to live 400 years would have been nice, but it was just a terrific rollercoaster ride.

The opening black and white prologue was great, Van Helsing's establishing "bad ass" scene vs. Mr. Hyde was amusing and fun, and I think the sweeping pan around Kate as she drew her sword for the first time may just be my new favorite scene in cinema history.    

A number of effects shots didn't work (the compositing of Van Helsing swinging down to grab Anna at the costume ball was *horrible*) but the ones that really mattered did.  I loved how powerful they made the Wolfmen, and the sound effects in the final battle really went a long way toward selling the scene.  And I'm always a sucker for Return of the Jedi-style cross cutting between multiple climactic fights.

I did burst out laughing after the Wolfman made his second long fall into a river followed by a tiny splash and my friend Mike said, "Holy crap, the Wolfman's Wile E. Coyote!"    

There was a lot in the movie that was definitely goofy (the Transylvanian horses were *so* fast they even warranted the red Indiana Jones style line across the map...whoa, now *those* are badass horses!)      But it was all in good fun.  A matinee showing well worth the price of admission, and I'll probably see it again before buying it the day it comes out on DVD.

I wonder what monsters will show up in the sequel.


----------



## Krug (May 10, 2004)

Gave it a four. big plot holes, and after a while didn't give much of a damn about any of the characters. Nice special efx but that's about it.


----------



## barsoomcore (May 10, 2004)

Kai: Can you explain what qualities of this film were superior to _The Mummy_? I'm curious because it seems clear to me that _The Mummy_ is better in every conceivable regard -- performances, script, direction, pacing, cinematography...

There were more complicated effects shots in _Van Helsing_, I'll say that. And Kate's costume was tighter than Rachel Weisz'. But otherwise I think the latter movie suffers significantly by comparision.


----------



## theburningman (May 11, 2004)

> Kai: Can you explain what qualities of this film were superior to The Mummy? I'm curious because it seems clear to me that The Mummy is better in every conceivable regard -- performances, script, direction, pacing, cinematography...




Thank you.


----------



## reapersaurus (May 11, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> The climactic battle was awful (compare with the final fight in _The Mummy Returns_) -- if that had delivered I'd've upped my rating by a couple of points I'm sure, but it was just watching a couple of cartoon characters move around on the screen. Lame.
> 
> (cracks knuckles, waits for reaper to launch his attack)



umm...  didn't the Mummy Returns have one of the most laughed-at "cartoon characters"  of all time involved in the final fight?  (the Scorpion-man)

P.S. you make the attacks too easy.


----------



## Dark Jezter (May 11, 2004)

I gave the movie a 7 out of 10.  Lots of fun, lots of action, good comic relief, and a hot leading lady.  Van Helsing is a great way to kick off the summer movie season.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 11, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> (cracks knuckles, waits for reaper to launch his attack)





			
				reapersaurus said:
			
		

> P.S. you make the attacks too easy.



Children...

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## barsoomcore (May 11, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> umm... didn't the Mummy Returns have one of the most laughed-at "cartoon characters" of all time involved in the final fight? (the Scorpion-man)



Oh, yeah, the Scorpion King looked totally stupid, no question. But it was a GREAT fight scene. My point is that even with such a poorly-animated character, the climactic fight in _The Mummy Returns_ is STILL better than the one in _Van Helsing_. It's got thrills and gasps and tension and jaw-droppiness that the _Van Helsing_ fight completely lacks.

I only make them easy for you, reap, because I want you to feel good about yourself.


----------



## Kai Lord (May 11, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Kai: Can you explain what qualities of this film were superior to _The Mummy_?



I'm not going to list them all because there's too many, but suffice it to say that the action, characters, stunts, visual effects, plot, and style of Van Helsing were all much better than The Mummy.  If I watched them back to back (and I won't, I saw The Mummy once in the theaters five years ago and bits and pieces later on TNT), then I imagine little things for an action spectacle like acting and script would come out in Van Helsing's favor as well.

You don't judge a popcorn action spectacle by how often the lead actress nails a foreign accent or how deeply the hero manifests the inner subtext of childhood scars the viewer will never know or care about, you judge them by how fun they are.

Sure its nice when every element of filmmaking and storytelling is brought together into an almost perfection manifestation of the art form, because when that happens you get Raiders of the Lost Ark.  So neither Van Helsing nor The Mummy was Raiders.  Okay, fair enough, not every adventure film will be.

But were they fun?  Van Helsing, hell yeah.  Jackman is charismatic, Beckinsale is beautiful and coy, Wolfmen, Dracula, Frankenstein, super crossbows and Transylvania are just _freaking cool._  And the presentation of those elements was engaging and proficient enough to keep it immensely entertaining.

Werewolves are cooler than mummies.  Dracula is cooler than mummies.  Frankenstein is cooler than mummies.  Combining werewolves, Dracula, and Frankenstein is cooler than combing a mummy, badly rendered beetles, and a sandstorm.

Combine the much weaker elements of The Mummy with a freaking _Jar Jar Binks_ character and you get one lame ass adventure film.  Face it, the effects *sucked* in the Mummy, the characters were totally unengaging, and when boring characters are chased by really, really bad CGI, you don't get very thrilling action sequences.

And when those elements are lacking, what's the point of even sitting through it?  The "performances, script, and direction"?  Who cares?  If I want to watch amazing performances there are hundreds of finely acted films that *don't* have legions of crappy looking beetles and the Deuce Bigalow guy running around saying, "It is written...it is written..."

But if I want to watch a cool hero and a sexy heroine fighting classic monsters that are often times very convincingly rendered in a wall to wall action extravaganza, well then I'm going to choose a movie that actually has a cool hero, a sexy heroine, and sweet looking classic monsters and fight scenes.  Van Helsing has all the above, and The Mummy has Rachel Weisz.  No contest.


----------



## Dimwhit (May 11, 2004)

Well said, Kai Lord. I agree. Though I think I have a higher opinion of The Mummy.

I just came back to this thread to check out the voting. I'm not sure I've seen a movie vote like this one. All over the place! This movie seems to cover the entire range for people, and fairly evenly.

Pretty interesting.


----------



## Mistwell (May 11, 2004)

*Box Office Report*

Here is some box office analysis for the opening weekend.

For what it's worth, I thought this was poorly done failed attempt to develop far too many characters while keeping the pacing fast, and far worse than The Mummy and The Mummy Returns (and Attack of the Clones).  However, the box office disagrees with me, while the critics agree (who combined give it a C I believe).

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/articles/news/?id=040509bo.htm

'Van Helsing' Stakes Out Solid Summer Start
by Brandon Gray
May 10, 2004

HOLLYWOOD (Box Office Mojo) – Van Helsing slayed not only vampires but vitriolic buzz to deliver a promising start to the summer movie season.

The $160 million tent pole starring Hugh Jackman drew $51.7 million -- $2.5 million less than distributor Universal estimate on Sunday -- from 3,575 theaters and over 6,000 prints, the most Universal has ever released. The opening lands between The Mummy's $43.4 million (also a May 7 bow) and The Mummy Returns' $68.1 million, Universal's other horror icon revivals directed by Stephen Sommers. Not only that, it launched in 41 territories overseas, adding an $55.2 million to the coffers to bring its global weekend to $106.9 million. 

As far as summer kick-offs go, Van Helsing is the biggest non-sequel, non-comic book one ever, topping The Mummy in raw numbers -- a stretch and a mouthful of a record to be sure but still important for context. (However, if one adjusts for ticket price inflation, The Mummy would be about the same.) It was nowhere near Spider-Man ($114.8 million) and X2: X-Men United ($85.6 million), heights it could not have realistically achieved without the enormous built-in fanbases they had. 

According to studio research, the audience skewed 58% male and reached a broad age range with 54% of patrons age 25 and older. Parents made up 20% of all moviegoers, and those under the age of 16 liked the picture the most as over 90% of them rated it "excellent" or "very good." Overall Van Helsing's demos and scores were similar to The Mummy, while people's main reason to see it, "action and special effects," was identical. 

"It looked like a rollercoaster ride, which is what it is," Universal's head of distribution Nikki Rocco told Box Office Mojo, also citing the trailer, the ads and Sommers' ability to craft crowd pleasers as also part of the allure. 

