![[The Transformers Archive - an international fan site]](/common/skin/cardbackwide/tfarchive.png)
Van Helsing ROCKED!
-
Galvatron91
- Posts: 8359
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 4:00 am
- Location: Keeping the world safe from crappy posts
Van Helsing ROCKED!
Go see this movie...seriously, it was excellent. Hugh Jackman is extraordinary and Kate Beckinsale is not only bad ass, but LORD is she all manners of hotness in this! Excellent see, well worth it!
-
Plasmodium
- Posts: 7580
- Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2002 5:00 am
- Location: Canada
-
Galvatron91
- Posts: 8359
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 4:00 am
- Location: Keeping the world safe from crappy posts
I consider myself somewhat of an extremely avid fan in regards to the classic B&W Universal Horror Movies that began with Frankenstein in 1931 and roughly ended with Creature from the Black Lagoon. I have just about every different theatrical release of the majority of those movies as well as in-depth written reviews, interviews with cast/crew, autobiographies and regular biographies on the likes of Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi, Lon Chaney (JR. and SR.), etc.........
I saw the midnight showing of Van Helsing last night (how appropriate the timing was lol).
And I have to say, I was impressed.
The movie did justice/gave a very obvious nod to just about all of the Universal classics whose character likenesses appeared in Van Helsing.
The only major problems I had with it were the following two ideas:
1. The character of Victor/Henry Frankenstein was not given enough development, including his relationship with his creation. It's almost like "if you are gonna include the monster, you need to concentrate just as much on the relationship between the creator and the creation." However, given that this movie was mainly about Van Helsing, I understand why it wasn't included and I can live with it.
2. This is purely personal preference, so take it as you see it: because I was raised on the classic Universal/Hammer stuff, I find it hard to follow the movies of today due the the fast pace of the aciton sequences. In the flicks that came before (and largely in part to the absence of CGI) the viewer had ample time (Somethimes, too much time) to fully immerse him/herself into the drama that unfolds the scene, whether it was ole' Frankie taking a hissy fit with Dear Old Dad, or the subtlety of Karl Freunds camera shots on the sets of Dracula (1931) or the Mummy (1932). After some of the battles with Dracula's wives or the first appearance of the werewolf, the entire action sequence went by and left me thinking, "wait, what the heck just happened?" Chalk it up to my age, I guess. lol
That was about it. Other than those two specific ideas, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie including the plot twists, characters, actors and actresses playing the characters, and just about everything else. Also, I have always been particularly fond of Stephen Summers work. He has a real knack for this subject matter.
I hope others out there enjoy this just as much as i did.
I saw the midnight showing of Van Helsing last night (how appropriate the timing was lol).
And I have to say, I was impressed.
The movie did justice/gave a very obvious nod to just about all of the Universal classics whose character likenesses appeared in Van Helsing.
The only major problems I had with it were the following two ideas:
1. The character of Victor/Henry Frankenstein was not given enough development, including his relationship with his creation. It's almost like "if you are gonna include the monster, you need to concentrate just as much on the relationship between the creator and the creation." However, given that this movie was mainly about Van Helsing, I understand why it wasn't included and I can live with it.
2. This is purely personal preference, so take it as you see it: because I was raised on the classic Universal/Hammer stuff, I find it hard to follow the movies of today due the the fast pace of the aciton sequences. In the flicks that came before (and largely in part to the absence of CGI) the viewer had ample time (Somethimes, too much time) to fully immerse him/herself into the drama that unfolds the scene, whether it was ole' Frankie taking a hissy fit with Dear Old Dad, or the subtlety of Karl Freunds camera shots on the sets of Dracula (1931) or the Mummy (1932). After some of the battles with Dracula's wives or the first appearance of the werewolf, the entire action sequence went by and left me thinking, "wait, what the heck just happened?" Chalk it up to my age, I guess. lol
That was about it. Other than those two specific ideas, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie including the plot twists, characters, actors and actresses playing the characters, and just about everything else. Also, I have always been particularly fond of Stephen Summers work. He has a real knack for this subject matter.
I hope others out there enjoy this just as much as i did.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"...Working on a specimen the size of Angel is actually easier in many ways."
Mac scoffs. "Easier almost ate me a few days ago."-Steve Alten, Meg: Hell's Aquarium
"...Working on a specimen the size of Angel is actually easier in many ways."
Mac scoffs. "Easier almost ate me a few days ago."-Steve Alten, Meg: Hell's Aquarium
It wasn't any good.
