Ankh-Morpork Guard
First Post
I'll just say one thing...
"Ah! But I'm just a Friar! I can swear!.....dammit!"
"Ah! But I'm just a Friar! I can swear!.....dammit!"
Rate Van Helsing
- Thread starter Krug
- Start date
I gave it a 7. It did a really good job of being an over the top fantasy/action flick, and if you expected anything else, you should've walked out after the first scene. But I'd have to agree with you on the ending.Taelorn76 said:
In an over the top action movie, the heroine (or the hero's love interest) does not die at the end. Supporting characters can die. But a noble sacrifice from one of the two leading characters is for a more serious movie. The Frankenstein monster dying would have been pushing things. Anna dying just didn't fit the tone of the movie at all. This kind of movie is supposed to end on a positive note.
Last edited:
theburningman
First Post
I agree with you totally on this.
When Taelorn76 pointed out the implausibility of this happening, I thought that perhaps that was what bothered me about the ending (I actually rolled my eyes when it happened). But now I realize that it's the tone of the movie being violated that bothered me. In the hands of a more capable director/screenwriter (and don't get me wrong, I like a lot of Sommers's stuff), perhaps Anna's death could have been pulled off. But for me, it was just...dumb and unnecessary.
I kind of get the same feeling from movies like Very Bad Things that try so hard to be dark comedies and wind up just being grating.
Abraxas
Explorer
Just saw it tonight. Went in expecting a comic book on film and thats exactly what I got - gave it an 8. I really was entertained - I liked the vamps and werewolves in this infinitely more than those in Underworld. Thought it was on par with the Mummy and well above The Mummy Returns (which, except for two sequences, stank so bad it could've knocked a buzzard off a manure wagon). The bits that bugged me were innocuous enough that they didn't distract from the movie while I watched it.
All in all a rompin good monster movie.
Just another note - I've seen a few comments about how loud the soundtrack was. I wonder if it has something to do with the theatre in which the movie was seen? I thought the soundtrack was great and plan to purchase it. I have had a similar experience with a movie soundtrack not to long ago when I was watching Hellboy - one thing kept bugging me, the soundtrack was to freakin loud.
All in all a rompin good monster movie.
Just another note - I've seen a few comments about how loud the soundtrack was. I wonder if it has something to do with the theatre in which the movie was seen? I thought the soundtrack was great and plan to purchase it. I have had a similar experience with a movie soundtrack not to long ago when I was watching Hellboy - one thing kept bugging me, the soundtrack was to freakin loud.
Last edited:
Barendd Nobeard
Explorer
Saw it today and ranked it a 7. Very enjoyable, but the reviews were so bad that I had very low expectations, which probably heightened my enjoyment.
The biggest problem with the movie was that Jackman and Beckinsale seemed to just be coasting through their performances. Every other performer in the movie was better than them.
The biggest problem with the movie was that Jackman and Beckinsale seemed to just be coasting through their performances. Every other performer in the movie was better than them.
barsoomcore
Unattainable Ideal
Whew! Have at it, indeed.
Okay, before I plunge into this, I'm not arguing that The Mummy is a great movie. I mean, I happen to think it is, but I get why people would blow it off. I do stand by my characterization of Rick's battle against the mummies, however -- that first set of shots as he leaps onto the altar and takes out five or six of them in one take is spectacular with a capital SPEC. There are very few fight scenes I've ever seen with that level of grace and kewlness.
And I've seen a lot of fight scenes.
Sure the effects aren't as good as TPM or The Matrix. There's a large amount of distance between the Oscar-winning effects and "crap", if you ask me. Again I ask you to indicate the shots that are so terrible. The first confrontation with Imhotep? The spectacular opening shot of Thebes in ancient times? The battles with the mummies where fake characters are getting limbs removed, getting knocked around and into the set by live characters, and it's all as seamless as can be?
Goofy movies are a big part of my life. I take goofy movies probably more seriously than I ought to, and have done since I spent Sunday afternoons watching Sinbad pictures on local TV channels.
Just something to keep in mind as you're backing away slowly, watching me foam at the mouth.
But seriously, I don't see how the notion that Van Helsing is vastly and clearly superior to The Mummy has a leg to stand on. It flies in the face of critical opinion (the earlier movie's "Rotten Tomatoes" rating is TWICE Van Helsing's) and box office performance (although VH scored higher in its opening, its 60% drop off on the first weekend bodes poorly for its long-term performance -- which is where the earlier film did well. Indeed, The Mummy did BETTER than Van Helsing on the second weekend of release, and right now the later film stands a measly $4 million ahead in comparative box office. That's five years later, let's remember, in about three hundred more theatres .
I'm not even saying that one movie is better or worse than the other. I'm just objecting to your blithe statement that the one is CLEARLY better than the other. It may be your preference, but your reasons for thinking are clearly not shared by the majority of people.
