Rate Van Helsing

[barsoomcore]

Kai: Can you explain what qualities of this film were superior to The Mummy? I'm curious because it seems clear to me that The Mummy is better in every conceivable regard -- performances, script, direction, pacing, cinematography...

There were more complicated effects shots in Van Helsing, I'll say that. And Kate's costume was tighter than Rachel Weisz'. But otherwise I think the latter movie suffers significantly by comparision.

 

[theburningman]

Kai: Can you explain what qualities of this film were superior to The Mummy? I'm curious because it seems clear to me that The Mummy is better in every conceivable regard -- performances, script, direction, pacing, cinematography...

Thank you.

 

[reapersaurus]

The climactic battle was awful (compare with the final fight in The Mummy Returns) -- if that had delivered I'd've upped my rating by a couple of points I'm sure, but it was just watching a couple of cartoon characters move around on the screen. Lame.

(cracks knuckles, waits for reaper to launch his attack)

umm... didn't the Mummy Returns have one of the most laughed-at "cartoon characters" of all time involved in the final fight? (the Scorpion-man)

P.S. you make the attacks too easy.

 

[Dark Jezter]

I gave the movie a 7 out of 10. Lots of fun, lots of action, good comic relief, and a hot leading lady. Van Helsing is a great way to kick off the summer movie season.

 

[Hypersmurf]

(cracks knuckles, waits for reaper to launch his attack)

P.S. you make the attacks too easy.

Children...

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[barsoomcore]

umm... didn't the Mummy Returns have one of the most laughed-at "cartoon characters" of all time involved in the final fight? (the Scorpion-man)

Oh, yeah, the Scorpion King looked totally stupid, no question. But it was a GREAT fight scene. My point is that even with such a poorly-animated character, the climactic fight in The Mummy Returns is STILL better than the one in Van Helsing. It's got thrills and gasps and tension and jaw-droppiness that the Van Helsing fight completely lacks.

I only make them easy for you, reap, because I want you to feel good about yourself.

 

[Kai Lord]

Kai: Can you explain what qualities of this film were superior to The Mummy?

I'm not going to list them all because there's too many, but suffice it to say that the action, characters, stunts, visual effects, plot, and style of Van Helsing were all much better than The Mummy. If I watched them back to back (and I won't, I saw The Mummy once in the theaters five years ago and bits and pieces later on TNT), then I imagine little things for an action spectacle like acting and script would come out in Van Helsing's favor as well.

You don't judge a popcorn action spectacle by how often the lead actress nails a foreign accent or how deeply the hero manifests the inner subtext of childhood scars the viewer will never know or care about, you judge them by how fun they are.

Sure its nice when every element of filmmaking and storytelling is brought together into an almost perfection manifestation of the art form, because when that happens you get Raiders of the Lost Ark. So neither Van Helsing nor The Mummy was Raiders. Okay, fair enough, not every adventure film will be.

But were they fun? Van Helsing, hell yeah. Jackman is charismatic, Beckinsale is beautiful and coy, Wolfmen, Dracula, Frankenstein, super crossbows and Transylvania are just freaking cool. And the presentation of those elements was engaging and proficient enough to keep it immensely entertaining.

Werewolves are cooler than mummies. Dracula is cooler than mummies. Frankenstein is cooler than mummies. Combining werewolves, Dracula, and Frankenstein is cooler than combing a mummy, badly rendered beetles, and a sandstorm.

Combine the much weaker elements of The Mummy with a freaking Jar Jar Binks character and you get one lame ass adventure film. Face it, the effects *sucked* in the Mummy, the characters were totally unengaging, and when boring characters are chased by really, really bad CGI, you don't get very thrilling action sequences.

And when those elements are lacking, what's the point of even sitting through it? The "performances, script, and direction"? Who cares? If I want to watch amazing performances there are hundreds of finely acted films that *don't* have legions of crappy looking beetles and the Deuce Bigalow guy running around saying, "It is written...it is written..."

But if I want to watch a cool hero and a sexy heroine fighting classic monsters that are often times very convincingly rendered in a wall to wall action extravaganza, well then I'm going to choose a movie that actually has a cool hero, a sexy heroine, and sweet looking classic monsters and fight scenes. Van Helsing has all the above, and The Mummy has Rachel Weisz. No contest.

 

[Dimwhit]

Well said, Kai Lord. I agree. Though I think I have a higher opinion of The Mummy.

I just came back to this thread to check out the voting. I'm not sure I've seen a movie vote like this one. All over the place! This movie seems to cover the entire range for people, and fairly evenly.

Pretty interesting.

 

[Mistwell]

Box Office Report

Here is some box office analysis for the opening weekend.

For what it's worth, I thought this was poorly done failed attempt to develop far too many characters while keeping the pacing fast, and far worse than The Mummy and The Mummy Returns (and Attack of the Clones). However, the box office disagrees with me, while the critics agree (who combined give it a C I believe).