Don't get me wrong, Hugh Jackman does a good job. Kate Beckinsale did even better. But everything else was terrible. The CGI was often attrocious, the sidekick frair was the most annoying thing ever, the first ten minutes were bad, the last fifteen minutes were even worse, and I could play Dracula better than the guy they got to do it. Count Chocula is scarier than this guy was. However, most of the things that were bad, were so incredibly bad that they were unitentionally funny.
If you walk into the theatre expecting a good movie, you're going to be disappointed. If you go there expecting a bad but entertaining flick, then you'll like it. It was a fun movie to watch (and make fun of) with friends, but that's about it.
Don't get me wrong, Hugh Jackman does a good job. Kate Beckinsale did even better. But everything else was terrible. The CGI was often attrocious, the sidekick frair was the most annoying thing ever, the first ten minutes were bad, the last fifteen minutes were even worse, and I could play Dracula better than the guy they got to do it. Count Chocula is scarier than this guy was. However, most of the things that were bad, were so incredibly bad that they were unitentionally funny.
If you walk into the theatre expecting a good movie, you're going to be disappointed. If you go there expecting a bad but entertaining flick, then you'll like it. It was a fun movie to watch (and make fun of) with friends, but that's about it.
-
Alpha Trion
- Protoform
- Posts: 2675
- Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2001 5:00 am
- Location: Cleveland, OH
Good god, I've never had a worse time at the theater. I would've walked out and asked for a refund after 15 minutes if I hadn't gone because my mom wanted me to see it with her.
As I have made apparent in several threads, my tastes often lead towards "Carnage In C-Minor"-esque stuff, ie movies so bad that they're delightfully fun. Van Helsing is not one of those movies. I could not derive any enjoyment from this film. Everything was completely ridiculous, and not in a good way. From Dracula's Jawa army to the mind-numbing female vampires, it was torture.
Apparently, this movie takes place in an alternate universe in which full moons occur every three days (the friar tells Van Helsing there will be a full moon in two days, despite the fact that there was one the night before). Also, werewolves can set stagecoaches on fire by dragging their claws across the roofs of them. To Hugh Jackman's credit, he was the only actor not pushing the term "overacting" to new boundaries. This movie would have been so much better if when the friar pulled the lever, he found a magic potion that made him as big as Godzilla, and he crushed all of Transylvania, killing everybody in the movie.
Horrendously bad CGI, an entire cast overacting as much as possible, uber-predictability, and overall completely boring story make this the most unbearable movie I've ever seen. Please, for the love of all that is good in this world, unless you are masochist, do not see Van Helsing. If you want to see a movie with Dracula, a werewolf, and Frankenstein's monster, go rent Monster Squad. That movie is six-hundred times better than this train wreck.
As I have made apparent in several threads, my tastes often lead towards "Carnage In C-Minor"-esque stuff, ie movies so bad that they're delightfully fun. Van Helsing is not one of those movies. I could not derive any enjoyment from this film. Everything was completely ridiculous, and not in a good way. From Dracula's Jawa army to the mind-numbing female vampires, it was torture.
Apparently, this movie takes place in an alternate universe in which full moons occur every three days (the friar tells Van Helsing there will be a full moon in two days, despite the fact that there was one the night before). Also, werewolves can set stagecoaches on fire by dragging their claws across the roofs of them. To Hugh Jackman's credit, he was the only actor not pushing the term "overacting" to new boundaries. This movie would have been so much better if when the friar pulled the lever, he found a magic potion that made him as big as Godzilla, and he crushed all of Transylvania, killing everybody in the movie.
Horrendously bad CGI, an entire cast overacting as much as possible, uber-predictability, and overall completely boring story make this the most unbearable movie I've ever seen. Please, for the love of all that is good in this world, unless you are masochist, do not see Van Helsing. If you want to see a movie with Dracula, a werewolf, and Frankenstein's monster, go rent Monster Squad. That movie is six-hundred times better than this train wreck.
-
the_escaflowne_2k
- Protoform
- Posts: 639
- Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 11:12 pm
- Location: Under a cloud, no atlas though [Manchester].
well i saw it on thursday ( a day before its release still don't know what happened there), and all i can say is oh my god............ not only where there 100's of basic errors but then you get some of the least believable stunts ever and the most homosexually supressed dracula ever ( side note he ws played by the ginger guy from moulin rouge i believe), then it was all rounded up with possibly the most horrendously soppy and overused hollywood scene ever.