Universal is one of the top studios at marketing. While the Van Helsing campaign perhaps isn't the best example of this, it nonetheless was relentless (like Sommers' use of CGI) and hit the right notes for an intended blockbuster. Just as with The Mummy movies, "Adventure"* was the operative word here, not "Horror." Jackman's quips and the musical cues contributed to a swashbuckling tone in the trailer despite the dark setting -- summer openers have tended to be colorful or brightly lit. 

Breaking the weekend down, Van Helsing pulled in $19.5 million on Friday and inched up 0.6% on Saturday to $19.6 million. "When you open to $19.5 million on Friday, you just hope you're at least flat on Saturday," Rocco noted. Universal had projected a 25% Sunday dip to $14.9 million, but it wound up falling 35.9% to $12.6 million.

Rocco expects a 50% drop next weekend simply because that's the industry norm nowadays. "If we drop less, we'll be celebrating," she said. "But we're celebrating anyway. Whatever happens next week, we did over $100 million in three days globally." 

Because of its position as the first big summer movie, its enormous budget in a season rife with them, its marketing blitz and the many spin-offs dependent on its success (including a TV series on NBC), Van Helsing naturally was under intense scrutiny by the media and Hollywood. Judging by the buzz and most reviews, they had their skewers ready for the public roast if Van Helsing wasn't a monster smash. Its opening weekend should fend them off for now and suggests the picture's final gross should end up between $130 million and $150 million. Astronomical budgets for these kinds of movies aren't as risky as they once were, given the rise of DVD and the potency of overseas box office among other streams of revenue. 

"The fact is we're very responsible with our budgets," Rocco explained, reiterating the importance of ancillary markets where such investments pay off big time. "It's not just the domestic box office for a movie like this." 

Before the weekend, Universal counteracted the bad press by stressing that Van Helsing was not a sequel and not based on a comic book and therefore more challenging to sell to the public than other tent poles. But all non-sequel, non-comic book movies face that problem, and Van Helsing is by no means an original. It's very much a franchise (Dracula, Frankenstein, even Sommers' Mummy connection) and has the feel of familiarity. Van Helsing himself can hardly be called an obscure character, especially to anyone who has seen a Dracula movie. 

Looking ahead to Universal's June releases, Rocco says she'll try to get as many theaters as she can for June 11's Vin Diesel vehicle The Chronicles of Riddick -- over 3,000 -- but don't expect something as wide as Van Helsing given the much greater competition for screens the heat of summer brings. Director Jean-Jacques Annaud's tiger movie Two Brothers will be a "normal wide release" on June 25. 

* Van Helsing's taglines are "Adventure Lives Forever" and "Adventure Has a New Name." The Mummy Returns had "Adventure is Reborn" and was called "adventure that will never die." The Mummy was dubbed an "adventure beyond life and time."


----------



## barsoomcore (May 12, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> The action, characters, stunts, visual effects, plot, and style of Van Helsing were all much better than The Mummy.



No they don't.

How's that for a comeback?  

Okay, point by point.

Action: The Mummy -- I prefer watching real people do cool things than animated characters do anything. The final swordfight between Rick and the mummies is one of the classic fight scenes of all time. It's original, funny, graceful, believable and thrilling. The first couple of fights in VH were GREAT (Hyde and the fight in the village) but after that it just got incoherent, loud and tedious. And the final fight between Dracula and VH was just lame. There's no excuse for that.

Characters: The Mummy -- what's important in an action movie are characters whose motivations are clear and who pursue their goals with vigour and determination. In The Mummy, Evelyn wants to learn the secrets of Hamunaptra and Rick wants money (and Evelyn). They then proceed very straighforwardly to go after those things. What exactly does VH want? To kill Dracula? Why? The only reason he's going after Dracula is because he's TOLD to -- and early on in the film it's suggested that he's not super-happy with just sort of killing people because he's told to. So what does he WANT? To find out the secret of his past? Well, maybe, but he never does anything to find out, so I'm not watching him do that so who cares? He can't manifest vigour and determination because he has no goal, so I'm not very interested in him as a person, so I don't much care about anything else in the film.

Stunts: a wash. Neither film features a stunt that is demonstratably better than any stunt in the other. The Mummy has a whole slew of great high falls, horse stunts, and one of the best ratchet pulls I've ever seen (watch happens to the guy they throw off the car while careening through the streets of Cairo). VH has lots of good stunts, too, but nothing any more impressive than what's in the other film.

Visual Effects: Van Helsing. Well, it's been what, five years? I should hope the effects are better. It'd be embarrassing if they weren't.

Plot: Come on. Even people who like this film are admitting the story makes no sense and has holes you could sail the Seventh Fleet through. If you think you can make that one stick, you're welcome to try.

Style: Okay, pretty much an imponderable. I like deserts and Arab-y stuff and 1920's so The Mummy does pretty well for me. Kate Beckinsale in tight black is no hardship either. A wash.

So we have The Mummy clearly winning on two counts and VH on one, with the others no clear winner at all. The Mummy wins this round.

Ding ding!


			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> I imagine little things for an action spectacle like acting and script would come out in Van Helsing's favor as well.



Ooh, cutting! But you don't want to go there, my friend, because VH gets CHEWED UP on those counts, I guarantee.

A couple of examples will suffice:

Evelyn meets Rick in the Cairo Prison. Watch how specific their performances are. They're responding to each other with HUGE sparkage -- we know right from here that these two are made for each other. When Rick responds to Evelyn's question "Do you swear?" with "Every damn day," we see the first level of his character -- hard-bitten rogue -- but then he follows that up with, "I know what you mean. I was there," and we see the heart of gold our hero REALLY has. And Fraser and Weisz pull it off beautifully.

Evelyn gets drunk at the camp and defends her presence to Rick. This is a great scene, one that has no comparision in VH. "I am... proud of... what I am..." "And... what is that?" "I am... a librarian!" Rick's hesitant question perfectly captures the uncertain male as he ventures into the always-dicey waters of feminine pride. It's funny and touching and believable.

And miles above anything Jackman or Beckinsale get to do -- I think they're both competent actors but they weren't given anything to do in VH. Beckinsale did more acting in _Underworld_.


			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Werewolves are cooler than mummies. Dracula is cooler than mummies. Frankenstein is cooler than mummies.



I guess if you don't think mummies are cool, chances are you won't enjoy a movie called The Mummy. Call me crazy.

It's no argument to suggest one film is better than the other, but it does explain your position very well.


			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Face it, the effects *sucked* in the Mummy, the characters were totally unengaging, and when boring characters are chased by really, really bad CGI, you don't get very thrilling action sequences.



Can you reference the "really, really bad CGI" in The Mummy? Cause when I watch that film it stands out for the quality of its effects work. Indeed, it was nominated for a slew of awards for its effects work, so to suggest that they *sucked* is going to be hard for you to support, I suspect. But give it your best shot. Or else concede that the effects in The Mummy were more than good enough to serve the purpose of an action film.


			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> The "performances, script, and direction"? Who cares?



You do. Everyone does. I'm frankly startled you would say this.

What makes a good action movie? Thrills and chills, right? What makes thrills thrilling and chills chilling is that they are happening to people we care about.

We care about people if we understand their situation, see what they want, and observe them working hard to achieve it. Those things can ONLY be delivered through "performances, script and direction". Yes sir. Without them, all the special effects in the world are just so much fireworks.

I didn't understand VH's situation very well, I had NO IDEA what he wanted and therefore I couldn't figure out if he was working hard to achieve it or not. Sure, he's trying to kill Dracula. Why should I care? Answer: I don't.

You might disagree with whether or not you understood VH, but you can't pretend that "performances, script and direction" aren't of primary importance to a good action film. The criteria as to what are good "performances, script and direction" are different for action films than for romantic comedies, but they're equally important.

I mean, I like fireworks as much as the next guy, but I wouldn't pay $8 to watch a fireworks display. And at least with fireworks they're ACTUALLY GOING OFF RIGHT OVERHEAD. Ever watch a movie of fireworks going off? Not so super thrilling, is it? That's because they lack performances, script and direction. Hm.


----------



## Dimwhit (May 12, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Plot: Come on. Even people who like this film are admitting the story makes no sense and has holes you could sail the Seventh Fleet through. If you think you can make that one stick, you're welcome to try.