As an example, the stagecoach jump and subsequent plunge of the carriage. As the carriage heads down, the one vampire chick says to the other, "We must not let it crash! Our master needs the monster for his plans!" Or words to that effect.
Presumably the other vampire chick already knows this, so why is it being said? Because the director doesn't think the audience will be able to keep up otherwise. Which I don't mind every now and then but in VH it really started to get on my nerves.
So it's not that the story is complicated. It's that the story's complicatedness is communicated to the audience in a clumsy fashion.
Star Wars lets us know everything we need to know about our heroes from the very first shot -- tiny little ship pursued by massive, implacable enemy. You understand the situation immediately, know who you're supposed to cheer for, and watching how hard the Rebels fight tells you these guys are worth cheering for. Whatever the heck they're doing.
And Indiana Jones? You don't think we know this guy before the action starts? You need to watch Raiders again. (I think that sentence is ALWAYS true, by the way, no matter who the subject is)
What's our first introduction to Indy? When some guy draws a gun and is about to shoot him in the back. There's the crack of a whip, the gun goes flying, and the assassin stares in terror for a second. At our hero, silhouetted in the frame. The assassin runs off. We note (subconsciously, probably, but we note it anyway) that he's super-cool, super-capable and not vindictive or unecessarily violent (he doesn't kill the guy, just lets him run away).
NOW we know who our hero is. And as he makes his way through the crypt we get to know him even better, and admire his bravery, his cleverness and his dogged persistence. And at the first confrontation with Belloc, we learn his motivation and his passion. And now we're ready to cheer for this guy throughout the rest of the picture.
True Lies I'm leaving out because it's one of those movies I hate with a very deep and abiding passion. It fails for precisely the reasons I feel that Van Helsing failed, however -- but I won't argue that VH is a far, far better movie than True Lies.
That's where the performances, the script and the direction come in. The performances tell us how important something is to the character. The script set us up for uncertainty by offering us scenarios we have little confidence in predicting. The direction oversees both by managing them and presenting them to us appropriately.
Your sports examples are instructive in this regard. Sports provides you with all these things. The script is the rules of the game. This is what gives you the context for the action -- this is how you know what the players are trying to do. You KNOW they're trying to score a goal, a touchdown, a try, whatever. If you didn't know what anyone was trying to do, you wouldn't be very excited about what was going on.
I don't know a thing about cricket, and it bores me to tears.
What I'm saying is that a good action movie has to provide the audience with the same amount of context a sporting event provides -- you need to know what the characters are trying to do, and you need to see them trying really hard to do it. And it makes a HUGE difference if you think they care about it or not.
Ever watch a sporting event and think, "Hey, these guys don't care if they win or lose?" How much fun was that game? You see a lot of excitement there?
Athletes give you that feeling because, for the most part, they DO care. The good ones do, anyway. Actors have to give you that same feeling about their characters if what we watch them do is going to give you any excitement at all. Through their performances.
The script has to give you the rules of the game -- it has to let you know the conditions under which the action will take place, so that you can follow what's happening and try to predict (though always with imperfect confidence) what will happen next.
Jackie Chan, Bruce Lee, Arnold Schwarzenegger -- these actors (and others) succeed as action stars because they are able to deliver performances that sell the action. Arnold is utterly convincing as Conan because you believe he's really trying to kill that guy. You really believe Jackie is scrambling for his life. Actors who are less convincing are less successful.
Ever watch fight scenes out of context? It's surprising how much LESS exciting they are. I have a couple of "Ultimate Fight Scene" DVDs that while I like them (finding them good references on staging fight scenes in my own movies), aren't the slightest bit exciting. Not many people will just sit and watch them. That's because you've got nothing riding on the outcome of the fight. You've got nothing invested in it. Even your airline audience, devoid of headphones, has a good deal of context coming their way -- it's surprising the degree to which a movie's story can often be divorced from the sound. Especially good movies, I've noticed (let's not discuss My Dinner With Andre, please).
So again, action scenes DEPEND on performances, script and direction. They're not something that happens while those three elements are on holiday. Not in good films, anyway.
I told you I took goofy films seriously.
Okay, before I plunge into this, I'm not arguing that The Mummy is a great movie. I mean, I happen to think it is, but I get why people would blow it off. I do stand by my characterization of Rick's battle against the mummies, however -- that first set of shots as he leaps onto the altar and takes out five or six of them in one take is spectacular with a capital SPEC. There are very few fight scenes I've ever seen with that level of grace and kewlness.
And I've seen a lot of fight scenes.
