Van Helsing

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

begbie

I've seen the adverts. Looks good. I'm not a hugh jackman fan or anything. I'll probably see it at some stage.

ixoy

Great - first I thought it looked crap, and now you're confirming it. I can't wait to see it :dunno:

Dewey

Thats surprises me smiaras. i havent seen it, but i heard its a good film but they said that about DareDevil at the start. Now i'm not sure if i want to see it, i'm not a hugh jackman fan so i might skip this one.

Dermo

saw it yesterday morning, and I have to say it's a movie for the fans of the mummy but it doesn't live up to any of the hype it has been given.
The worst bit in the whole thing had to be:

Seeing whatshername in the clouds after she died

but to be fair it had it's little moments here and there, but just wasn't good enough

Fuhrio

I was at the premiere last night too, my friends all absolutely loved it, personally i thought there was too much CGI and the story waas kinda weak. I can slag hugh jackmans acting though, he played the role how it was supposed to be played, although i didnt think it was a great film by any means.


kate beckinsale was very very hot!

Rabies

Sounds like The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen to me. Taught that was sh!t. Van Helsing did look slighly promising in the early days. Some reviews I have heard don't rate it to highly.

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

Buck Owens

It was So So I though it could of benn a hell of a lot better IMO. Some of the dodgiest CG I ever seen. What is it with Stephen Sommers and Dodgy CG!! ?Scoripion King But in all Fairness The Suave Dracula was Pretty Cool and his brides:D



And I got this scar Sneaking under the door of a payed toilet.

lodgepole

Originally posted by Buck Owens
Some of the dodgiest CG I ever seen.

How do you figure? I thought the special effects were excellent. A few moments where they could have been better, they probably didn't have the budget to go back to them.

Film was incredibly entertaining. The opening sequence and the Mr.Hyde sequence were both nothing short of stunning. I began to lose interest in the film about 90 minutes in, but it perked up by the end. They could probably have shaved 30 minutes from the film without losing any of the content, and it would have been a better film for it.

My main gripe was with the guy they had playing Dracula. I thought he was terrible. I didn't look forward to his scenes at all, which is a bad thing when he's your main bad guy.

goo

"I began to lose interest in the film about 90 minutes in, but it perked up by the end."
God, that can't be a good sign, how long is this thing?

I have to say, originally it sounded like a terrible idea, but I definitely warmed to it. Thing is, the more of it I saw in motion [i.e. the longer the ads were] the worse it seemed. This whole feeling was of course capped off by the 8 horses and a carriage over a ravine clip.

I agree that CG's being used way too often, it should be a problem solver, not part of the plan. Still, the work on Gollum really does show it can be fantastic, I can't wait to see what WETA do for "King Kong". Hopefully Troy doesn't follow the "Van Helsing" school of CG or Blockbuster silliness, I'm looking forward to that film too. You can empathise with the "Van Helsing" people easily though, when you're budgeting in 9+ figures you can't really make a genre flick for the hardcore fans.

lodgepole

Originally posted by goo
"I began to lose interest in the film about 90 minutes in, but it perked up by the end."
God, that can't be a good sign, how long is this thing?

It's around two hours. IMDB says it's 132 minutes.

Believe me, the CG is very good. The two people I was at it with said the same. It served its purpose. Though it was quite clearly all CGI, at no point did that fact pull me away from the intensity of the action. And that's all that matters. I don't recall any "wow" shots*...


*shots that have nothing to do with the story, but are just there to show off the CG. like the milk pouring bit in Shrek.

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

Superman

yeah, i'd say it's about as hard core as linkin park and Pink

SheroN

I dunno I thought it was pretty enjoyable, sometimes people have learn to take movies for what they are meant to be (in this case a summer blockbuster popcorn movie), not every movie is an art house flick. I didn't see anything wrong with the CGI to be honest, I thought it was pretty good infact.

Kambika

In my opinion that movie wasnt great at all. Frankenstein - Dracula - failed supermodels together in one flick. The performance of the actors was poor. And what was wrong with the Dracula ???? The guy looked tasty yeah, but as Dracula ?! I always thought Dracula was supposed to be evil and in some way "cool" ?!

Mr E

I'm normally pretty tolerant in the cinema - I'll pretty much watch anything.

However... I didn't really enjoy this at all.

The bad: The action wasn't exciting, the fake accents annoyed me, and the guy who played dracula was terrible. The opening b&w scene reminded me of a bad episode of star trek voyager. The scene with Van Helsing against Mr. Hyde looked like a battle with Shrek's evil twin. Every time Van Helsing's monk sidekick opened his mouth to say another inane, unfunny punchline, I wanted to rip his head off. The cloud scene at the end was cringeworthy.

