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.
Not me. I liked the story. I hear a lot of complaining about aspects left unanswered. What's wrong with a little mystery? Since when do we have to know everything about the character's backstory? I don't care why VH has no memory, or why Dracula is susceptible to lycanthropy, etc. I think that's what the imagination is for. Doesn't seem to be a reason to explain every bit of the backstory when it's just not necessary. Most of the "plot holes" mentioned just don't seem important to the story. Maybe they'll reveal more in Van Helsing 2.
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.
Okay obviously you're just not rational. If you can seriously say with a straight face that Brendan Fraser vs. the mummies is one of "the classic fight scenes of all time" what can I say in response other than "um yeah no."
I'm talking about which of these goofy movies I had more fun at and here you are throwing around phrases like "classic scenes of all time." Dude, just stop. If you like The Mummy that much, I really don't see how any opinions to the contrary wouldn't be totally lost on you....
barsoomcore said:
It's original, funny, graceful, believable and thrilling.
Did you just use the word "believable" to describe a fight where a mummy juggles his head back and forth in his hands before Fraser swats it like a baseball?
barsoomcore said:
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.
Maybe so, but not necessarily from the get go. The recent Hellboy is another good example of a character who takes to fighting monsters like oh so much drudgery, but then really puts his heart into it at the end.
Van Helsing is larger than life, even moreso than Hellboy, and a lot of things that would deeply affect you, me, or a big red hornless demon don't really phase him that much. He's not an everyman, he's a Clark Gable or a James Bond. What does Bond do? He gets sent on assignments, kicks ass, and wins the heart of the lady without a modicum of character growth. But that's its own style of cinematic entertainment and it works.
barsoomcore said:
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.
I liked the film, and easily understood the story. I guess that's too bad if you didn't.
And for everyone else playing along at home, here it is:
Van Helsing kicks monster ass and works for the Vatican.
The Vatican sends him to Transylvania to kill Dracula and prevent generations of one family from being damned.
Dracula has his own agenda, namely "creating life" and to do this he needs the secrets possessed only by Frankenstein's monster.
I know a lot of people had trouble with that last one, even on this very message board, so I'll remind you; Dracula doesn't care about "creating spawn." He can do that anytime he bites someone. But the spawn is dead, just like him. He wants to literally create life that lives, breathes, and has a beating heart. And he wants it born out of his own flesh.
And to do that he uses Wolfmen to do some of his dirty work. Why? Not fully explained. They're a threat to him, right? But so are mobs of pissed off townspeople. And when they grab their torches and get on the move, they can really, really mess up his plans (see the opening scene of the movie.)
So Wolfmen can handle a lot of the same tasks as his brides, they're sweet hunters and trackers, and if a whole town goes after them so what.
Of course there's also Frankenstein, who just wants to be left alone to do his own thing, but just happens to be integral for the bad guy to succeed in his plan and for the good guy to rescue the girl.
That's the story, its not that complicated, and I think its badass. Do we know who Van Helsing really is? Nope. But we do know there's more to him than meets the eye. Is that a plot hole? Or does the rest of the plot suddenly not make sense because of it? Of course not. Did the first X-Men movie explain Wolverine's past? No. And it didn't have to. Neither did VH.
barsoomcore said:
I guess if you don't think mummies are cool, chances are you won't enjoy a movie called The Mummy. Call me crazy.
The beetles and the, um, mummy. You're just messing with me now, aren't you?
barsoomcore said:
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.
Give it my best shot? Dude. No. The beetles just sucked. Period. And the mummy himself as he went through the various stages of regeneration were pretty bad too. Sure its five years old, but how come other five year old movies like The Matrix and The Phantom Menace are filled with visual effects that don't suck, suck, suck. And did I mention that I thought the CGI in The Mummy sucked? Well it did.
barsoomcore said:
You do. Everyone does. I'm frankly startled you would say this.
I said acting, dialogue, and direction are meaningless in an ACTION movie that has horrible ACTION. I didn't say they weren't "important", just that you were fixating on elements that are of lesser value for the types of films we're discussing. And an action movie can't have horrible action and good "direction" anyway because half of the filmmaking process is directing the action. So as I said before, when fifty percent of an action movie sucks (that is, all the action), it doesn't matter how much good dialogue, acting, or direction is left over, the movie still sucks (like The Mummy.)
barsoomcore said:
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.
Nah, that isn't a univeral truth. Think of all the movies that have great opening action sequences; various James Bond films, True Lies, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark. Do we know these characters right off the bat? Care about them? Not yet. But the action still works, and is often wonderfully thrilling.
Action is interesting because there's inherent drama in the very contest. Do you need to know the lifestory of every athlete to enjoy a triple overtime basketball game? Or a sudden death hockey shootout? Do you even need to know the athlete's names? No. You don't. Turn on the TV for the last ten seconds of two random college teams playing basketball or football when the score is tied and you're going to see some excitement. Period.
