Cool News
More VAN HELSING Reviews!! UPDATED!!
Hi, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab...
If we get more of these as the day progresses, I’ll continue to post them. I’m curious to get a broad sampling of people’s reactions to one of the biggest-budget of this summer’s movies.
Hey Harry,
I caught a screening of Steven Sommers' Van Helsing tonight so I thought I'd weigh in with my two cents (everyone else does so what the hey). Look and it seemed to work for the folks around me.
The first part of the film is still in black & white which I thought was temp or something but I heard that it's going to stay that way....interesting choice I guess...kind of an homage to the films that inspired it? Kate Beckinsale is hot and tough and holds her own (loved her in Underworld) and the Wolfman stuff is great. Frankenstein was just okay but there is this cool effect where you can see the electricity fuckin around in his head. You've definitely never seen a Frank like this.
The VFX seemed pretty slick so it must be almost finished. The full-on demon from Hell version of Dracula is probably the coolest effect. I think I saw it already in the trailer but you get to see a lot more in the movie and there is a big scene at the end between Dracula and Wolfman that is AWESOME. Dracula's brides are great too -- sexy one minute, scary assed fanged hags the next. They had a kinda of technicolor Hammer Studios vibe. And yeah, there's also this other scene where baby vampire bats get loose and terrorize the village. It reminded me of the scene in Wizard of Oz when that green-I-seriously-need-to-get-laid bitch sends her flyin monkey army out in search of some Kansas pussy. That monkey shit scared the crap out of me as a kid and although FX have come a long way since like 1935, it did have that same get-that-flyin-rodent-shit off me feel......brrrr.
Uhhh, that's pretty much it...bring on the nasty talk back. Say whatever the fuck you want but at the end of the day this movie is going to wipe some serious B.O. ass when it hits theaters. You heard it here.
Bram StrokerThis next one comes from a long-time member of our Jedi Council, and he moved heaven and earth to make it to this screening. Was it worth the effort?
A scene in Stephen Sommers' new Van Helsing involves one of the heroes hesitating to save one of the more noble Monsters of the picture. Hero stares at villain as if to say "You're supposed to die", and Monster responds with a look that says, "But I want to live" and the Hero nods, helping the Monster to safety even when he has been ordered not to. It's effective filmmaking, and it's a shame that this *isn't* in the movie. Rather, the characters say what either actor could convincingly convey through an extreme close-up and silence. This is emblematic of the entire film's inability to understate.
Van Helsing doesn't *Know* from quiet.
A common defense of Stephen Sommers' films is that they're intended to be loud, goofy, dumb fx-porn beginning-of-summer action films, and that any kind of highfalutin' subtlety would best be left for year's end award season fodder. This is, at best, a poor assessment; It's common knowledge to generally (but not always) head to the art house theater for dense, cerebral movies. The quiet moments in this kind of film are what make it summer thrill-ride fluff or the stuff of Star Wars or Jaws--Pop Art Masterpieces.
A Patchwork of Anime Cliché, Hugh Jackman manages to overcome the distracting obstacles of god-awful costuming and paint-by-numbers art design and prove his worth as an action/adventure leading man, and this is no small feat. Kate Beckinsale remembers her lines and maintains a Boris-and-Natasha accent, and Kate Beckinsale's stunt team make her seem believably capable of slaying the undead. Beckinsale's not afraid of getting into raw, emotional territory in her work and it's strange to see her coast in roles like this. Even so one of the few complements that can be applied to Van Helsing (and both Mummy Films and Deep Rising for that matter) is that the heroines are not merely content to sit and be rescued, they're proactive, capable, and rather passionate, if second-tier to the star. It is not wild to even suggest that all of these films might have benefited from making their heroines the lead. David Wenham does what he can with the side-kick material; Sommers Staple Kevin J. O'Connor garners most of the faint laughs as a sardonic Igor. No one's really worse for wear, if not eager to return to their own respective franchises (or in Wenham's case, enjoying their completion). That the heavy roles were as fortunate. Bounding wildly from sustained character to failed menace, Richard Roxburgh joins the George Hamilton/Leslie Nielson Cinematic Dracula Dud society, although it's not that there's no good to be found there--Dracula isn't an easy thing to pull off. Here though, Mr. Roxburgh's performance believability is proportional to the bombast of the visual FX that poke out his face and back frequently. Likewise, Dracula's 3 "Brides" are shrill and over-played by model-actresses who were clearly scouted for cross-promotional Maxim spreads. Of all the film's classic monsters, the least drastic changes landed on Frankenstein's Monster, ably portrayed by Tony winner Shuler Hensley. No surprise, then, that aside from belting out Stating-The-Obvious dialog Frankenstein comes away the least tarnished.