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/articles/news/?id=040509bo.htm

'Van Helsing' Stakes Out Solid Summer Start
by Brandon Gray
May 10, 2004

HOLLYWOOD (Box Office Mojo) – Van Helsing slayed not only vampires but vitriolic buzz to deliver a promising start to the summer movie season.

The $160 million tent pole starring Hugh Jackman drew $51.7 million -- $2.5 million less than distributor Universal estimate on Sunday -- from 3,575 theaters and over 6,000 prints, the most Universal has ever released. The opening lands between The Mummy's $43.4 million (also a May 7 bow) and The Mummy Returns' $68.1 million, Universal's other horror icon revivals directed by Stephen Sommers. Not only that, it launched in 41 territories overseas, adding an $55.2 million to the coffers to bring its global weekend to $106.9 million.

As far as summer kick-offs go, Van Helsing is the biggest non-sequel, non-comic book one ever, topping The Mummy in raw numbers -- a stretch and a mouthful of a record to be sure but still important for context. (However, if one adjusts for ticket price inflation, The Mummy would be about the same.) It was nowhere near Spider-Man ($114.8 million) and X2: X-Men United ($85.6 million), heights it could not have realistically achieved without the enormous built-in fanbases they had.

According to studio research, the audience skewed 58% male and reached a broad age range with 54% of patrons age 25 and older. Parents made up 20% of all moviegoers, and those under the age of 16 liked the picture the most as over 90% of them rated it "excellent" or "very good." Overall Van Helsing's demos and scores were similar to The Mummy, while people's main reason to see it, "action and special effects," was identical.

"It looked like a rollercoaster ride, which is what it is," Universal's head of distribution Nikki Rocco told Box Office Mojo, also citing the trailer, the ads and Sommers' ability to craft crowd pleasers as also part of the allure.

Universal is one of the top studios at marketing. While the Van Helsing campaign perhaps isn't the best example of this, it nonetheless was relentless (like Sommers' use of CGI) and hit the right notes for an intended blockbuster. Just as with The Mummy movies, "Adventure"* was the operative word here, not "Horror." Jackman's quips and the musical cues contributed to a swashbuckling tone in the trailer despite the dark setting -- summer openers have tended to be colorful or brightly lit.

Breaking the weekend down, Van Helsing pulled in $19.5 million on Friday and inched up 0.6% on Saturday to $19.6 million. "When you open to $19.5 million on Friday, you just hope you're at least flat on Saturday," Rocco noted. Universal had projected a 25% Sunday dip to $14.9 million, but it wound up falling 35.9% to $12.6 million.

Rocco expects a 50% drop next weekend simply because that's the industry norm nowadays. "If we drop less, we'll be celebrating," she said. "But we're celebrating anyway. Whatever happens next week, we did over $100 million in three days globally."

Because of its position as the first big summer movie, its enormous budget in a season rife with them, its marketing blitz and the many spin-offs dependent on its success (including a TV series on NBC), Van Helsing naturally was under intense scrutiny by the media and Hollywood. Judging by the buzz and most reviews, they had their skewers ready for the public roast if Van Helsing wasn't a monster smash. Its opening weekend should fend them off for now and suggests the picture's final gross should end up between $130 million and $150 million. Astronomical budgets for these kinds of movies aren't as risky as they once were, given the rise of DVD and the potency of overseas box office among other streams of revenue.

"The fact is we're very responsible with our budgets," Rocco explained, reiterating the importance of ancillary markets where such investments pay off big time. "It's not just the domestic box office for a movie like this."

Before the weekend, Universal counteracted the bad press by stressing that Van Helsing was not a sequel and not based on a comic book and therefore more challenging to sell to the public than other tent poles. But all non-sequel, non-comic book movies face that problem, and Van Helsing is by no means an original. It's very much a franchise (Dracula, Frankenstein, even Sommers' Mummy connection) and has the feel of familiarity. Van Helsing himself can hardly be called an obscure character, especially to anyone who has seen a Dracula movie.

Looking ahead to Universal's June releases, Rocco says she'll try to get as many theaters as she can for June 11's Vin Diesel vehicle The Chronicles of Riddick -- over 3,000 -- but don't expect something as wide as Van Helsing given the much greater competition for screens the heat of summer brings. Director Jean-Jacques Annaud's tiger movie Two Brothers will be a "normal wide release" on June 25.

* Van Helsing's taglines are "Adventure Lives Forever" and "Adventure Has a New Name." The Mummy Returns had "Adventure is Reborn" and was called "adventure that will never die." The Mummy was dubbed an "adventure beyond life and time."

 

[barsoomcore]

The action, characters, stunts, visual effects, plot, and style of Van Helsing were all much better than The Mummy.

No they don't.

How's that for a comeback?

Okay, point by point.

Action: The Mummy -- I prefer watching real people do cool things than animated characters do anything. The final swordfight between Rick and the mummies is one of the classic fight scenes of all time. It's original, funny, graceful, believable and thrilling. The first couple of fights in VH were GREAT (Hyde and the fight in the village) but after that it just got incoherent, loud and tedious. And the final fight between Dracula and VH was just lame. There's no excuse for that.