Not me. I liked the story. I hear a lot of complaining about aspects left unanswered. What's wrong with a little mystery? Since when do we have to know everything about the character's backstory? I don't care why VH has no memory, or why Dracula is susceptible to lycanthropy, etc. I think that's what the imagination is for. Doesn't seem to be a reason to explain every bit of the backstory when it's just not necessary. Most of the "plot holes" mentioned just don't seem important to the story. Maybe they'll reveal more in Van Helsing 2.


----------



## Kai Lord (May 12, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Action: The Mummy -- I prefer watching real people do cool things than animated characters do anything. The final swordfight between Rick and the mummies is one of the classic fight scenes of all time.



Okay obviously you're just not rational.   If you can seriously say with a straight face that Brendan Fraser vs. the mummies is one of "the classic fight scenes of all time" what can I say in response other than "um yeah _no._"

I'm talking about which of these goofy movies I had more fun at and here you are throwing around phrases like "classic scenes of all time."  Dude, just stop.    If you like The Mummy _that_ much, I really don't see how any opinions to the contrary wouldn't be totally lost on you....   



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> It's original, funny, graceful, believable and thrilling.




Did you just use the word _"believable"_ to describe a fight where a mummy juggles his head back and forth in his hands before Fraser swats it like a baseball?   



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Characters: The Mummy -- what's important in an action movie are characters whose motivations are clear and who pursue their goals with vigour and determination.



Maybe so, but not necessarily from the get go.  The recent Hellboy is another good example of a character who takes to fighting monsters like oh so much drudgery, but then really puts his heart into it at the end.

Van Helsing is larger than life, even moreso than Hellboy, and a lot of things that would deeply affect you, me, or a big red hornless demon don't really phase him that much.  He's not an everyman, he's a Clark Gable or a James Bond.  What does Bond do?  He gets sent on assignments, kicks ass, and wins the heart of the lady without a modicum of character growth.  But that's its own style of cinematic entertainment and it works.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Plot: Come on. Even people who like this film are admitting the story makes no sense and has holes you could sail the Seventh Fleet through. If you think you can make that one stick, you're welcome to try.



I liked the film, and easily understood the story.  I guess that's too bad if you didn't.

And for everyone else playing along at home, here it is:

Van Helsing kicks monster ass and works for the Vatican.
The Vatican sends him to Transylvania to kill Dracula and prevent generations of one family from being damned.
Dracula has his own agenda, namely "creating life" and to do this he needs the secrets possessed only by Frankenstein's monster.
I know a lot of people had trouble with that last one, even on this very message board, so I'll remind you; Dracula doesn't care about "creating spawn."  He can do that anytime he bites someone.  But the spawn is _dead_, just like him.  He wants to literally create life that lives, breathes, and has a beating heart.  And he wants it born out of his own flesh.
And to do that he uses Wolfmen to do some of his dirty work.  Why?  Not fully explained.  They're a threat to him, right?  But so are mobs of pissed off townspeople.  And when they grab their torches and get on the move, they can really, _really_ mess up his plans (see the opening scene of the movie.)
So Wolfmen can handle a lot of the same tasks as his brides, they're sweet hunters and trackers, and if a whole town goes after them so what.
Of course there's also Frankenstein, who just wants to be left alone to do his own thing, but just happens to be integral for the bad guy to succeed in his plan and for the good guy to rescue the girl.

_That's_ the story, its not that complicated, and I think its badass.  Do we know who Van Helsing really is?  Nope.  But we do know there's more to him than meets the eye.  Is that a plot hole?  Or does the rest of the plot suddenly not make sense because of it?  Of course not.  Did the first X-Men movie explain Wolverine's past?  No.  And it didn't have to.  Neither did VH. 



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I guess if you don't think mummies are cool, chances are you won't enjoy a movie called The Mummy. Call me crazy.



Who said mummies aren't cool?  No one here.  Who said werewolves, Dracula, and Frankenstein are all cooler than mummies?  Oh that would be me.    



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Can you reference the "really, really bad CGI" in The Mummy?



The beetles and the, um, mummy.  You're just messing with me now, aren't you?    



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Indeed, it was nominated for a slew of awards for its effects work, so to suggest that they *sucked* is going to be hard for you to support, I suspect. But give it your best shot.



Give it my best shot?  Dude.  No.  The beetles just sucked.  Period.  And the mummy himself as he went through the various stages of regeneration were pretty bad too.  Sure its five years old, but how come other five year old movies like The Matrix and The Phantom Menace are filled with visual effects that don't suck, suck, suck.  And did I mention that I thought the CGI in The Mummy sucked?  Well it did.    



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> You do. Everyone does. I'm frankly startled you would say this.



I said acting, dialogue, and direction are meaningless in an ACTION movie that has horrible ACTION.  I didn't say they weren't "important", just that you were fixating on elements that are of lesser value for the types of films we're discussing.  And an action movie can't have horrible action and good "direction" anyway because half of the filmmaking process is directing the action.  So as I said before, when fifty percent of an action movie sucks (that is, all the action), it doesn't matter how much good dialogue, acting, or direction is left over, the movie still sucks (like The Mummy.)



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> What makes a good action movie? Thrills and chills, right? What makes thrills thrilling and chills chilling is that they are happening to people we care about.



Nah, that isn't a univeral truth.  Think of all the movies that have great opening action sequences; various James Bond films, True Lies, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark.  Do we know these characters right off the bat?  Care about them?  Not yet.  But the action still works, and is often wonderfully thrilling.

Action is interesting because there's inherent drama in the very contest.  Do you need to know the lifestory of every athlete to enjoy a triple overtime basketball game?  Or a sudden death hockey shootout?  Do you even need to know the athlete's _names_?  No.  You don't.  Turn on the TV for the last ten seconds of two random college teams playing basketball or football when the score is tied and you're going to see some excitement.  Period.

Now, is it even _more_ exciting when your brother is down there on the court about to shoot two free throws to win the game?  Hell yeah.  And maybe Van Helsing is lacking that total connection with the characters, I'll concede that.  Frodo he ain't.  But he does a lot of damn cool stuff, and its darn fun to watch.

And I even did get into the drama.  You could see VH was into Kate, "If you're late, run like hell...don't be late."  It wasn't a love story for the ages but I thought it was interesting.  It was more on the level of Raiders of the Lost Ark.  And that last scene where he's 



Spoiler



holding her and howls at the moon


 just flat out *worked* for me, even on a purely dramatic level.  



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> You might disagree with whether or not you understood VH, but you can't pretend that "performances, script and direction" aren't of primary importance to a good action film.



I don't have to pretend, because its true.  Take any "good" action film and cut out all the action, guess what, its no longer a good action film!  Now take a good action film, show it on an airplane and the people who don't buy headsets and can't hear anything can *still* enjoy it for the spectacle.  I've done it.

So that's just taking one extreme over the other.  Obviously if you have a movie with great action and downright offensive dialogue and horrible direction in every scene except for when the fighting starts, the movie's going to suck.  For some people that would describe Van Helsing.  Some obviously didn't even like the action itself.

I loved the action, and I *did* care about the characters.  Again, nowhere near as much as I did for Frodo, Sam, or even Indy, but certainly enough to enjoy the movie.  I enjoyed their presence on screen, their banter, and for the cleverness with which I was anticipating they would carry out their goals.  And I wasn't disappointed.

With the Mummy I didn't appreciate either, and it wasn't the premise or genre.  I just thought the execution was terrible (save for a couple instances).

And then we have LXG, which makes even The Mummy look like Fellowship of the Ring.   

EDIT: Nice talking to you, as always.


----------



## reiella (May 13, 2004)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Hyde was not needed, I never said the sequence was not.  They could have used any supernatural creature and I think it would have been better with a made up one.  THere was no reason to use Hyde.




Hyde, perhaps, drew the point best about Van Helsing being considered a murderer.

A point that is convienantly lost once he gets to Translyvania.

I'm a bit annoyed at some of the characterization for Van Helsing too [end plot spoiler type stuff].

Pacing needed some work, but that's mostly as it seemed to follow an Indiana Jones progression [and I just dislike those pacing].

Good stuff?  Was a fun rush to watch. Some 'expectation breaking' was fun [I really like that Igor wasn't electrocuted, and that the magma device wasn't used in the final battle].

In all, it's a fun high energy movie that I liked.  Didn't have the presumption that has been a bit too present in recent Action flicks I've watched/been interested in[bah sequels].