Pushing the limits of Hollywood-Catholicism to places No one goes, with good reason, Gabriel Van Helsing, Amnesiac Outlaw/Illuminati Vatican Monster Hitman, is assigned to protect Anna, the last in a line of prophetic vampire slayers, from the machinations of Count Dracula and his undead hordes. Beyond Vampires & Werewolves, we get hobbit-sized worker-bee oompa-loompas in gas masks and swarms of terrier-sized pod-born bioelectric vampire babies which Van Helsing dispatches with a variety of neat-lookin' hardware that ultimately disappoints, while Anna & side-kick Carl tag along and provide bits of Anna's Family History and how it relates to Dracula's schemes. The film burns a lot of time building up the mysterious, Dark Past of the lead, a character that an audience isn't going to be terribly invested in in the first film, and in ending depletes the goodwill of a somewhat unconventional conclusion with awful seen-it-before settings and imagery, to say nothing of the lack of resolution to Gabriel's Dark Past.
In terms of design, the filmmakers chose to employ the concept that "different" equates to "superior", which is why revolvers look like silverware, Frankenstein walks with a steam-powered leg, Anna dresses as an SCA "babe", she-vampires flit 'round screen in pastel dresses lie fairy princesses, werewolves transform by pulling off their skin and can't close their mouths for the sake of their jagged teeth. Actors look uncomfortable, Monsters look silly, weapons lack any sort of Oomph, etc. The character-CG work leaves a lot to be desired as well, which is especially problematic given the volume of visual FX in the film. Genre films can glide on having one but not the other, but failing on both an artistic and technical level will capsize films like this.
It is impossible to deny that video-games have become as influential on cinema as a particular artistic movement or musical genre. Behind the wire-fu and anime biting of the beleaguered Matrix films is a loving tribute to both the sensibilities of games such as Metal Gear Solid or Half-Life and the people who play themthough no doubt inspired by financial concerns, the lower-budget Underworld's final werewolf-vampire hybrid was created with body-paint, fake fangs, and a committed performance, and it trumps anything to see in Van Helsing.
Many flaws aside, the director's work has it's share of fans to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, and it's not as though these films have created a deluge of copycatsbut it is irksome to think that this is what passes for mainstream sensibilities. Really, Really, these films don't have to be so dumb. Fantastic visions like Lord Of The Rings, the X-Men Films and last week's Hellboy can stand up to critical scrutiny and still showcase hard-core action/FX Porn. There are no longer any decent excuses for saccharine carnival rides like Van Helsing.
--Jed[The Hutt]Anybody else want to pipe up?
"Moriarty" out.
-
+ Expand All
-
Good FX, but what about the movie?
Did you actually enjoy it or were you silently sitting choking on your own bile from the live afterbith of a lesbian cluster f*ck that it is? -
Is anybody really psyched to see this movie? It looks like it's going to suffer from full on Batman & Robin Syndrome with as many villains they have in it. Plus, a CGI Wolfman? Those look terrible! Why not hire Rick Baker? This has "Wretched dog fuck" written all over it.
-
cuz this guy is either a plant or an idiot.
-
Some of the reviews, and scenes in the trailers, make it seem like Van Helsing turns into a werewolf. If that happens, and he and Dracula go at it, then I'd be excited. (That's what I was expecting in UNDERWORKD.)
-
Apr 09, 2004 10:22:19 AM CDT
Is he an imbecile that should be exterminated, or a plant trying
by salvatoregravano
I'm not sure, but that sickeningly moronic reference to Judy and Meg in "Wizard..." makes him sound like either of those choices.