The good: The first attack of the brides was the only scene I really enjoyed. Kate looked well (but she shouldn't have opened her mouth). The third bride was kinda cute (in human form ). Frankenstein's monster was kinda cool. The digital effects were actually pretty good (in 95% of scenes, anyway). And ... er.. thats it.

First summer blockbuster of the year.... piss poor. Not a good start to the season.

Karl Hungus

I enjoyed it.

But lets face it people, this is by the same guy who brought us The Mummy and The Mummy Returns, so he's hardly going to tackle a proper horror film now is he? I can only come to the conclusion that the people who didn't like the film had some big misconceptions about it in the first place.

It is in all honesty a terrible film, packed with some pretty ropey CGI, dreadfull acting, and a just downright abysmal plot, but it was just a FUN film. Plenty of eye candy also, Kate Beckinsale was quite tasty once again, as were the brides (Especially the black haired one) and if I was so inclined, Hugh Jackman half-naked in shredded shorts.

The plot was unbeleivably ridiculous, as I mentioned, to the point of sheer stupidity! And David Wenham was just doing some incredibly feeble impersonation of Lee Evans... Personally, I'd like to have seen him kicked in the windpipe from the offset. In fact, he's not the only character who should've gotten the snip from the film, that dreadfull Igor and those ****ing munchkins should've all been lined up and shot through the head with the one bullet.

Richard Roxburgh is a terribly under-rated actor, and it's a shame he's getting duff roles like this, and 'LXG' but while he's certainly not up there with the likes of Christopher Lee, Gary Oldman, or Bela Lugosi, he's definetly not at the other end of the spectrum either, like Gerard Butler in Dracula 2000 who was about as imposing as that ponce from Changing Rooms. Roxburgh at least turned in a quirky preformance and really hammed it up, but he definetly seemed like he was having fun.

Overall, it's an incredibly bad film, but it's just downright FUN! Silly, over the top, popcorn munching (Personally I rather M&Ms) FUN!

sutty

well I'm just back from it now, and I have to say.....






WHAT A LOAD OF STEAMING CRAP!

Over use of CG as in all the Mummy movies, crap storyline, crap acting...


jist ove the movie...

Storyline -> CG -> Music -> Hot Redheaded Vampires fantastic Cleavage-> and then back to storyline... repeat and thats the movie

ixoy

Originally posted by Karl Hungus
Overall, it's an incredibly bad film, but it's just downright FUN! Silly, over the top, popcorn munching (Personally I rather M&Ms) FUN!

See that's where I'd disagree with you. I just thought it was an incredibly bad film, that was actually boring! The action sequences were dull and repetitive. The character development was non existent and the acting atrocious generally (although it'd be an achievement to be able to deliver those scripted lines in anything less than a ham-fisted manner). The audience were laughing in all the wrong places at the sheer stupidity of the movie but that never stopped me from constantly wishing it to end. Wanting to be able to leave the cinema told me, oddly, that I was not being entertained.

After seeing one of the best movies of the year so far - Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - on Monday, I now go to the biggest load of toss that's hit the screens in 2004. When I left the cinema, I shouted outside, in a generous humantarian gesture, "Don't go and see Van Helsing!" I implore you all to heed my message.

Bacchus

Words cannot describe how bad this movie is. It's only saving grace is some of the special effects, but the acting, the cheesy dialogue and "Joey looks" and the **** plot were just too bad.
Most of the enjoyment I got was laughing at it...

Kate swinging from the ropes onto the bridge and then catching the ****ing syringe mid air... that had me in stitches... as did the horse drawn carraige jumping the bridge... oh, and the final scene with Kate in the clouds ffs did they make this movie **** on purpose.
Loved Van Heilsing's line "You better not be late..." to Kate. I'm sure it wasn't put there to be funny but it had me laughing.

Anyway, for the love of god don't go see this movie. Coz if you do, there's gonna be a sequel.

Verdammt

Good special effects did not save this dreadfull movie, story line was non-existant and they acting was truely from the "Joey fart smelling School of Acting for people who can't Act Good."

TCamen

So the first 30mins or so (not including the crap b&w prologue) aren't terrible.