----------



## Zappo (May 14, 2004)

Pretty good and enjoyable! I gave it a 7. Quality mindless entertainment. Loses three points due to holey plot, lack of character development, and uninteresting dialogues.

 It's interesting to notice how many 1s (and 10s) there are on the poll. One would expect a more normal distribution. Then again, the same thing happens with Lord of the Rings. I think many people just don't know how to rate something.







			
				Branduil said:
			
		

> I gave it a 1. Terrible, terrible, terrible. There was no story, just a bunch of coincidences strung together to resemble one. Truly one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The fact it is a huge hollywood feature makes it all the more embarrassing.



1/10? You are saying that "Mario Bros" is better than or equal to "Van Helsing". You are saying that "Dungeons & Dragons" is better than or equal to "Van Helsing". You are saying that the friggin' House of the Dead movie is better than or equal to "Van Helsing". You are saying that it is _physically impossible_ to make a movie substantially worse than "Van Helsing". You don't understand how a scale works, or you haven't seen many movies at all. Either way I don't think you'd make a good reviewer.

 The lowest score I can possibly understand for "Van Helsing" is a 4. The highest is 9. Below or above these, I think people are just exaggerating for the sake of it. Or to make themselves look like great film critics - after all, slamming a CGI-based action flick for having no plot or characters is easy. Next time, we'll slam Godfather for lack of CGI and martial arts, ok?


----------



## Arnwyn (May 14, 2004)

A solid 7 for me. Not as good as _The Mummy_, but far better than _The Mummy Returns_. I found it exactly as they made it out to be - a pulpy, fun, action-adventure (complete with the B&W intro!) and nothing more. I also found that they did everything "pretty much right" - the classic weaknesses of the enemies, a side-kick that got a good amount of screen time, was funny, _and_ useful, and a woman who's the last surviving member of a vampire-hunting family who really _could_ hold her own (instead of being simply a damsel-in-distress). Finally, the soundtrack was really good, and some of the best movie-music I've heard in a while (LotR excepted, of course).

I quite enjoyed it.


----------



## buzzard (May 14, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> It's interesting to notice how many 1s (and 10s) there are on the poll. One would expect a more normal distribution. Then again, the same thing happens with Lord of the Rings. I think many people just don't know how to rate something.1/10? You are saying that "Mario Bros" is better than or equal to "Van Helsing". You are saying that "Dungeons & Dragons" is better than or equal to "Van Helsing". You are saying that the friggin' House of the Dead movie is better than or equal to "Van Helsing". You are saying that it is _physically impossible_ to make a movie substantially worse than "Van Helsing". You don't understand how a scale works, or you haven't seen many movies at all. Either way I don't think you'd make a good reviewer.
> 
> The lowest score I can possibly understand for "Van Helsing" is a 4. The highest is 9. Below or above these, I think people are just exaggerating for the sake of it. Or to make themselves look like great film critics - after all, slamming a CGI-based action flick for having no plot or characters is easy. Next time, we'll slam Godfather for lack of CGI and martial arts, ok?




You do have a point. It probably wasn't deserving of a 1, which is what I gave it. However to claim that your credulity wouldn't be strained by the claim of a 9 is bizzarre. How could this movie be viewed as close to perfection? I mean things like Empire Strikes Back, The Matrix, and Braveheart are probably worthy of 9s. This heap is surely not in their company. Could you possibly see any justification for rating a movie like this that high? I surely can't. This movie had parts so bad they made me cringe. Now granted, maybe it deserved a 2 or 3 instead of a 1, but I likely punished for wasted potential as much as anything. To take your Mario Brothers example, can you honestly say that people went into that movie with anything in the way of expectations? Did it really have ANY potential to begin with?

Also setting a minimum of 4 on this movie seems quite wrong to me. Basically you are declared that it can only be viewed as slightly below average. If this is, as you say, not much worse than average then movies as a whole are a waste of time and money. 

buzzard


----------



## Zappo (May 15, 2004)

buzzard said:
			
		

> You do have a point. It probably wasn't deserving of a 1, which is what I gave it. However to claim that your credulity wouldn't be strained by the claim of a 9 is bizzarre.



Oh, it would be strained. Just not broken. It's a vote I can _understand_, not one that I can approve. I can understand a big fan of action movies giving a 9 in a fit of excitement right after coming out of the room as the utmost limit of vague reasonability.







> Also setting a minimum of 4 on this movie seems quite wrong to me. Basically you are declared that it can only be viewed as slightly below average. If this is, as you say, not much worse than average then movies as a whole are a waste of time and money.



Mmh... yeah, I think I could probably _understand_ a 3 as well. Not less than that, though. It may have a holey plot, no memorable dialogue and very simple characters, but the settings and scenography were exceptional IMO and most of the action scenes were quite good. I think that going below 3/4 means forgetting that this is supposed to be a light, spectacular, action movie. Every flick must be judged within its genre, after all. Good action scenes and enough plot to keep them together provided that you don't think too much about it is enough to warrant at least a 3 or 4 for a mindless-action movie (and allow me one last rave for the scenography, it was _good_, rich in details, I really dig it). If this was supposed to be a dramatic movie, of course, I would rank it somewhere in the neighbourhood of -2.


----------



## Villano (May 15, 2004)

I gave it at 3.  My reasons for that are spelled out in the other Van Helsing thread.  

Truthfully, I feel like giving it a 1 as payback for the damage my eardrums suffered.  I think this is the loudest film I've ever seen.  And I'm just talking about the music!  :\


----------



## ShadowX (May 15, 2004)

I gave it a 6.  It seemed too long for what it was and any glimpse of character development was peremptorily cut.  Also everything appeared to link too smoothly.  Like when they fell in on Frankenstein.


----------



## Henry (May 16, 2004)

I gave it an 8 - in truth, it was somewhere between a 7 and 8, but I gave it the benefit of the doubt.

It was DEFINITELY not better than the mummy, which was to me in the 9 to 10 range, but it was a fun ride, and it doesn't have to be in-depth psychodrama to be a good movie. THe Mummy had it all - adventure, romance, a clearly-driven plot, humor, well-choreographed fights, and the barest HINT of plausibility - I don't recall Rick or Evie getting knocked 70 feet into the air and getting back up, or swings from 500 foot tall towers where wind and elements would have finished off the hero long before the villain touched them. Loved Mummy, liked Van Helsing.

The actors I think did a good job overall. Beckinsale proved to me between this and Underworld that she could evoke a wide range of emotion, though Jackman really doesn't seem to play any differently to me, whether he's Wolverine or a computer hacker, or a monster hunter.

Richard Roxburgh,on the other hand, OWNED that film. I don't see flat when I see his performance - he and the three lady vampires CHEWED up the scenery when they we on camera, and it fit the genre so well that I loved it. Everything from his little "dance" while talking to the strapped-down Velkan, to his nervous pacing up the walls and ceilings, to dancing at the ball, he made himself the central focus of screen time when he appeared. Jackman was just standing around compared to him, and while I like Jackman, he really gave Van Helsing no character, even though the scripting tried.

Wenham (surprisingly FARAMIR from the Rings Films!!) did a very good job with Carl,  and O'Connor (Beni from the Mummy, fascinating given the recent discussions!) was fun to watch as Igor. I recognized him under a ton of makeup by his voice within 10 seconds of seeing him onscreen.

Was it unrealistic? Of course! But then that was the style the movie was going for, and they nailed it well. The friendship between Van Helsing and the monster was a nice twist, and I really felt they cheated that part of the story by having the monster just paddling off into the distance. Where's the "goodbye my friend?" Where's the "where will you go?" Where's the "look me up if you're in London sometime?" and FOR GOD'S SAKE TURN THE VOLUME DOWN EVER SO SLIGHTLY!!! My wife and I could barely hear after two hours of BOOM-SCREAM-CREAK-BAMMM! 

But I digress. In the end, a fun movie, worth the price.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (May 16, 2004)

I'll just say one thing...

"Ah! But I'm just a Friar! I can swear!.....dammit!"


----------



## drothgery (May 16, 2004)

Taelorn76 said:
			
		

> One part that I did not like was the end.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I gave it a 7. It did a really good job of being an over the top fantasy/action flick, and if you expected anything else, you should've walked out after the first scene. But I'd have to agree with you on the ending.