-
Is there ever any doubt after the first paragraph anymore? This movie is going to eat some serious shit, just like the Mummy cartoons (oh, movies...).
-
Apr 09, 2004 10:43:25 AM CDT
"It reminded me of the scene in Wizard of Oz when that green-I-s
by minderbinder
-
This movie is just another example of people with good ideas and then people just wanting it to get bigger and bigger until it sucks balls
-
'nuff said.
-
Apr 09, 2004 11:35:33 AM CDT
As a lover of serious flicks and mindless fun like "The Mummy"
by lost skeleton
I'll see it...why not...it is what summer is for...I'm not expecting "Citizen Kane" or anything.
"2" 6/30/04 -
This is obviously a plant. Whenever a review starts with an explanation of why they are the type of person who wouldn't like this kind of film but then goes on to gush about...well, bring out the WEEDKILLER CAUSE WE GOT A PLANT PEOPLE!
-
Bram Stroker, nice nick, hehehe...
-
should be in all vampire movies...man she looks good when she's a badass. And I agree that the guy who wrote this "plantreview" is trying way too hard with the Wizard of Oz line. I can picture some studio PR flunky being given a carte blanche to plaster talkbacks with idiotic statements.
-
This movie looks like a good time and that is really all I ask for from a Summer movie. Also I just need to understand something, if someone likes a movie they are a plant, if they don't like it they're alright? I just need an explanation from the plant people.
-
this review sounds totally insincere...the line about the "people around him" enjoying it was a big giveaway, as well as lot so fother stuff. How would he know if people sitting a row in front of him was enjoying the film? Were they applauding every few minutes?? lololol...fucking bullshit. This guy should get fired by the studio for doing his job poorly and not fooling anyone.
-
This movie sucks.
-
Could someone please tell me what SCA stands for? Sodomy, Cunnilingus, Ass-fondling? Sexy but Cretinous Alien? Somnolent Cud-chewing A-hole?
-
This Dracula should have been more Lugosi than Oldman. The vampires should have been more old-school Universal/Hammer vampires than modern CGI vampires where their faces morph and every tooth is a 5 inch fang. The Wolfman's alias should have been Lawrence Talbot and he should have had the CGI to a minimum. If they wanted to go CGI, they should have had it more animatronic like the Howling instead of American Werewolf in Paris. Frankenstein ... welll ... he's passable ... but I would have dearly loved it if he was more Karloff than Dave Prowse. I think this movie was a massively wasted opportunity to reboot the Universal Classic Monsters. Thanks a lot Stephen Sommers.
-
Stop using acronyms that only a few people know about.
-
I have nothing to say.
-
I have nothing to say.
-
I end up saying it twice. My bad. (see how I use the language of the young people? I bet I could write a plant review as good as ol' B.S. here)
-
Just saw Hellboy and was not really impressed. Lines that were supposed to be funny fell flat. Serious scenes also weren't realized on screen. It's almost as if del Toro couldn't decide if the movie was going to be campy/fun or serious/kick ass. I wish it would have gone either way. As it is, it is a bizarre mix of cool serious stuff and over-the-top-trying-to-be-funny-but-not-succeeding stuff. The casting of the male lead (not Hellboy, obviously, but the agent dude) was pretty bad. I didn't like him. Parker Posey was meaningless -- could have been anyone. By that I mean that Parker for once brought NOTHING to the role. Pick some babe up at the mall, cast her in the role, and she would have done just as well. Del Toro's Blade II was far superior to this movie. It's just an average comic book movie, in the same league as Spawn, Daredevil and Blade I. Sorry, Guillermo, I thought you could pull off a kickass film, but what you've done is make just another bland comic book film.
-
Parker Posey was in HELLBOY? Did I miss something?!
-
...just doesn't seem like a real movie director to me. Compared to Jackson and Raimi and Singer and even QT in his "Kill Bill" genre mode, Sommers just seems like a CGI-crutch-using B-movie TV guy who got lucky once ("The Mummy") and has been promoted way past his station. He writes for shit, too. Auteur/schmauteur.