That's about the nicest thing I can say about 'Van Helsing'. The remainder of the 132mins running time is a mess of crap FX, worthless characters and a terrible script.
Stephen Sommers, the director AND writer of this tripe seriously needs to learn some restraint with the dodgy-FX-in-every-shot-will-hide-poor-plotting technique he's picked up from George Lucas' Star Wars prequels.
There's little more than a handful of scenes that have no digital FX of some sort going on. By the end it's mind-numbingly painful watching all the shoddy CGI being thrown around. If I had to see one more character swinging around on some sort of rope/chain variant....
The plot isn't terrible, but any nice ideas about uniting the various monsters are ruined by the dialogue and over-long action set pieces, all of which are very unimaginative save Van Helsing's initial arrival in Transylvania.
The castings is uniformly crap with the exception of Hugh Jackman, who manages to have a little fun with the role. Kate Beckinsale is poor & David Wenham is excruciating. But the worst casting falls to the actors playing the monsters, which isn't good for a monster movie. Richard Roxburgh is atrocious as Dracula, and the Brides are no better. Frankenstein, was also terrible.

I can only come to the conclusion that the people who didn't like the film had some big misconceptions about it in the first place.

I completely disagree with this. Up until I discovered that 'Van Helsing' was being directed by Stephen Sommers, I was actually looking forward to the movie. Once I knew who the director was, I had very low expectations, however, I went to see 'Van Helsing' with an open mind *hoping* it could at least better 'The Mummy/Returns' and provide some brainless entertainment. Unfortunately it was just a painful movie-going experience for me, my friends, and judging from the misplaced laughter and general attitude of the audience, it didn't entertain them either.
My main gripe with the movie was the CGI-overload. I mean some directors manage to provide an entertaining, brainless summer blockbuster that at least strikes some balance with a decent script/characters vs good FX. Sommers so far has failed to deliver a blockbuster movie I have actually enjoyed. It's not snobbery either, as I say, I really did want 'Van Helsing' to be good, and there were tiny glimmers of potential but they didn't amount to anything remotely original, so the movie was just a very very poor FX-heavy wannabe blockbuster.

I find it hilarious that in the run-up to the release of 'Van Helsing', Sommers was giving interviews saying how different 'Van Helsing' was going to be to 'The Mummy/Returns'. He claimed he was making a more serious movie, because he had to treat Dracula et al with respect. In other words, less jokes, more drama.
I can't see ANY change in the tone of 'Van Helsing' to that of his previous movies, and if Dracula was treated with respect in 'Van Helsing', I'd hate to see him set out to make Dracula a comic character.

Oh, and Hugh Jackman in some ripped shorts during the climax was small reward for sitting through the rest of this truly awful movie.

All in all, first summer blockbuster out of the gate, and it's completely unimaginative and far from fun, which is pretty much the minimum that a blockbuster should be. I shudder to think of the sequel to which Richard Roxburgh is signed to bring Dracula back once again.

ArthurG

Have to agree, this was a big pile of poo. Melodramatic, hackneyed, and completely uninventive. Hughy boy should be ashamed of himself.

Some good points made above - Aliens still holds its own against the CGI rubbish that was littered throughout this film - I don't think I can take another CG'd body swinging off ropes etc.

And I don't think the 'Summer Blockbuster, what do you expect' argument holds any water - X-men and X2 were well written, somewhat intelligent summer fare that I'd happily watch again.

Spunog UIE

ya gotta love how they solved all the problems with in ohhhh i dunno 20seconds on discovering them... WAIT A MIN UNLESS ITS NOT A MIRROR OMG.

FILM OF THE YEAR TBH :D:D:D:D:D:D:D

murdoc8

i'm going to see it to night, i just gona sit there zone out

nosmo

Had it's ups and it's downs, but overall I liked it.

However, I ****ing HATED the sitar music that came in randomly.

TCamen

And I don't think the 'Summer Blockbuster, what do you expect' argument holds any water - X-men and X2 were well written, somewhat intelligent summer fare that I'd happily watch again.

Totally agree. Bryan Singer's X-Men & X2 actually strike a balance between spectacle(that isn't always CGI) and a storyline that includes actual character development. Yes they're still mostly-brainless summer blockbusters, but they were also enjoyable, entertaining & worth repeat viewings.
Whatever about the X-Men movies being good examples of blockbusters, the basic point of a GOOD blockbuster vs a poor one is still one to be made. Van Helsing is very much a poor movie for all of the reasons people have outlined.

ObeyGiant

I have never been more offended by a film, ever.
So bravo to Van Helsing for that, I guess.