Now, is it even more exciting when your brother is down there on the court about to shoot two free throws to win the game? Hell yeah. And maybe Van Helsing is lacking that total connection with the characters, I'll concede that. Frodo he ain't. But he does a lot of damn cool stuff, and its darn fun to watch.
And I even did get into the drama. You could see VH was into Kate, "If you're late, run like hell...don't be late." It wasn't a love story for the ages but I thought it was interesting. It was more on the level of Raiders of the Lost Ark. And that last scene where he's
holding her and howls at the moon
just flat out *worked* for me, even on a purely dramatic level.
barsoomcore said:
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.
I don't have to pretend, because its true. Take any "good" action film and cut out all the action, guess what, its no longer a good action film! Now take a good action film, show it on an airplane and the people who don't buy headsets and can't hear anything can *still* enjoy it for the spectacle. I've done it.
So that's just taking one extreme over the other. Obviously if you have a movie with great action and downright offensive dialogue and horrible direction in every scene except for when the fighting starts, the movie's going to suck. For some people that would describe Van Helsing. Some obviously didn't even like the action itself.
I loved the action, and I *did* care about the characters. Again, nowhere near as much as I did for Frodo, Sam, or even Indy, but certainly enough to enjoy the movie. I enjoyed their presence on screen, their banter, and for the cleverness with which I was anticipating they would carry out their goals. And I wasn't disappointed.
With the Mummy I didn't appreciate either, and it wasn't the premise or genre. I just thought the execution was terrible (save for a couple instances).
And then we have LXG, which makes even The Mummy look like Fellowship of the Ring.
Hyde was not needed, I never said the sequence was not. They could have used any supernatural creature and I think it would have been better with a made up one. THere was no reason to use Hyde.
Hyde, perhaps, drew the point best about Van Helsing being considered a murderer.
A point that is convienantly lost once he gets to Translyvania.
I'm a bit annoyed at some of the characterization for Van Helsing too [end plot spoiler type stuff].
Pacing needed some work, but that's mostly as it seemed to follow an Indiana Jones progression [and I just dislike those pacing].
Good stuff? Was a fun rush to watch. Some 'expectation breaking' was fun [I really like that Igor wasn't electrocuted, and that the magma device wasn't used in the final battle].
In all, it's a fun high energy movie that I liked. Didn't have the presumption that has been a bit too present in recent Action flicks I've watched/been interested in[bah sequels].
Pretty good and enjoyable! I gave it a 7. Quality mindless entertainment. Loses three points due to holey plot, lack of character development, and uninteresting dialogues.
It's interesting to notice how many 1s (and 10s) there are on the poll. One would expect a more normal distribution. Then again, the same thing happens with Lord of the Rings. I think many people just don't know how to rate something.
Branduil said:
I gave it a 1. Terrible, terrible, terrible. There was no story, just a bunch of coincidences strung together to resemble one. Truly one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The fact it is a huge hollywood feature makes it all the more embarrassing.
1/10? You are saying that "Mario Bros" is better than or equal to "Van Helsing". You are saying that "Dungeons & Dragons" is better than or equal to "Van Helsing". You are saying that the friggin' House of the Dead movie is better than or equal to "Van Helsing". You are saying that it is physically impossible to make a movie substantially worse than "Van Helsing". You don't understand how a scale works, or you haven't seen many movies at all. Either way I don't think you'd make a good reviewer.
The lowest score I can possibly understand for "Van Helsing" is a 4. The highest is 9. Below or above these, I think people are just exaggerating for the sake of it. Or to make themselves look like great film critics - after all, slamming a CGI-based action flick for having no plot or characters is easy. Next time, we'll slam Godfather for lack of CGI and martial arts, ok?
A solid 7 for me. Not as good as The Mummy, but far better than The Mummy Returns. I found it exactly as they made it out to be - a pulpy, fun, action-adventure (complete with the B&W intro!) and nothing more. I also found that they did everything "pretty much right" - the classic weaknesses of the enemies, a side-kick that got a good amount of screen time, was funny, and useful, and a woman who's the last surviving member of a vampire-hunting family who really could hold her own (instead of being simply a damsel-in-distress). Finally, the soundtrack was really good, and some of the best movie-music I've heard in a while (LotR excepted, of course).
It's interesting to notice how many 1s (and 10s) there are on the poll. One would expect a more normal distribution. Then again, the same thing happens with Lord of the Rings. I think many people just don't know how to rate something.1/10? You are saying that "Mario Bros" is better than or equal to "Van Helsing". You are saying that "Dungeons & Dragons" is better than or equal to "Van Helsing". You are saying that the friggin' House of the Dead movie is better than or equal to "Van Helsing". You are saying that it is physically impossible to make a movie substantially worse than "Van Helsing". You don't understand how a scale works, or you haven't seen many movies at all. Either way I don't think you'd make a good reviewer.
The lowest score I can possibly understand for "Van Helsing" is a 4. The highest is 9. Below or above these, I think people are just exaggerating for the sake of it. Or to make themselves look like great film critics - after all, slamming a CGI-based action flick for having no plot or characters is easy. Next time, we'll slam Godfather for lack of CGI and martial arts, ok?