-
Wasn't Van Helsing's first name Abraham? I only read the book once about 15 years ago.. but wasn't it Dr. Abraham Van Helsing? I could be wrong... I am pretty sure though, somebody let me know.. Cheers.
-
... so i can start a band and call in amnesiac outlaw illuminati vatican monster hitman.
-
That this film will be good
-
Are you kidding? Hellboy and The X-Men films being held up to critical scrutiny? Come on! There's more to making a film than just getting the look and feel of a comic panel down (as Harry will soon find out I think). Isn't that the big plus of Hellboy that it's "just like the comic?" It's time for all of us to look at films for what they are: the director's vision. If the director is trying to make a film from a literary classic (Jackson), then hold them to that standard. If the are trying to make a film that is just fun for funs sake, then judge them on that. The last few films Sommers has made, he has tried to do just that: make a film that is fun for fun's sake. When you look at his "Huck Finn," you see that he's not just trying to make just a "fun" movie. This is why Ebert is such a good critic. He judges the film on it's own merits and was it successful at in accomplishing what it set out to do. That's why Ebert gave Hellboy such a good review. That is also why he gives that Star Trek films good reviews including Nemesis. He judged it as a Star Trek film and nothing more. Steve Sommers is a great director for the kind of films he wants to make. Each one of these reviews have talk about how Van Helsing has non-stop action and is loud. Since he's last three movies have been like that, I guess that's the kind of movie he wants to make. And clearly, people like the kind of movie he makes. Seriously, if you think a Van Helsing film sould have really deep emotional moments when the actors on screen communicate their emotions and motivations with their eyes, write that script and get it made. Hopefully if you do it well enough, you will be just as successful as Sommers.
-
judging a film by the director`s vision?? well you`re partly right. one can say that van helsing is some kind of popcorn entertainment cinema. but you cannot legitimate a films weaknesess by just saying: "the director didn`t WANT to achieve more. he just wanted to give us that dull performance and setting." there`s an actuak difference between films like THE MUMMY RETURN and INDIANA JONES. but won`t both directors entertain the shit out of the audience?? the reality is infact that some (like spielberg) do it with more talent, more profoundness, more creativity, more "eloquence"...
-
We knew all along that this movie would suck, so what's the point of posting reviews? Apart from making them a plant, obviously. This flick should be buried somewhere deep and dark, and noone should ever talk about it again. Oh. and one more thing: The Mummy movies sucked ass, and anyone who thinks different should do like Kurt Cobain (R.I.P.)
-
Just like Indy and The Temple Of Doom, you judge the director if they were effective in the creation of their film. The Temple of Doom is a mess because Speilberg never commited to creating a dark film. As the documentary in the DVD release of the Indy films points out, Doom was made from left over "gags" for the first script of Raiders. Speilberg and Lucas had no vision of the film other than they wanted it to be a little darker. That is how you judge a film on the merits of the filmmaker's vision. Speilberg made a tepid "dark movie." It didn't work. Now if Van Helsing is trying to be some sort of Goth-Dark-Thing, then we'll get to judge it by that standard. From the sounds of it ( based on the two review and the one plant) Sommers is just trying to make he idea of entertainment: fun action. If you think the action is done poorly, then judge by that. Don't judge it because "he didn't make the movie that I think is cool." That's why I say, if you want Van Helsing and the Werewolf expressing their emotions and motivation with their eyes in silence, then write that script and get it made. Hopefully, it will be a good emotion-through-the-eyes-done-in-silence movie and people will enjoy it.
-
What? Go and make platinum cds that are critical successes that change the face of popular music and define the rage of a new generation?
-
Here's the thing, I think it's those quiet moments that, if done properly invest an audience in a character's fate, so that when the characters are in peril and action, the threat of death or injury to them *means* something. Sommers films aren't trying to be different enough from Jaws or Star Wars or Raiders not to have to adhere to that, and i don't think history will be very kind to them as a result. There's no Minneapolis story, there's no looking at the twin suns of Tatooine, there's no intimacy--the closest Van Helsing gets is when he puts his hat on Kate Beckinsale seemingly to determine if it looks as dumb on her as it does on him. wasn't saying Hellboy was perfect--in fact, in extrapolating the subtext of the comic to make context in the film, they lost a lot of HB's freewheeling shake-it-off mentality, but the movie still works.