MarcusGarvey

Absolute fucking shit Absolute fucking shit Absolute fucking shit Absolute fucking shit Absolute fucking shit Absolute fucking shit Absolute fucking shit Absolute fucking shit Absolute fucking shit Absolute fucking shit Absolute fucking shit.

So yeah in summary I didn't like it.

DirtyDog

Pure and utter ****e

RE*AC*TOR

I concur with the general consensus of this thread. The acting was appaulling, the writing was appaulling - the director should be shot - as soon as I saw MTV doing a "making of" - i should have steered well clear of this steaming heap of ****. This movie was utterly boring, no one was convincing in any role. I couldn't care less who died. I suspect if I was between the age of 9 and 13 I probably would have enjoyed it though - and I feel in a sense the director was pandering to that age-group / mentallity.
The Mummy wasn't bad - it was by no means a superb artistic effort - but it entertained somewhat and had moments of realtive humor. Van helsing has none.
Stephen Sommer has borne out a one-trick-pony career for himslef. His next project? Well according to IMDB its Revenge of the Mummy: The Ride (2004).

I wouldn't recommend anyone to waste their money on it - even looking for mindless action - don't bother. Stay at home rent something involving Seagal or Van Damme or Ernest Goes To Camp - cause they're all better.

FireFly

I don't understand why some people think that full CGI scenes mixed in with live action would make for a good movie anyways...the potential of computer technology should not have to withstand such horror...The only real highlight of this film was watching Hugh Jackman shoot the crossbow...that was nice...until I had to see a vampire chik...Dracula was disappointing...being one of my favorite bad guy characters of all time the actor didn't look the part and the acting was probably as good as he could do because of his horrible lines that he say every time he talked...They also shouldn't have tried to throw in the side story of Van Helsing that was pointless...they should expanded on it early in the movie or left it out all together...and why did they make a female character who was supposed to come off as not perfect...and then every time she had to fight ended up doing everything perfect...there was no balance of character emotion and character action I have to admit the ending was one of the most horrible...I was wishing that kate would be bitten by dracula that would have been cool and alot of irony that would have been a highlight in the film.

Kain

THought that it was ok, but nothing special. Don't think i'll watch it again cause it's only one of those one's that are good for one view. Maybe when it's on tv in a few years i'll watch it again.

davej

Pretty bad movie, Just watched it to kill some time on a Sunday afternoon in London. The Mummy flicks were much more enjoyable and fun. Still it was better than wandering the streets for 2 hours (well maybe not...)

I didn't spot that the monk guy was David Wenham (Faramir from ROTK), I hope he doesn't get typecast as the bungling idiot sidekick in other Hollywood stuff from this...

davej

alienhead

muck

penguinbloke

I think the best review I heard of it was

"My favourite bit was when Jesus turned into the wolf"

Jackman reeked of Mel Gibson.

but the sitar music was the best bit for me, it kept reminding me of "Indiana jones and the Last Crusade".

Overall I thought it was cool but crap. Not in the good "now it's over" way but in that "yeah we know its crap but we're going to drag it out as long as possible with a sequel, possibly two, and give it its own cartoon series anyway" kinda way.

First "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" and now "Van Helsing", next we'll have "Oliver V's Jack the Ripper" with a another special guest appearance from Mr. Hyde.

Superteddy

Cut some slack,Jack.

Okay,mushy acting....tiresome plot and the clues were darn out predictable..like the piece of map missing from the door etc.....
What do u expect from a blockbuster?...who else is going to even mix the idea of Frankenstein with Dracula?....it's worth 2 hours of your life:).

Blockbusters....It must be the greatest special effects or sensual experience i have had in the cinema..and it's good to experience it now and again....
I rate it 6.5/10 for story....8.5/10 for entertainment.
Just go for entertainment.

MarcusGarvey

Originally posted by Superteddy
.it's worth 2 hours of your life:).

Tell you what, I'll take two hours of your life and you can have my "experience" of the movie for the two hours I endured it.

ArthurG

Originally posted by MarcusGarvey
Tell you what, I'll take two hours of your life and you can have my "experience" of the movie for the two hours I endured it.

Here here! Except substitute 'endured' with 'wasted'.

Superteddy

I don't think we realise at times,what goes into making a film that huge...yet we squeal over paying a few bob and having 2 hrs of our life thrown away.
A movie may be the biggest pile of ****,but if anything...any serious movie guru should go and see the lamest of films....just to contrast the varying strengths of movies today.
Yes,the movie sucked,but i was entertained to just leave my soul go for 2 hours.
I wouldn't watch it again and i would laugh at those who would buy this on dvd...as a critic....
Nevertheless,i just happened to pick one movie last Sunday,at the drop of a hat...and Van Helsing was it...
Doesn't mean every movie i must watch in the cinema must be excellent.

