|
|
Post by Bartwald on May 11, 2004 9:51:57 GMT -5
I know we have a separate thread on Van Helsing in All Things Horror section. But this is different.
I'd like us to give straight opinions on controversial movies - in this thread for starters and in more of them in future. Shortly explaining what's good and what's bad, and what's the effect of those two combined as expressed in the star system.
I noticed me and frankenjohn are the only dudes here who were so far attempting at the defence of Van Helsing. Here's why I'm doing this:
GOOD THINGS:
- soundtrack
- acting
- premise
- first hour of CGI
SHITE THINGS:
- second hours of CGI
- physics and probability don't exist here
- the kitsch ending
I like this one enough to give it *** - oh, yeah.
|
|
|
|
Post by ZapRowsdower on May 11, 2004 16:01:25 GMT -5
GOOD THINGS:
-Soundtrack.
-Premise.
-Scenery; the ones that looked real.
-Costumes.
SHAKY THINGS:
-Acting; inconsistency with overracting.
FORGIVABLE THINGS:
-Brides of Dracula; their overracting. I see where Sommers was going with that.
BAD THINGS:
-Kate Beckinsale's Accent.
-Execution of the premise. (Screenwriting, Direction)
-CGI and the overuse of.
-Scenery, the ones that DIDN'T look real.
-MST3K-worthiness of the final battle, and several other scenes in the movie.
-A terrible ending that rivals From Justin to Kelly.
-"Van helsing, YOU MUDAWAH!"
-Advancements we have made in CGI only amounted to the hairy buttcrack of a poorly-rendered Mr. Hyde.
-More falls than a Looney Tunes cartoon.
-Incessant swinging on ropes.
|
|
Father Red
New Member
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
Posts: 18
|
Post by Father Red on May 13, 2004 12:34:09 GMT -5
Slick thread idea. I'll have to steal this one.
Good Things
- Frankenstein's Monster was both a protagonist and had feelings
- the vampire brides were kind interesting creatures
- there was some decent Hammeresque sets and costuming
- the premise of the Monster and Wolf Man being (in a way) related to Dracula
Bad Things
- Helsing's odd history that didn't make a lick of sense
- the Wolf Man not being Larry Talbot
- the Wolf Man not being overly concerned about his predicament when in wolf form (Talbot was as evident towards the end of Frankenstein meets the Wolf Man)
- the total lack of believable physics
- and I gotta agree on the too much swinging complaint
As a side note, I kinda dug the ending, or at least the howl turning into a scream part.
Overall, ***
|
|
|
|
Post by Bartwald on May 13, 2004 12:59:23 GMT -5
Slick thread idea. I'll have to steal this one. You're very welcome, Father Red! Good to see we're agreeing on the value of Van Helsing! There's a third person who also voted ***, but I guess we'll never find out who that was - it happened too many times before. Or was it frankenjohn? |
|
|
|
Post by frankenjohn on May 14, 2004 15:45:11 GMT -5
That's me! (my vote, of course)
|
|
mightyalgo
Junior Member
What if the hokey cokey really is what it's all about?
Posts: 85
|
Post by mightyalgo on May 15, 2004 6:03:54 GMT -5
Good things:
Really funny (I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt that this was intentional)
Cool repeating crossbows(!)
The first ten minutes especially. (Whhhhhhhhyyyyyyyyyy!!)
A gloriously different turn from Faramir as the monk, sorry, friar.
The freaky credit effects at the end.
A cool way to trn into a werewolf by tearing off your skin
Bad things (that make it good)
A plot written by someone who loves horror movies but is rubbish at writing plots.
An immortal van helsing.
Gabriel, not Abraham (is this anti semitism?)
Kate Beckinsale
The chase thru the woods, where the coach catches on fire for no reason.
The hilarious accents (Jackman's Australian is particularly good) that are no worse than Hammer Horror, really.
The way genitals disappear.
Bad things (that are just bad)
Igor's make up.
The wasting of the werewolf.
The pointless love angle, that only crops up for two seconds. This is so common and rubbish in these blockbusters I think they must be contracturally obliged to put it in one.
Whhhhhhyyyyyyyyy!?!
No explanation at all of the life giving machine (has Dracula not watched Bond movies? we need this shit!)
etc. etc.
loved the movie though.
Algo
|
|
|
|
Post by Bartwald on May 15, 2004 14:13:27 GMT -5
Bad things (that make it good) A plot written by someone who loves horror movies but is rubbish at writing plots. Ahh, that's a good one, mightyalgo! ;D It's also nice to see you noticed the cool credits at the end - I really wish they put them at the beginning, just after the black and white intro! |
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Jun 21, 2004 15:55:34 GMT -5
Saw this one last week and it was just as I feared. I rated it "POOR".
The Bad:
Ooh, where to start?
Igor looked more like Riff Raff from THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW. Lame character.
Since when is Mr. Hyde a cigar smoking gorilla? He reminded me of The Thing from the Fantastic Four.
Beckinsale's costume and hairstyle were not "period" at all. She would've been at home in a modern day Goth band.
Her accent was "cartoonish".
Nice flips and martial arts moves. What time period is this again?
The sidekick/comedy relief Friar was lame and not funny. His role as Helsing's Q, supplying him with all these slick and way too modern weapons, was weak.
Didn't care about the Wolfman character.
Everybody in this movie seemed to have the ability to fly. Including the horses. Did you see those horses jump?? With a carriage, no less. What the hell was that all about?
The already mentioned, characters always having something handy to swing away with. Downright silly and preposterous. There are no laws of physics in this movie. I never felt like any of the heroes were ever in any real danger. "We'll just grab a rope and fly away!".
Even that cow survived being thrown through a building!
Dracula's Brides were way over the top. The actor playing Dracula was horrible. Even more over the top than the Brides.
The Good:
The Black & White opening that paid homage to the classic Universal movies. Nicely done. Too bad about the rest of the movie.
Beckinsale was hot. Nice tight pants.
Dracula's Brides were hot. What a waste.
Nice take on Frankenstein's monster. Personality & makeup wise.
Jackman was okay as Van Helsing, but the character was way too underwritten. All the characters were underwritten!
The werewolf transformation was pretty cool.
The CGI for the Wolfman was pretty good, but some of the other CGI looked too "video gameish". Is that a word? Especially when characters are defying gravity.
The concept was neat, but the execution was terrible. I would've liked to have seen Jackman's Van Helsing and the Frankenstein monster in a much better movie.
Sommers should never be allowed to touch another classic monster character again.
This whole movie would've made a pretty cool animated cartoon or video game, but as a live action film, no thanks.
Go rent the Japanese Anime feature, VAMPIRE HUNTER D instead. They obviously lifted Van Helsing's look from this animated movie anyway.
A major disappointment.
|
|
|
|
Post by LivingDeadGirl on Jun 21, 2004 17:15:58 GMT -5
'Vampire Hunter D' is excellent! It's about the only anime' I've ever watched besides the 'Spawn' animated series awhile back, which I really enjoyed too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bartwald on Jun 22, 2004 12:44:09 GMT -5
Thanks for such a detailed explanation, Heineken. I agree - I "would've liked to have seen Jackman's Van Helsing and the Frankenstein monster in a much better movie", too. But I still can't stop liking this one here.
|
|