Spoiler



In an over the top action movie, the heroine (or the hero's love interest) does not die at the end. Supporting characters can die. But a noble sacrifice from one of the two leading characters is for a more serious movie. The Frankenstein monster dying would have been pushing things. Anna dying just didn't fit the tone of the movie at all. This kind of movie is supposed to end on a positive note.


----------



## Kai Lord (May 16, 2004)

drothgery said:
			
		

> This kind of movie is supposed to end on a positive note.



It did.  Didn't you see where she ended up?


----------



## theburningman (May 16, 2004)

> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> In an over the top action movie, the heroine (or the hero's love interest) does not die at the end. Supporting characters can die. But a noble sacrifice from one of the two leading characters is for a more serious movie. The Frankenstein monster dying would have been pushing things. Anna dying just didn't fit the tone of the movie at all. This kind of movie is supposed to end on a positive note.




I agree with you totally on this.  



Spoiler



When Taelorn76 pointed out the implausibility of this happening, I thought that perhaps that was what bothered me about the ending (I actually rolled my eyes when it happened).  But now I realize that it's the tone of the movie being violated that bothered me.  In the hands of a more capable director/screenwriter (and don't get me wrong, I like a lot of Sommers's stuff), perhaps Anna's death could have been pulled off.  But for me, it was just...dumb and unnecessary.



I kind of get the same feeling from movies like _Very Bad Things_ that try so hard to be dark comedies and wind up just being grating.


----------



## Abraxas (May 16, 2004)

Just saw it tonight. Went in expecting a comic book on film and thats exactly what I got - gave it an 8. I really was entertained - I liked the vamps and werewolves in this infinitely more than those in Underworld. Thought it was on par with the Mummy and well above The Mummy Returns (which, except for two sequences, stank so bad it could've knocked a buzzard off a manure wagon). The bits that bugged me were innocuous enough that they didn't distract from the movie while I watched it.

All in all a rompin good monster movie.

Just another note - I've seen a few comments about how loud the soundtrack was. I wonder if it has something to do with the theatre in which the movie was seen? I thought the soundtrack was great and plan to purchase it. I have had a similar experience with a movie soundtrack not to long ago when I was watching Hellboy - one thing kept bugging me, the soundtrack was to freakin loud.


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (May 17, 2004)

Saw it today and ranked it a 7.  Very enjoyable, but the reviews were so bad that I had very low expectations, which probably heightened my enjoyment.

The biggest problem with the movie was that Jackman and Beckinsale seemed to just be coasting through their performances.  Every other performer in the movie was better than them.


----------



## barsoomcore (May 17, 2004)

Whew! Have at it, indeed.

Okay, before I plunge into this, I'm not arguing that _The Mummy_ is a great movie. I mean, I happen to think it is, but I get why people would blow it off. I do stand by my characterization of Rick's battle against the mummies, however -- that first set of shots as he leaps onto the altar and takes out five or six of them in one take is spectacular with a capital SPEC. There are very few fight scenes I've ever seen with that level of grace and kewlness.

And I've seen a lot of fight scenes.

Sure the effects aren't as good as TPM or _The Matrix_. There's a large amount of distance between the Oscar-winning effects and "crap", if you ask me. Again I ask you to indicate the shots that are so terrible. The first confrontation with Imhotep? The spectacular opening shot of Thebes in ancient times? The battles with the mummies where fake characters are getting limbs removed, getting knocked around and into the set by live characters, and it's all as seamless as can be?

Goofy movies are a big part of my life. I take goofy movies probably more seriously than I ought to, and have done since I spent Sunday afternoons watching Sinbad pictures on local TV channels.

Just something to keep in mind as you're backing away slowly, watching me foam at the mouth.



But seriously, I don't see how the notion that _Van Helsing_ is vastly and clearly superior to _The Mummy_ has a leg to stand on. It flies in the face of critical opinion (the earlier movie's "Rotten Tomatoes" rating is TWICE _Van Helsing_'s) and box office performance (although _VH_ scored higher in its opening, its 60% drop off on the first weekend bodes poorly for its long-term performance -- which is where the earlier film did well. Indeed, _The Mummy_ did BETTER than _Van Helsing_ on the second weekend of release, and right now the later film stands a measly $4 million ahead in comparative box office. That's five years later, let's remember, in about three hundred more theatres .

I'm not even saying that one movie is better or worse than the other. I'm just objecting to your blithe statement that the one is CLEARLY better than the other. It may be your preference, but your reasons for thinking are clearly not shared by the majority of people.


			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> That's the story, its not that complicated, and I think its badass.



My point was never that the movie was too complicated to understand -- but that because it is so complicated, Sommers resorts to endless bouts of exposition and tedious "people saying things that everyone in the movie already knows just so the audience can keep up with what's happening" dialogue.

As an example, the stagecoach jump and subsequent plunge of the carriage. As the carriage heads down, the one vampire chick says to the other, "We must not let it crash! Our master needs the monster for his plans!" Or words to that effect.

Presumably the other vampire chick already knows this, so why is it being said? Because the director doesn't think the audience will be able to keep up otherwise. Which I don't mind every now and then but in VH it really started to get on my nerves.

So it's not that the story is complicated. It's that the story's complicatedness is communicated to the audience in a clumsy fashion.


			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> What makes thrills thrilling and chills chilling is that they are happening to people we care about.





			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Nah, that isn't a univeral truth.  Think of all the movies that have great opening action sequences; various James Bond films, True Lies, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark.  Do we know these characters right off the bat?  Care about them?  Not yet.  But the action still works, and is often wonderfully thrilling.



If you don't know James Bond right off the bat, you haven't been living in the Western World for the past thirty years. And that's not facetious. We already know James Bond. When a new JB movie starts up, half the fun is seeing what sort of crazy hoohah he's going to get himself into (and out of) this time. Bond is a well-known and well-loved character, so putting him in danger is a no-brainer.

_Star Wars_ lets us know everything we need to know about our heroes from the very first shot -- tiny little ship pursued by massive, implacable enemy. You understand the situation immediately, know who you're supposed to cheer for, and watching how hard the Rebels fight tells you these guys are worth cheering for. Whatever the heck they're doing. 



And Indiana Jones? You don't think we know this guy before the action starts? You need to watch _Raiders_ again. (I think that sentence is ALWAYS true, by the way, no matter who the subject is)

What's our first introduction to Indy? When some guy draws a gun and is about to shoot him in the back. There's the crack of a whip, the gun goes flying, and the assassin stares in terror for a second. At our hero, silhouetted in the frame. The assassin runs off. We note (subconsciously, probably, but we note it anyway) that he's super-cool, super-capable and not vindictive or unecessarily violent (he doesn't kill the guy, just lets him run away).

NOW we know who our hero is. And as he makes his way through the crypt we get to know him even better, and admire his bravery, his cleverness and his dogged persistence. And at the first confrontation with Belloc, we learn his motivation and his passion. And now we're ready to cheer for this guy throughout the rest of the picture.

_True Lies_ I'm leaving out because it's one of those movies I hate with a very deep and abiding passion. It fails for precisely the reasons I feel that _Van Helsing_ failed, however -- but I won't argue that VH is a far, far better movie than _True Lies_.


			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Action is interesting because there's inherent drama in the very contest.



Nonsense. If I play checkers against my dog, is that inherent drama? Of course it isn't. The drama is proportional to the uncertainty AND the significance of the outcome. A checkers game CAN be dramatic, but only if the audience understands something important to the players is at stake, AND cannot predict the outcome with much certainty.

That's where the performances, the script and the direction come in. The performances tell us how important something is to the character. The script set us up for uncertainty by offering us scenarios we have little confidence in predicting. The direction oversees both by managing them and presenting them to us appropriately.

Your sports examples are instructive in this regard. Sports provides you with all these things. The script is the rules of the game. This is what gives you the context for the action -- this is how you know what the players are trying to do. You KNOW they're trying to score a goal, a touchdown, a try, whatever. If you didn't know what anyone was trying to do, you wouldn't be very excited about what was going on.

I don't know a thing about cricket, and it bores me to tears.

What I'm saying is that a good action movie has to provide the audience with the same amount of context a sporting event provides -- you need to know what the characters are trying to do, and you need to see them trying really hard to do it. And it makes a HUGE difference if you think they care about it or not. 

Ever watch a sporting event and think, "Hey, these guys don't care if they win or lose?" How much fun was that game? You see a lot of excitement there?