You do have a point. It probably wasn't deserving of a 1, which is what I gave it. However to claim that your credulity wouldn't be strained by the claim of a 9 is bizzarre. How could this movie be viewed as close to perfection? I mean things like Empire Strikes Back, The Matrix, and Braveheart are probably worthy of 9s. This heap is surely not in their company. Could you possibly see any justification for rating a movie like this that high? I surely can't. This movie had parts so bad they made me cringe. Now granted, maybe it deserved a 2 or 3 instead of a 1, but I likely punished for wasted potential as much as anything. To take your Mario Brothers example, can you honestly say that people went into that movie with anything in the way of expectations? Did it really have ANY potential to begin with?
Also setting a minimum of 4 on this movie seems quite wrong to me. Basically you are declared that it can only be viewed as slightly below average. If this is, as you say, not much worse than average then movies as a whole are a waste of time and money.
You do have a point. It probably wasn't deserving of a 1, which is what I gave it. However to claim that your credulity wouldn't be strained by the claim of a 9 is bizzarre.
Oh, it would be strained. Just not broken. It's a vote I can understand, not one that I can approve. I can understand a big fan of action movies giving a 9 in a fit of excitement right after coming out of the room as the utmost limit of vague reasonability.
Also setting a minimum of 4 on this movie seems quite wrong to me. Basically you are declared that it can only be viewed as slightly below average. If this is, as you say, not much worse than average then movies as a whole are a waste of time and money.
Mmh... yeah, I think I could probably understand a 3 as well. Not less than that, though. It may have a holey plot, no memorable dialogue and very simple characters, but the settings and scenography were exceptional IMO and most of the action scenes were quite good. I think that going below 3/4 means forgetting that this is supposed to be a light, spectacular, action movie. Every flick must be judged within its genre, after all. Good action scenes and enough plot to keep them together provided that you don't think too much about it is enough to warrant at least a 3 or 4 for a mindless-action movie (and allow me one last rave for the scenography, it was good, rich in details, I really dig it). If this was supposed to be a dramatic movie, of course, I would rank it somewhere in the neighbourhood of -2.
I gave it at 3. My reasons for that are spelled out in the other Van Helsing thread.
Truthfully, I feel like giving it a 1 as payback for the damage my eardrums suffered. I think this is the loudest film I've ever seen. And I'm just talking about the music! :\
I gave it a 6. It seemed too long for what it was and any glimpse of character development was peremptorily cut. Also everything appeared to link too smoothly. Like when they fell in on Frankenstein.
I gave it an 8 - in truth, it was somewhere between a 7 and 8, but I gave it the benefit of the doubt.
It was DEFINITELY not better than the mummy, which was to me in the 9 to 10 range, but it was a fun ride, and it doesn't have to be in-depth psychodrama to be a good movie. THe Mummy had it all - adventure, romance, a clearly-driven plot, humor, well-choreographed fights, and the barest HINT of plausibility - I don't recall Rick or Evie getting knocked 70 feet into the air and getting back up, or swings from 500 foot tall towers where wind and elements would have finished off the hero long before the villain touched them. Loved Mummy, liked Van Helsing.
The actors I think did a good job overall. Beckinsale proved to me between this and Underworld that she could evoke a wide range of emotion, though Jackman really doesn't seem to play any differently to me, whether he's Wolverine or a computer hacker, or a monster hunter.
Richard Roxburgh,on the other hand, OWNED that film. I don't see flat when I see his performance - he and the three lady vampires CHEWED up the scenery when they we on camera, and it fit the genre so well that I loved it. Everything from his little "dance" while talking to the strapped-down Velkan, to his nervous pacing up the walls and ceilings, to dancing at the ball, he made himself the central focus of screen time when he appeared. Jackman was just standing around compared to him, and while I like Jackman, he really gave Van Helsing no character, even though the scripting tried.
Wenham (surprisingly FARAMIR from the Rings Films!!) did a very good job with Carl, and O'Connor (Beni from the Mummy, fascinating given the recent discussions!) was fun to watch as Igor. I recognized him under a ton of makeup by his voice within 10 seconds of seeing him onscreen.
Was it unrealistic? Of course! But then that was the style the movie was going for, and they nailed it well. The friendship between Van Helsing and the monster was a nice twist, and I really felt they cheated that part of the story by having the monster just paddling off into the distance. Where's the "goodbye my friend?" Where's the "where will you go?" Where's the "look me up if you're in London sometime?" and FOR GOD'S SAKE TURN THE VOLUME DOWN EVER SO SLIGHTLY!!! My wife and I could barely hear after two hours of BOOM-SCREAM-CREAK-BAMMM!
But I digress. In the end, a fun movie, worth the price.
If you can seriously say with a straight face that Brendan Fraser vs. the mummies is one of "the classic fight scenes of all time" what can I say in response other than "um yeah no."
If you like The Mummy that much, I really don't see how any opinions to the contrary wouldn't be totally lost on you.... 
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