Basically the story had a brilliant premise, Van Hellsing is a very screen freindly character but unfortunatly it has the emotion/action/intentional humour of wet turd.
p.s it also adds to the evidence that any film released in the UK with a 12A rating is bound to suck
Basically the story had a brilliant premise, Van Hellsing is a very screen freindly character but unfortunatly it has the emotion/action/intentional humour of wet turd.
p.s it also adds to the evidence that any film released in the UK with a 12A rating is bound to suck
"all i can say is that my life is pretty plain, you don't like my point of view you think that i'm insane"
-
the_escaflowne_2k
- Protoform
- Posts: 639
- Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 11:12 pm
- Location: Under a cloud, no atlas though [Manchester].
personally (bearing in mind my aforementioned critcisms) the cgi wasn't so bad but then again im comparing this to the rest of the films components and as such its not such a compliment in actualuality, also im not a huge cgi fan so i'm a smidgen biased.
"all i can say is that my life is pretty plain, you don't like my point of view you think that i'm insane"
-
CounterPunch
- Protoform
- Posts: 3394
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2002 5:00 am
- Location: What?
- Contact:
-
Auntie Slag
- Posts: 4859
- Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2001 4:00 am
- Custom Title: Satisfaction guaranteed!
- Location: Cambridge, UK
- Contact:
Yesterday on an MTV2 there were two docu-programs in succession: ‘The Making of Van Helsing’ and ‘The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers - Making of’.
In the latter, Peter Jackson commented about how CGI is so good these days that its only impressive if its believable to the situation and works/complements what’s around it. That sounds reasonable, I can think of Lieutenant Dan in Forrest Gump for example. But in Van Helsing, there is a scene which is on the TV trailers a lot where he’s riding atop a stagecoach, some vampire ladies fly up behind him and send him hurtling to fall in between two horses pulling the coach.
The effect was ****e, it was so obviously fake, and the CGI Hugh Jackman in that split second of action and excitement looked so unrealistic it was laughable. No, it wasn’t laughable, it was just poor. And Kate’s accent? Dick Van Dyke was a more convincing cockney so he was, cor blimey slap o’ my thigh.
In the latter, Peter Jackson commented about how CGI is so good these days that its only impressive if its believable to the situation and works/complements what’s around it. That sounds reasonable, I can think of Lieutenant Dan in Forrest Gump for example. But in Van Helsing, there is a scene which is on the TV trailers a lot where he’s riding atop a stagecoach, some vampire ladies fly up behind him and send him hurtling to fall in between two horses pulling the coach.
The effect was ****e, it was so obviously fake, and the CGI Hugh Jackman in that split second of action and excitement looked so unrealistic it was laughable. No, it wasn’t laughable, it was just poor. And Kate’s accent? Dick Van Dyke was a more convincing cockney so he was, cor blimey slap o’ my thigh.
-
Alpha Trion
- Protoform
- Posts: 2675
- Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2001 5:00 am
- Location: Cleveland, OH
Originally posted by Arcee
Really? Because other ppl. who've seen it said that the werewolves r0XX0red.
No, they didn't. They looked like huge, deranged, poorly animated bunnies.
If you do end up seeing it, be sure to take a book and small flashlight so you're not tempted to pay attention to what's on the screen.Originally posted by Denyer
If I see it, it'll be because of a "two for one" ticket offer and to meet up and say hi with someone...
im a big fan of the abraham vah helsing character and i worry about seeing this film as i fear it might shatter my feelings towards the characters
out of curiosity, who has done your most memorable portrayal of Van Helsing?
I'm a little biased on this one myself, but it would definitely be a tie between Edward VanSloan of the Universal Era and Peter Cushing of the Hammer Era.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"...Working on a specimen the size of Angel is actually easier in many ways."
Mac scoffs. "Easier almost ate me a few days ago."-Steve Alten, Meg: Hell's Aquarium
"...Working on a specimen the size of Angel is actually easier in many ways."
Mac scoffs. "Easier almost ate me a few days ago."-Steve Alten, Meg: Hell's Aquarium
-
Eternal 1
- Protoform
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2000 4:00 am
- Location: Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
I wasn't all too impressed with the movie myself. I would say more, but I am sitting behind a computer with a faulty keyboard, so I don't feel like typing a lot.
They were the dream-mechanical beings able to transform their bodies into vehicles, machinery and weapons; a last line of defense against the chaos-bringer, Unicron
Post the TF:TM mistakes here and do it now!!!
-
DrSpengler
- Protoform
- Posts: 4891
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 1:04 pm