I have wasted far more hours of my life watching so called masterpieces on dvd in the comfort of my own home...like a clockwork orange etc...but i watch them all the same.

For those who live busy lives and don't need 2 hours of their lives wasted..YES,i firmly agree-do not go to see this movie.Even the slightest movie enthusiast should pick up on the shoddy acting and use of special effects to blanket any defaults....and we all know that's not right,when viewers only want to be treated with respect and intelligence.....
But unfort.movies nowadays for the majority of the time....are not going to be Chinatown,Schindler's List,Raging Bull,Taxi Driver,Bonnie+Clyde,12 Angry Men...the list goes on.
Everybody has to accept that.

wiped

Originally posted by Dermo
saw it yesterday morning, and I have to say it's a movie for the fans of the mummy but it doesn't live up to any of the hype it has been given.
The worst bit in the whole thing had to be:

Seeing whatshername in the clouds after she died

but to be fair it had it's little moments here and there, but just wasn't good enough

EEewwwwwww , I'd forgotten about that bit (spoiler bit up above) ... yeah that was horrendous ...

Anyway , it was a huge steaming pile of sh!te of a movie ... f.uckin woeful.

Kate beckinsale has a fantastic a.rse though ... round of appaulse please ....

I thought it was okay. My two eleven year old brothers absolutly loved it.
At the end I was hoping that Beckinsale didnt come back to life, but its guaranteed that shell be back for the inevitable sequel. She can do action but once she opens he mouth...

They should have just rereleased the original Dracula, Frankenstein and Wolfman.

What exactly were people expecting from the film?

TCamen

What exactly were people expecting from the film?

I think the general consensus is that everyone KNEW it would be dumb and brainless, but that doesn't mean it should also be soul-destroyingly terrible

I didn't expect much from 'Van Helsing', just more than what I got. As I said before, it isn't about being a movie snob, cos I love a good dumb blockbuster, as long as it entertains me, but 'Van Helsing' was dull, boring and just so damn painful that it actually pissed me off because it was THAT bad.
Dumb Blockbuster doesn't have to equal this steaming pile of excrement.

They should have just rereleased the original Dracula, Frankenstein and Wolfman

Sommers should be stopped from 're-inventing' any more horror legends. Period.

Wacker

I saw it two nights ago.

I would have loved it so much when I was fifteen.

But as I'm 22, I just wanted it to be over.

However, it wasn't so bad that it left a lasting impression of $hiteness or something. I have almost forgotten it already.
I will never forget how terrible Kiss of the Dragon was. So, Van Helsing is not that bad.

murdoc8

well i'm glad i went to see it,it had two great trailers, troy and the new vin diesel
fick,they both look class.

TCamen

I will never forget how terrible Kiss of the Dragon was. So, Van Helsing is not that bad.

Personally I'd reverse them but each to their own. I don't remember particularly liking 'Kiss of the Dragon' but it didn't make me crazy mad during it like 'Van Helsing'

I got the Harry Potter 3 trailer, the teaser(rather than full) Spider-Man 2 trailer and the new Troy one. All in all a mixed bag.
Oh, and UGC didn't stretch out the screen, cos why would they, not like people WANT to see the full screen being used :rolleyes:

lodgepole

Originally posted by TCamen
Oh, and UGC didn't stretch out the screen, cos why would they, not like people WANT to see the full screen being used :rolleyes:

Actually it wasn't stretched out because the film was shot for the 1.85:1 ratio.

ixoy

Originally posted by Lodgepole
Actually it wasn't stretched out because the film was shot for the 1.85:1 ratio.

Umm why? Is it with DVD sales in mind? God I hope this isn't some new trend...

lodgepole

Originally posted by ixoy
Umm why? Is it with DVD sales in mind? God I hope this isn't some new trend...

A massive amount of films are shot for that ratio, i'm surprised you haven't noticed the screen staying unopened before.

ixoy

Originally posted by Lodgepole
A massive amount of films are shot for that ratio, i'm surprised you haven't noticed the screen staying unopened before.

I'm surprised too, although I'm generally not in the larger screens where it's noticable. I thought 2.33:1 was thought to be ideal for viewing? Is it more expensive to film like this or is it with other mediums in mind that they choose this aspect ratio?