Rate Van Helsing

[reapersaurus]

the CGI was destracting,

I'm curious - list the movies that haven't had distracting CGI for you.

 

[Felon]

4, below average. the CGI was destracting, the solution was strained, the use of Hyde was both badly done and completely not needed.

Not needed? The Hyde sequence is the prologue that puts Van Helsing and his capabilities into context. This is the way of things with larger-than-life heroes. Remember Indiana Jones' initial brush with Belloq before he gets dragged into the search for the arc? Or how about the opening scenes from any James Bond movie? They're not relevant to the rest of the story, but they serve a purpose. First the auidence gets to see the hero in action, then you dive into plot and exposition.

 

[Avarice]

I went into this movie with fairly low expectations, and came out moderately impressed. The special effects were dazzling, the plot was fast paced and fun (if not especially deep), and of course, there were some seriously buxom vampires in there - always a plus.

That said, I found the acting of the guy who played Dracula to be pretty flat. I don't think there was a point in there where I actually found him frightening. It seems to me that a character like that should be played with a bit more subtlety, and a stronger sense of inner conflict. Of course, YMMV.

Overall, I gave it a 6. Not terrible, by any means, but nothing I'm going to be rushing out to see again.

 

[Thanee]

Yeah, there are like a thousand actors out there, that could have portrayed the count better.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Heinrich_Uberlich]

3 of the four main actors in the movie were Australian!
God bless AUSTRALIA!

 

[Thanee]

I think that must be the most evenly distributed collection of opinions about a movie I have ever seen.

Bye
Thanee

 

[spider_minion]

I also gave it a 4.

That was the loudest movie I've seen in a long time. Just when things got quiet, BOOM!, a fight would break out. That movie thrived off lame movie cliches. The plot revolved around the fact that Dracula, a werewolf, and Frankenstien's monster were all in a movie together (though I'm told its been done before, and better). There was no character development either . . . now, I'm normally the last to complain about such things, but in this movie neither the action nor the story kept me interested. It started to pick up a bit halfway through, once some unexpected things began to happen (

Spoiler

when Frank's monster joins the team and Helsing catches lycanthropy

). The fight with Mr. Hyde was really pointless, and wasn't all that great either.

Overall, it just wasn't interesting and my ears won't forgive me. They should have just boiled Van Helsing down to its core components and made it a 90 minute film.

 

[spider_minion]

And another thing . . . since when did an interesting story and CGI effects become mutually exclusive options?

Really, they're already spending million on the special effects, why not a bit on some quality writers?

 

[Taelorn76]

I watched it last night, and I thought it was a good movie (8). I went in to it not expecting much, so it was not a let down for me, if anything it was better that I thought it would be. I liked the Jeckle story because it set up who Helsing was. There were other parts that I enjoyed but I don't want to spoil it for anyone.

One part that I did not like was the end.

Spoiler

When Anna dies, I thought that was complete BS. I mean she is tossed around, falls hundreds of feet, slamed into castle walls, and much more. And Van hits her once and she dies. That was my major gripe with the movie.

 

[hong]

One part that I did not like was the end.

Spoiler

When Anna dies, I thought that was complete BS. I mean she is tossed around, falls hundreds of feet, slamed into castle walls, and much more. And Van hits her once and she dies. That was my major gripe with the movie.

Spoiler

Well, you know, that's what happens when you run out of hero points.