Athletes give you that feeling because, for the most part, they DO care. The good ones do, anyway. Actors have to give you that same feeling about their characters if what we watch them do is going to give you any excitement at all. Through their performances.

The script has to give you the rules of the game -- it has to let you know the conditions under which the action will take place, so that you can follow what's happening and try to predict (though always with imperfect confidence) what will happen next.


			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Take any "good" action film and cut out all the action, guess what, its no longer a good action film!



You seem to be thinking that "action" is something distinct from "performances, script and direction". What I'm saying is that great action is CREATED by performances, script and direction.

Jackie Chan, Bruce Lee, Arnold Schwarzenegger -- these actors (and others) succeed as action stars because they are able to deliver performances that sell the action. Arnold is utterly convincing as Conan because you believe he's really trying to kill that guy. You really believe Jackie is scrambling for his life. Actors who are less convincing are less successful.

Ever watch fight scenes out of context? It's surprising how much LESS exciting they are. I have a couple of "Ultimate Fight Scene" DVDs that while I like them (finding them good references on staging fight scenes in my own movies), aren't the slightest bit exciting. Not many people will just sit and watch them. That's because you've got nothing riding on the outcome of the fight. You've got nothing invested in it. Even your airline audience, devoid of headphones, has a good deal of context coming their way -- it's surprising the degree to which a movie's story can often be divorced from the sound. Especially good movies, I've noticed (let's not discuss _My Dinner With Andre_, please).

So again, action scenes DEPEND on performances, script and direction. They're not something that happens while those three elements are on holiday. Not in good films, anyway.

I told you I took goofy films seriously.


----------



## NotNew@Enworld (May 17, 2004)

IMO the combination of Dracula, Frankie and Moonpooch is just an excuse for a commercial smorgasboard like the last three Star Wars movies.  But I think we've all heard that one before.
I think the CGI was overdone.  Stunts that would have been more credible with an old-fashioned stuntman were pixelized kinda like in Matrix Reloaded.
And it seems the director (I won't mention his name) feels more comfortable spending ten million dollars on special effects than fifty cents on a decent script.
Speaking of special effects, the action seemed to come out of nowhere and for no apparent reason other than to show off flashy cool funky CGI.
Anna I found generally useless except when she hit that tree and got slammed against several walls.  That was funny.

That said, it was worth it for the silly entertainment function it filled.  Good thing it only cost 4.5 euros.


----------



## D+1 (May 18, 2004)

Quite entertaining but notable flaws including
too long
fight scenes animated and edited by someone with severe ADHD problems
failure to establish any real relationship between Van Helsing and Anna
a not too original take on the characters/subject matter
can't decide if it wants to be gothic horror or light-hearted escapism and so does neither approach full justice


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 18, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I don't know a thing about cricket, and it bores me to tears.




"_Cricket_!?  Nobody understands _cricket_!  You gotta know what a _crumpet_ is, to understand _cricket_!"

-Hyp.


----------



## D+1 (May 18, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Simple explanatoin:
> It's hard to think of a much better action monster movie.



Without EVEN thinking - Aliens.

With a bit more thought: Alien, The Mummy (w/Brendan Fraser), American Werewolf in London, Starship Troopers, Independence Day, 28 Days Later, Tremors, King Kong (original), Predator, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Thing (original and John Carpenter version)... need more?  Because there definitely is more.


----------



## barsoomcore (May 18, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> "_Cricket_!?  Nobody understands _cricket_!  You gotta know what a _crumpet_ is, to understand _cricket_!"
> 
> -Hyp.



 I will happily take your word on the matter.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (May 18, 2004)

I gave it a 10, just on the red-haired vamp chic factor.


----------



## Kai Lord (May 18, 2004)

Whoa, it only took you a week to formulate a response...I'll try to go easier on you next time.    


			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Whew! Have at it, indeed.
> 
> Okay, before I plunge into this, I'm not arguing that _The Mummy_ is a great movie. I mean, I happen to think it is, but I get why people would blow it off.



I can respect that.  We all have our "Perfect 10" movies, and as we see in the other thread of the same name, a lot of people have the same "Perfect 10" movies.  LOTR, Star Wars, Raiders, bla bla bla.

But its seeing those movies generally accepted to be second or third tier that make people's "Best of" lists that are often way more interesting.  An example for you would be The Mummy, one for me would be Gremlins.  I love, love, love, that movie.  Not as much as ROTK or what have you, but it would rank in my Top 20 all time, way higher than Lawrence of Arabia or Citizen Kane, neither of which I was particularly impressed with.  Blasphemy, I know.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Sure the effects aren't as good as TPM or _The Matrix_. There's a large amount of distance between the Oscar-winning effects and "crap", if you ask me.



I agree.  There's a huge amount of distance between Oscar-winning effects and those that we see in The Mummy.    



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Again I ask you to indicate the shots that are so terrible.



And again I tell you, any scene with the beetles (and I do mean literally any scene) and any of the "skinless Imhotep" scenes.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> But seriously, I don't see how the notion that _Van Helsing_ is vastly and clearly superior to _The Mummy_ has a leg to stand on. It flies in the face of critical opinion (the earlier movie's "Rotten Tomatoes" rating is TWICE _Van Helsing_'s) and box office performance



Bah.  If Rotten Tomatoes ranking + Box Office = the measure of a movie then Titanic would be everybody's second favorite movie after LOTR.  I couldn't care less what the critics or movie going public prefers.  If you've read *any* of my opinions on films in this forum surely you must have learned that by now.  And yes I did just call you Shirley. 



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I'm not even saying that one movie is better or worse than the other. I'm just objecting to your blithe statement that the one is CLEARLY better than the other.



Objection noted and overruled.  Anything you say at this point will be stricken from the record.    Nah if you want to object go ahead, if it makes you feel better.  I realize The Mummy is a 10 for you, and you're passionate about it.  Right on.  I gave Van Helsing an 8, but really its probably closer to a low 7 that I just really enjoyed.  I'm not going to defend a 7 as fiercely as you're going to stick up for your 10.  But I don't need to since your 10 is only a 4 in my book.    



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> It may be your preference, but your reasons for thinking are clearly not shared by the majority of people.



Padding your opinion with box office take and the ratings of critics?  As a film buff you should be ashamed.  Really, I'm embarrased for you.    



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> My point was never that the movie was too complicated to understand -- but that because it is so complicated, Sommers resorts to endless bouts of exposition and tedious "people saying things that everyone in the movie already knows just so the audience can keep up with what's happening" dialogue.
> 
> As an example, the stagecoach jump and subsequent plunge of the carriage. As the carriage heads down, the one vampire chick says to the other, "We must not let it crash! Our master needs the monster for his plans!" Or words to that effect.
> 
> Presumably the other vampire chick already knows this, so why is it being said?  Because the director doesn't think the audience will be able to keep up otherwise.



Eh.  The cargo in that carriage represented the survival of all her babies.  I could see a mom stating the obvious in a fit of hysteria.  Quite easily in fact.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Which I don't mind every now and then but in VH it really started to get on my nerves.



One thing my friend commented about Van Helsing as we were leaving was how "convenient" everything was.  "Hey look, the portal to Dracula's lair!"  "But its missing a piece."  "Well guess what I just happen to have the piece too!"

"But Dracula can only be killed by a werewolf."
"Well guess what just bit me today..."  And so on.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Western World for the past thirty years. And that's not facetious. We already know James Bond. When a new JB movie starts up, half the fun is seeing what sort of crazy hoohah he's going to get himself into (and out of) this time. Bond is a well-known and well-loved character, so putting him in danger is a no-brainer.



And what does a single James Bond film offer in the way of character development lacking in Van Helsing?  _Nothing._  So literally the only reason you find fault with Van Helsing is because this wasn't the 20th movie he appears in where he does the exact same thing that he did in the other 19.  Watch every James Bond film in the last 25 years in a super marathon.  What do we know about him after all these years?  He's British, a spy, gets a lot of women and blows a lot of stuff up.  Oh and his codename's 007.  We like him, but we don't know *anything* about him.  Hell we know more about his martinis than Bond himself.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> _Star Wars_ lets us know everything we need to know about our heroes from the very first shot -- tiny little ship pursued by massive, implacable enemy. You understand the situation immediately, know who you're supposed to cheer for, and watching how hard the Rebels fight tells you these guys are worth cheering for. Whatever the heck they're doing.