-
Maybe, but it's still what you want the film to be, not the film that Sommers is making. When you see one of his films, you know that you are not really going to get a scene with characters sitting around a table telling backround stories about themselves and crushing strafom cups. With Sommers you are going to get characters that show their worth through the actions that they take. It still comes down to the best way to give a critique for a film: complain that they didn't make the film the way you wanted or were they successful in making the film the tried to make. I'm afraid most of us on AICN chose the first way and thus come off as a know-it-all that has-done-nothing-except-bitch.
-
Am I the only one who liked "The Temple of Doom"?
-
Apr 11, 2004 4:23:37 PM CDT
.infact..i like temple of doom...(maybe because of the german ve
by drjones
well...you can discuss about it how you want...but beside the fact that TOD was based upon some left over gags from RAIDERS it had some other vision to it. including the leading character -just as an example- or adventure....and humor. "DARK" was just an attribute....an addition. you`re indeed right. if sommers wants to do fun action....and thinks he has done some FUN ACTION with this "piece" (i haven`t seen VAN HELSING and have no idea if i`m maybe still gonna like it-i`m an optimistic person;) so let it be his completed vision. but what if his vision is just way too low...way too boring...just brings not enough satisfaction. do i still have to like it because it is his vision??????? oh jesus..i don`t think so. i mean with this VISION aspect....you`re really making a point: a point that has IMO much to do with the respect for an artist. but this is just ONE aspect of how to judge a film i think and it
-
Everyone is entitled to his opinion, but TEMPLE OF DOOM was not a successful film, regardless of its origin. I don't care whether it was a pastiche of left-out gags from RAIDERS or a finely tuned script in its own right. It completely missed the fun and humorous sensibility of the first film and substituted sadism and mean spiritedness. It's amazing they didn't torture and kill the kid. Indy was also humorless and savage. Why they were looking for a darker tone is beyond me. The filmmakers got back on track with the third film, although it had nothing on the first.
-
But even with a bad review, most people will try hard to like this one...
-
If a person writes: "Frankenstein was just okay but there is this cool effect where you can see the electricity fuckin around in his head. You've definitely never seen a Frank like this. " you know to stop reading as it's an illiterate's review. Frankenstein was a DOCTOR. He MADE the monster. The monster was huge, fast, strong and super intelligent. If anyone made a real monster movie with Frankenstein's MONSTER, then we'd get something that could f-up any hero as it would best him intellectually and physically.
-
Society for Creative Adultery
-
You are correct, sir. It was Abraham Van Helsing. He was Bram (Abraham) Stoker's surrogate self in his own story.
Maybe "Gabriel" Van Helsing will remember his real name once he gets his fullmemeory back. Maybe I am giving them way to much credit in story telling.
I haven't seent the film yet, but since Mina Harker and company will meet up with Dracula in the events of the novel, it makes sense that Dracula survives the encounter. But once again I may be be overestimating the creators intellegence.
Did you know that in the original Stoker book, Dracula survives and tricked Van Helsing into thinking he won? The clues are hidden in there, you just have to put them together. -
Thanks for answering my question. Its been bugging the tits off of me for the last few days. I thought it was Abraham, and not Gabriel. I didn't realise that the book made out that Drcaula survived though.. but then again it was 15-16 years ago last time I read it and I wasn't the most cluey 10 year old ever to read it anyway. I may pick it up again and maybe i'll pick up on subtlties... If you are right, then I can stop asking myself the reason why I didn't like the ending of Coppola's Dracula version..
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 439 total posts 159 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 144 total posts 142 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 155 total posts 140 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 55 total posts 45 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 196 total posts 45 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 35 total posts 35 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 34 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 127 total posts 32 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 513 total posts 29 posts
- The Sensorties Revisit The Friday Docback (And Still Smell)!! DOCTOR WHO Story #7 Again, The Coming Of Season/Series 7, And More!! -- 118 total posts 27 posts