Van Helsing

Grom

Just a totally abysmal film.

lodgepole

Originally posted by ixoy
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?

I assume the fact that 16:9 was chosen as a standard for widescreen televisions has affected how some films are shot, given how important DVD sales are to films. The expense doesn't come into it, shooting in different ratios requires the same processes.

Artistically, the wider screen doesn't always suit a film. Jackie Brown is an example of a film that was shot in 1.85:1 because the director felt it suited the content.

Karl Hungus

Originally posted by ArthurG
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.

I never said anything about the concept of the Summer Blockbuster being fundementally flawed, but my point was more along the lines of a 'Stephen Sommers, what do you expect' arguement. And holding a comparison with the X-Men films is an extremely pointless one, especially seeing as they were headed by a director who's actually competent. Lets not forget that Brian Singer has previously directed The Usual Suspects, whereas Sommers has churned out some pretty stupid, but fun CGI action fests.

So by that, I'm shocked that people were so appalled by the various scenes of downright stupidity, like the horses jumping the ravine. Personally, I pissed my hole laughing at it! Much in the same way that I pissed my hole laughing when Sommers thought it would be a good idea to have a scene with a jet-ski dashing about on a flooded ocean liner in Deep Rising.

Trip Hazard

People say im an optimist when it comes to films, it may be half true, cos i do like some films that people think are bad(resident evil is one, oh yeah who's with me), but i didnt enjoy Van Helsing at all. I wasnt a huge fan of the old Dracula films but i knew who Van Helsing was, Im not a huge fan of Stephen Sommers either, it was Hugh Jackman that made me go to see it.

Anyway back to the badness(i know thats not a word) of it.

it was lacking good story
the CG was may too much(and i love the Matrix)
the action was no more than mediocre

Im gald i saw it in the cimema because now i wont be curious to buy or rent it when it come out on DVD.
Oh yeah by the way the Film did have one good aspect to it and that was the soundtrack.

and wasn't the Redheaded Bride of Dracula a Hottie OOOH YEAH!!!!

Edgedogg

What did everyone think of Van Helsing. I thought it was ok but a bit of a let down considering the hype the film got

koneko

For your reading enjoyment
Not sure what you meant by hype though, I've heard nothing but bad things (don't think I'll bother going to see it).

Btw do you not think your sig is a bit big/long?

Draco

Ack, enjoyable enough, but not really worth going to see in the cinema. Should have waited for the DVD.
Kate was yummy though.

Cactus Col

It was great!

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Cactus Col
It was great!

Well, I'm glad that's settled.

Draco: you can close this thread now.

ps:

Cactus Col

Cheers!

spooky donkey

I went in not expecting a whole lot and really enjoyed it. It was full of action from start to finish. Granted that took away from the story element, but if you want a story read a good book. I think it was a change to see a such a pacy film like this. OK the cgi could have been better as well he went for quantity rather quality and Dragula looked like some 80`s rock star!

ArthurG

Originally posted by spooky donkey
Granted that took away from the story element, but if you want a story read a good book.

I despair - is it too much to hope that this is sarcasm?.

tman

i ended up going into the wrong screen last night and catching the end of the film before the start:rolleyes:
still damned enjoyable.
leave your brain at the door popcorn munching fun... i expected nothing more

and i ****ing loved the cgi on the wolfman

Fence

When I first heard about Van Helsing I was actually looking forward to it. Then I saw the trailers and I thought oh dear, LXG to the extreme.

Still I went to see it, I mean I suffered through Kate and Leopold for Hugh, I can watch a blockbuster no proble,. And if it entertaining like the Mummy (not The Mummy returns) then I might even enjoy it.

Okay complete pants, but I was pleasantly surprised. It was better than LXG. Or maybe I just enjoyed watching Hugh, who was plainly not even trying. And the wolfman looked pretty cool.

But as for plot, characters and dialogue, well lets just say not very good. So crap film, but if you go expecting it to be total and utter boring rubbish then you'll come out slightly happy (although really why didn't you go see The Station Agent or Eternal Sunshine... or even Troy if you were looking for a decent film)

I did think that the baby vampire things were cute, in an evil blood-sucking way, but cute.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Fence
But as for plot, characters and dialogue, well lets just say not very good. So crap film, but if you go expecting it to be total and utter boring rubbish then you'll come out slightly happy (although really why didn't you go see The Station Agent or Eternal Sunshine... or even Troy if you were looking for a decent film)

I'm getting increasinly frustrated with this excuse. It's thrown about whenever another stinker comes along with very little substance beyond the spectacle of its pyrotechnical hoop-la.

As you said yourself, the film had potential -- it's a wonderful premise for a film, with some of the best-known characters in film history -- so it's not too absurd for people to assume they would get at least a "decent film". I think people have the right to be slightly indignant about this without others automatically reaching for the "snob" card.

Fence

I'm getting increasinly frustrated with this excuse. It's thrown about whenever another stinker comes along with very little substance beyond the spectacle of its pyrotechnical hoop-la ... so it's not too absurd for people to assume they would get at least a "decent film"

I was making the point that having seen the trailers I had changed my mind, and knew it would be a pile of tosh. And no it isn't absurd, until you look at the names and the history behind them eg Sommers? Come on the man who brought us The Mummy Returns and the Scorpion King? Were you really expecting a decent film?

And I don't think that I was reaching for the snob card, was I? If so I'm sorry

I just meant that there are different types of film, and we shouldn't expect some types to live up to our expectations of others. I mean The Fast and the Furious was complete tripe, but still really entertaining, yet after watching xXx (Vin Diesel fan), and other Rob Cohen films I knew that there was no way I could watch the sequal to The Fast and The Furious so I didn't go.

(I'm not sure if I'm making sense here, been up since 5 trying to persuade myself to study, exam at 9 and nothing done yet)
Basically I mean that having seen the trailers for VH I knew it was going to be rubbish, I still went because I'm an optimist and my extremely low expectations were met, so I was happy. If I hadn't seen the trailers I would have been expecting a decent film, and so been very disapointed.

NeoSlicerZ

the only really good thing was seeing Beckinsale in a corset.... mmm

projectmayhem

Originally posted by NeoSlicerZ
the only really good thing was seeing Beckinsale in a corset.... mmm

indeed

the story was ****e, the action has all been done before, and as far as staying true to the comics.. it didn't even try.