Okay, so Star Wars gets a passing grade because we

1.  Know the situation
2.  Know who the good guy is
3.  See the "good guy/s" fight really hard

All elements accounted for in Van Helsing.  Case dismissed.  But that's only turning your own argument against you.  I don't even agree that its valid in and of itself.  Did we have a clue as to who we were supposed to root for in the beginning of The Matrix?  No.  Was it still an incredibly thrilling opening?  You bet.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> _True Lies_ I'm leaving out because it's one of those movies I hate with a very deep and abiding passion. It fails for precisely the reasons I feel that _Van Helsing_ failed, however -- but I won't argue that VH is a far, far better movie than _True Lies_.



Interesting.  I'm curious as to what bothered you so much about the movie.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Nonsense. If I play checkers against my dog, is that inherent drama?



*Hell* yes.  Your dog can play _checkers?_  Dude, call somebody because you guys should be on TV.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> What I'm saying is that a good action movie has to provide the audience with the same amount of context a sporting event provides -- you need to know what the characters are trying to do, and you need to see them trying really hard to do it. And it makes a HUGE difference if you think they care about it or not.



Once again we have:

1.  Know what the characters are trying to do
2.  Watch them try hard
3.  See them care

All represented in Van Helsing.  But it doesn't matter.  Those prerequisites are accounted for in a _legion_ of crappy films.  But, as you said, you probably like a lot more crappy films than I do.    



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> So again, action scenes DEPEND on performances, script and direction. They're not something that happens while those three elements are on holiday. Not in good films, anyway.



You continually miss the point.  Once.  Again:  If the "action" in an action movie *sucks*, the "script, performances, and direction" in _the rest of the movie_ DOESN'T MATTER.  The movie is going to suck.  That's the point.  Read it, learn it, know it.    

That doesn't mean I'm not agreeing that the inverse is *also* true.  Case in point:  The Matrix Reloaded.  Probably the most techically proficient car chase sequence ever put on film.  But I wouldn't even rank it in the all time top ten.  Why not?  Because the drama that put the characters in the action just wasn't that interesting or credible, unlike the finales of The Road Warrior or The Fast and the Furious.

Does that mean the Matrix freeway chase isn't entertaining in its own right?  No.  It was just on HBO the other night and I happened to flick it on right before the chase began.  Its not that great a movie but I still watched the whole chase sequence before switching it off when Neo comes and saves the day.  Why?  Because it earned my interest with compelling characters in a well scripted showdown?  No, because its fun to watch a lot of crap get destroyed on the freeway.

Now, take a movie that has a lot of fun rollercoaster action, throw in werewolves, Hugh Jackman, and Kate Beckinsale, and what do you get?  Return of the King?  Not even close.  But you do get a fun two hours, which is much more than can be said for The Mummy.   

However, I'd still be more interested in just watching your dog beat you at checkers.


----------



## Babette (May 18, 2004)

*hey...hey*

i enjoyed it.
not what i had expected...for some reason i was expecting something a little more serious..(true..i was  )..but the vamps powers were awsome...i like it when a movie shows how truly awsome and hard to kill an uber character can be..(and by non humans)..anywhoo it was fun
i enjoyed it.


----------



## Thanee (May 18, 2004)

Babette said:
			
		

> for some reason i was expecting something a little more serious..(true..i was  )..



 You probably havn't given the movie poster a closer look then... the repeating crossbow, the shuriken, the various monsters, that hardly make sense in a single movie... 

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Dimwhit (May 18, 2004)

> All that stuff Kai Lord said.




Well argued. And I agree with most everything you said. Though I like The Mummy more than you did. Still enjoyed Van Helsing better. It was a run romp!


----------



## Dinkeldog (May 18, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Simple explanatoin:
> Some people are fans of the genre, and have actually SEEN the movie, while others aren't or haven't.
> 
> I gave it an 8, ALMOST a 9. It's hard to think of a much better action monster movie.




I'm scared.  I agree with Reap.    Actually, I was torn between 8 and 9, and decided to be charitable.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 18, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I will happily take your word on the matter.




It's not mine, it's Raphael's!  

-Hyp.


----------



## barsoomcore (May 19, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Whoa, it only took you a week to formulate a response...I'll try to go easier on you next time.



I don't find insults, veiled or not, particularly conducive to good discussion. If this is the sort of tone you want to take then I'd rather abandon the conversation altogether. Please, no more of this.

If I said something that irritated you and caused this sort of attack, I'm sorry. Let me know and I'll try to avoid doing so in the future.


			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> And again I tell you, any scene with the beetles (and I do mean literally any scene) and any of the "skinless Imhotep" scenes.



*shrug* Okay. I don't know what you object to in those scenes. They look just fine to me.


			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> I couldn't care less what the critics or movie going public prefers.  If you've read *any* of my opinions on films in this forum surely you must have learned that by now.



I'm not asking you to care; I'm still trying to get you to explain why you think one movie is so much better than the other. If you've got evidence, holler.


			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Eh.  The cargo in that carriage represented the survival of all her babies.  I could see a mom stating the obvious in a fit of hysteria.  Quite easily in fact.



Yeah, about as easily as I could see a girl running into danger to save her new pet dog.



It's not that the specific case is indefensible -- it's that the movie is ridden with stuff like that.


			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Watch every James Bond film in the last 25 years in a super marathon.  What do we know about him after all these years?  He's British, a spy, gets a lot of women and blows a lot of stuff up.  Oh and his codename's 007.  We like him, but we don't know *anything* about him.  Hell we know more about his martinis than Bond himself.



Really? You must be watching different movies than I've seen. I know Bond is unflappably debonair, ruthless but never sadistic, loyal to his country, almost never afraid of anything, always has a backup plan, has no concern for government property, is cheerfully disrespectful to authority -- especially to pompous types who want him to be serious, and has a deep-seated soft spot for a pretty face. I know he can handle almost anything, I know he's got gadgets and tricks up the ying-yang, I know he's capable of wild n crazy stuff that most people would die horribly attempting. And I know he's written by people with huge sacks of money at their disposal, so just about ANYTHING is possible.

When I see some random guy standing in a street with a BMW tearing towards him, I'm marginally interested. My interest rises when it's James Bond, because I KNOW Bond to a sufficient degree that I can anticipate something really wacky is about to happen.

Keep in mind, please, that I'm not talking about "character development" in the, let us say, Jane Austen sense. I'm not saying we need loads of details about the character. Obviously that gets in the way of an action movie.

But what defines great action movies is that they present to us just the character details we exactly need in order to get excited about what's happening.


			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Okay, so Star Wars gets a passing grade because we
> 
> 1.  Know the situation
> 2.  Know who the good guy is
> ...



Sure, for the opening sequence, which was great. Even the first twenty minutes of the film are really, really good. For just these reasons. 

After that the movie starts to fall apart, precisely because those elements start getting confused and emptied.


			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Did we have a clue as to who we were supposed to root for in the beginning of The Matrix?  No.  Was it still an incredibly thrilling opening?  You bet.



Okay, leaving aside the fact that I think the opening to The Matrix was slightly cooler than the Gap ads that had used the same technique (only better) in the months prior to the film's release, it's still the same principle as in the opening to Star Wars.

Pretty girl is inoffensively typing at a computer when threatening goons with guns burst in.

Gee, you can't figure out who the good guys and bad guys are in this situation? Of course you can. It's remarkable how little context one needs for a single sequence to work. But it STILL requires performance, script and direction.

Hitchcock's famously described this principle many times. He uses it in _Rear Window_ to marvellous effect -- if we see someone rooting about in a room, acting furtive, and then we see someone else coming up the stairs, we are immediately put into a state of suspense. In _Rear Window_, of course, the suspense is much heightened because we're invested in Grace Kelly's character and so the idea of her getting caught is even more worrisome. But even if all we know about someone is that they're looking around where they aren't supposed to, that's enough to generate tension.

That's what I'm talking about as to "performances". The actor doing the snooping has to convince us that they are doing what they're not supposed to, that there will consequences to being caught. The script has put them in that situation. The director has to make sure the audience understands the situation.


			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> You continually miss the point.  Once.  Again:  If the "action" in an action movie *sucks*, the "script, performances, and direction" in _the rest of the movie_ DOESN'T MATTER.  The movie is going to suck.  That's the point.  Read it, learn it, know it.