Characters: The Mummy -- what's important in an action movie are characters whose motivations are clear and who pursue their goals with vigour and determination. In The Mummy, Evelyn wants to learn the secrets of Hamunaptra and Rick wants money (and Evelyn). They then proceed very straighforwardly to go after those things. What exactly does VH want? To kill Dracula? Why? The only reason he's going after Dracula is because he's TOLD to -- and early on in the film it's suggested that he's not super-happy with just sort of killing people because he's told to. So what does he WANT? To find out the secret of his past? Well, maybe, but he never does anything to find out, so I'm not watching him do that so who cares? He can't manifest vigour and determination because he has no goal, so I'm not very interested in him as a person, so I don't much care about anything else in the film.

Stunts: a wash. Neither film features a stunt that is demonstratably better than any stunt in the other. The Mummy has a whole slew of great high falls, horse stunts, and one of the best ratchet pulls I've ever seen (watch happens to the guy they throw off the car while careening through the streets of Cairo). VH has lots of good stunts, too, but nothing any more impressive than what's in the other film.

Visual Effects: Van Helsing. Well, it's been what, five years? I should hope the effects are better. It'd be embarrassing if they weren't.

Plot: Come on. Even people who like this film are admitting the story makes no sense and has holes you could sail the Seventh Fleet through. If you think you can make that one stick, you're welcome to try.

Style: Okay, pretty much an imponderable. I like deserts and Arab-y stuff and 1920's so The Mummy does pretty well for me. Kate Beckinsale in tight black is no hardship either. A wash.

So we have The Mummy clearly winning on two counts and VH on one, with the others no clear winner at all. The Mummy wins this round.

Ding ding!

I imagine little things for an action spectacle like acting and script would come out in Van Helsing's favor as well.

Ooh, cutting! But you don't want to go there, my friend, because VH gets CHEWED UP on those counts, I guarantee.

A couple of examples will suffice:

Evelyn meets Rick in the Cairo Prison. Watch how specific their performances are. They're responding to each other with HUGE sparkage -- we know right from here that these two are made for each other. When Rick responds to Evelyn's question "Do you swear?" with "Every damn day," we see the first level of his character -- hard-bitten rogue -- but then he follows that up with, "I know what you mean. I was there," and we see the heart of gold our hero REALLY has. And Fraser and Weisz pull it off beautifully.

Evelyn gets drunk at the camp and defends her presence to Rick. This is a great scene, one that has no comparision in VH. "I am... proud of... what I am..." "And... what is that?" "I am... a librarian!" Rick's hesitant question perfectly captures the uncertain male as he ventures into the always-dicey waters of feminine pride. It's funny and touching and believable.

And miles above anything Jackman or Beckinsale get to do -- I think they're both competent actors but they weren't given anything to do in VH. Beckinsale did more acting in Underworld.

Werewolves are cooler than mummies. Dracula is cooler than mummies. Frankenstein is cooler than mummies.

I guess if you don't think mummies are cool, chances are you won't enjoy a movie called The Mummy. Call me crazy.

It's no argument to suggest one film is better than the other, but it does explain your position very well.

Face it, the effects *sucked* in the Mummy, the characters were totally unengaging, and when boring characters are chased by really, really bad CGI, you don't get very thrilling action sequences.

Can you reference the "really, really bad CGI" in The Mummy? Cause when I watch that film it stands out for the quality of its effects work. Indeed, it was nominated for a slew of awards for its effects work, so to suggest that they *sucked* is going to be hard for you to support, I suspect. But give it your best shot. Or else concede that the effects in The Mummy were more than good enough to serve the purpose of an action film.

The "performances, script, and direction"? Who cares?

You do. Everyone does. I'm frankly startled you would say this.

What makes a good action movie? Thrills and chills, right? What makes thrills thrilling and chills chilling is that they are happening to people we care about.

We care about people if we understand their situation, see what they want, and observe them working hard to achieve it. Those things can ONLY be delivered through "performances, script and direction". Yes sir. Without them, all the special effects in the world are just so much fireworks.

I didn't understand VH's situation very well, I had NO IDEA what he wanted and therefore I couldn't figure out if he was working hard to achieve it or not. Sure, he's trying to kill Dracula. Why should I care? Answer: I don't.

You might disagree with whether or not you understood VH, but you can't pretend that "performances, script and direction" aren't of primary importance to a good action film. The criteria as to what are good "performances, script and direction" are different for action films than for romantic comedies, but they're equally important.

I mean, I like fireworks as much as the next guy, but I wouldn't pay $8 to watch a fireworks display. And at least with fireworks they're ACTUALLY GOING OFF RIGHT OVERHEAD. Ever watch a movie of fireworks going off? Not so super thrilling, is it? That's because they lack performances, script and direction. Hm.