I'm talking strictly about the "action". I agree that if you take the action out of an action movie, you're unlikely to have anything worth watching. Just like if you take the comic bits out of a comedy, you'll have a dull (though mercifully short) film.

Maybe I'm deeply misunderstanding this, but I don't see how it's relevant. I'm not talking about _the rest of the movie_. I'm talking about the action. The action requires performances, script and direction if it's going to succeed. Action needs to be well-performed, well-scripted and well-directed. Maybe you agree with that and are arguing some other point that I don't get. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but honestly I don't understand why you keep saying that if you take out the action, an action film will suffer.

I agree with that idea, but I don't understand why you think it's important. I haven't been trying to argue that if you consider everything besides the action in Van Helsing, you'll have a bad movie. I've been arguing that it's a bad movie because it's poorly directed, poorly written and poorly acted. Action scenes and non-action scenes alike.

Does that make it more clear?

I have to say, KL, that the tone of this post really caught me off guard. Maybe I'm feeling especially insecure today, but I feel like you're going after me rather than my arguments. We've gotten into it enough times that I'm not going to blow you off, but I do hope this doesn't represent some change in your attitude. Maybe it's just me.

Anyway, I hope I've been more clear. I remain unconvinced that there's anything at all clear about VH's supposed superiority over The Mummy, but I'm willing to listen to any arguments you have (though I'm probably not the only one sensing a certain "circularity" to that discussion). I still feel like we're passing in the night on the "performances, script and direction" issue -- apparently you're trying to get at something that I'm just missing. Or vice versa.


----------



## Kai Lord (May 19, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I don't find insults, veiled or not, particularly conducive to good discussion. If this is the sort of tone you want to take then I'd rather abandon the conversation altogether.



It was a joke.  Like I really believed that you spent days trying to come up with a counterpoint.  Come on now.    



> Maybe I'm deeply misunderstanding this, but I don't see how it's relevant. I'm not talking about _the rest of the movie_. I'm talking about the action



This merry-go-round began when I said:


> Combine the much weaker elements of The Mummy with a freaking Jar Jar Binks character and you get one lame ass adventure film. Face it, the effects *sucked* in the Mummy, the characters were totally unengaging, and when boring characters are chased by really, really bad CGI, you don't get very thrilling action sequences.
> 
> And when those elements are lacking, what's the point of even sitting through it? The "performances, script, and direction"? Who cares?



You *can* have good performances in bad action movies.  You *can* have a good script but horrible execution of it.  You *can* have good directing that is hamstrung by studio interference in the editing room, a budget that's too small, or incompetent stunt men/effects animators.

But failed action sequences will kill an action movie quicker than all of the above.

I'm really not sure why the previous post upset you, I was really just having fun with it, and wasn't trying to offend.  We're obviously passionate about movies, but for pretty fundamentally different reasons, even with regard to our tastes that overlap.  Oh well, its still fun chatting, but maybe we should put this particular one to rest.


----------



## Babette (May 19, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> You probably havn't given the movie poster a closer look then... the repeating crossbow, the shuriken, the various monsters, that hardly make sense in a single movie...
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




 
Not at all.
you can't please everyone..and yet some people still go to watch.


----------



## barsoomcore (May 19, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> But failed action sequences will kill an action movie quicker than all of the above.



Ah. Now I see. But you're not going back far enough. This REALLY started because I listed "performances, script and direction" as three categories _The Mummy_ had done better  than _Van Helsing_. Your counter to that was that since the earlier film's action sequences had been so inferior, it didn't matter if those three categories were better.

I'll grant you that IF the action sequences were worse, the movie would be worse. But they were BETTER, is what I'm trying to say, BECAUSE of the superior performances, script and direction.

Is that clear?

I guess for me the conversation moved beyond a comparision of two films and into a pretty interesting discussion of "what makes a great action movie" -- a subject near and dear to my heart.

On which subject I recommend _Ginger Snaps II: Unleashed_ as a great little low-budget film with good werewolf action and genuine scariness. Better than the first one, even.


----------



## Krug (May 20, 2004)

Average score of 6.05 after 111 votes.. hmm...


----------



## reapersaurus (May 24, 2004)

D+1 said:
			
		

> Without EVEN thinking - Aliens.
> 
> With a bit more thought: Alien, The Mummy (w/Brendan Fraser), American Werewolf in London, Starship Troopers, Independence Day, 28 Days Later, Tremors, King Kong (original), Predator, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Thing (original and John Carpenter version)...



hmm.
OK.
I'll delve back here for a quick reply (this is all of course IMO):

Alien is not an action monster movie. It's a horror movie that uses a sci-fi villain.
Aliens is closer to a good example. Except it is more like a war movie to me, the same as Starship Troopers & Independance Day. 
AFAIK 28 Days Later is a zombie movie - not even close.
Predator barely even qualifies as a monster movie - it's closer to The Ghost & the Darkness than it is Van Helsing.
Invasion... and The Thing are pure psychological dramas that use a sci-fi backdrop.
King Kong is horribly dated and boring by today's standards.
Tremors and The Mummy are probably movies I would say are in the same sub-genre as Van Helsing. But Tremors is much lower-key, and doesn't deliver nearly what VH does. The Mummy I'm torn on which is better - I see good things to both The Mummy and VH.

When I used the term "action monster movie" I had a specific type of movie in my head, and there really aren't many like it. And since _I_ used the phrase, I can have a specific limited definition of it.


----------



## Olive (May 24, 2004)

Saw it yesterday, thought it was ok, even quite good fun. Certainly ramped my 'Oh lordy, Kate Beckinsale is hot' quotient up, which I didn't think could be done. I must see underworld now.

But, yeah I quite enjoyed it. The effects were nice except when they were awful, the acting was average, but good considering the script, but it was kinda fun.

So, yeah, certainly not regretting the cash.


----------



## Xune (May 24, 2004)

I thought this movie was great. It set out to be fun and that is what is was. Nothing more or less.


----------



## Napftor (May 24, 2004)

Saw this over the weekend.  Was hoping for another _Mummy_ but I didn't get it.  Thought the plot, characters, and Drac's acting all left something to be desired.  CGI, of course, was on par for this type of popcorn flick and the music might have been better if it wasn't "on" all the time.  Sometimes Silvestri just tries too hard, methinks.


----------



## Mistwell (May 24, 2004)

For what it is worth, Monte Cook says this on his board (http:www.montecook.com):



> The summer movie season is getting into high gear. Although most of you won't (or perhaps you already have), I'd recommend giving Van Helsing a pass and going to Troy instead.


----------



## Kai Lord (May 25, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> On which subject I recommend _Ginger Snaps II: Unleashed_ as a great little low-budget film with good werewolf action and genuine scariness. Better than the first one, even.



Thanks for the recommendation.  Just checked it out at www.imdb.com and watched the trailer.  Looks pretty creepy, but right now I'm taking a possibly permanent sabbatical from unpleasantly violent films, so I probably won't catch it.  Looks well done though.

EDIT: Hey barsoomcore, can you direct me to that thread where you, Mog Effloe, and I were discussing John Woo films?  I can't remember the thread title and my seach strings are coming up empty.  Thanks.


----------



## barsoomcore (May 25, 2004)

Here ya go


----------



## Arnwyn (May 26, 2004)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> For what it is worth, Monte Cook says this on his board (http:www.montecook.com):



And I immediately disagreed with him.


----------



## qstor (May 30, 2004)

I didnt think it was that bad. I saw it at a matinee. Worth the $5 I paid for it.

Mike


----------



## Yraen (Jun 1, 2004)

*Van Helsing*

Hmmm...I gave it an 8.

I don't believe it's as good as Stephen Somers' Mummy films, but it kept me entertained for the duration. But Kate Beckinsale is, as ever, a hotty


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jun 1, 2004)

I gave it a 3. It was worth watching but the acting and plot were so terrible, along with so many inconsistancies, I had to vote it a 3. My girlfriend who loves the vampire genre, couldnt' stand how cheesey it was and would rate it a 1.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 3, 2004)

I just saw it yesterday.

It was terrible, bad acting, two dimensional characters, random plot changes, the list goes on.

I loved it! It was the kind of movie that I want to see with friends and lampoon as it runs. Heck I wanted to get two robot companions and watch it again!

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* Yes, I'm serious!


----------