Sure the effects aren't as good as TPM or The Matrix. There's a large amount of distance between the Oscar-winning effects and "crap", if you ask me. Again I ask you to indicate the shots that are so terrible. The first confrontation with Imhotep? The spectacular opening shot of Thebes in ancient times? The battles with the mummies where fake characters are getting limbs removed, getting knocked around and into the set by live characters, and it's all as seamless as can be?
Goofy movies are a big part of my life. I take goofy movies probably more seriously than I ought to, and have done since I spent Sunday afternoons watching Sinbad pictures on local TV channels.
Just something to keep in mind as you're backing away slowly, watching me foam at the mouth.
But seriously, I don't see how the notion that Van Helsing is vastly and clearly superior to The Mummy has a leg to stand on. It flies in the face of critical opinion (the earlier movie's "Rotten Tomatoes" rating is TWICE Van Helsing's) and box office performance (although VH scored higher in its opening, its 60% drop off on the first weekend bodes poorly for its long-term performance -- which is where the earlier film did well. Indeed, The Mummy did BETTER than Van Helsing on the second weekend of release, and right now the later film stands a measly $4 million ahead in comparative box office. That's five years later, let's remember, in about three hundred more theatres .
I'm not even saying that one movie is better or worse than the other. I'm just objecting to your blithe statement that the one is CLEARLY better than the other. It may be your preference, but your reasons for thinking are clearly not shared by the majority of people.
My point was never that the movie was too complicated to understand -- but that because it is so complicated, Sommers resorts to endless bouts of exposition and tedious "people saying things that everyone in the movie already knows just so the audience can keep up with what's happening" dialogue.Kai Lord said:
As an example, the stagecoach jump and subsequent plunge of the carriage. As the carriage heads down, the one vampire chick says to the other, "We must not let it crash! Our master needs the monster for his plans!" Or words to that effect.
Presumably the other vampire chick already knows this, so why is it being said? Because the director doesn't think the audience will be able to keep up otherwise. Which I don't mind every now and then but in VH it really started to get on my nerves.
So it's not that the story is complicated. It's that the story's complicatedness is communicated to the audience in a clumsy fashion.
barsoomcore said:
If you don't know James Bond right off the bat, you haven't been living in the Western World for the past thirty years. And that's not facetious. We already know James Bond. When a new JB movie starts up, half the fun is seeing what sort of crazy hoohah he's going to get himself into (and out of) this time. Bond is a well-known and well-loved character, so putting him in danger is a no-brainer.Kai Lord said:
Star Wars lets us know everything we need to know about our heroes from the very first shot -- tiny little ship pursued by massive, implacable enemy. You understand the situation immediately, know who you're supposed to cheer for, and watching how hard the Rebels fight tells you these guys are worth cheering for. Whatever the heck they're doing.
And Indiana Jones? You don't think we know this guy before the action starts? You need to watch Raiders again. (I think that sentence is ALWAYS true, by the way, no matter who the subject is)
What's our first introduction to Indy? When some guy draws a gun and is about to shoot him in the back. There's the crack of a whip, the gun goes flying, and the assassin stares in terror for a second. At our hero, silhouetted in the frame. The assassin runs off. We note (subconsciously, probably, but we note it anyway) that he's super-cool, super-capable and not vindictive or unecessarily violent (he doesn't kill the guy, just lets him run away).
NOW we know who our hero is. And as he makes his way through the crypt we get to know him even better, and admire his bravery, his cleverness and his dogged persistence. And at the first confrontation with Belloc, we learn his motivation and his passion. And now we're ready to cheer for this guy throughout the rest of the picture.
True Lies I'm leaving out because it's one of those movies I hate with a very deep and abiding passion. It fails for precisely the reasons I feel that Van Helsing failed, however -- but I won't argue that VH is a far, far better movie than True Lies.
Nonsense. If I play checkers against my dog, is that inherent drama? Of course it isn't. The drama is proportional to the uncertainty AND the significance of the outcome. A checkers game CAN be dramatic, but only if the audience understands something important to the players is at stake, AND cannot predict the outcome with much certainty.Kai Lord said:
That's where the performances, the script and the direction come in. The performances tell us how important something is to the character. The script set us up for uncertainty by offering us scenarios we have little confidence in predicting. The direction oversees both by managing them and presenting them to us appropriately.
Your sports examples are instructive in this regard. Sports provides you with all these things. The script is the rules of the game. This is what gives you the context for the action -- this is how you know what the players are trying to do. You KNOW they're trying to score a goal, a touchdown, a try, whatever. If you didn't know what anyone was trying to do, you wouldn't be very excited about what was going on.
I don't know a thing about cricket, and it bores me to tears.
What I'm saying is that a good action movie has to provide the audience with the same amount of context a sporting event provides -- you need to know what the characters are trying to do, and you need to see them trying really hard to do it. And it makes a HUGE difference if you think they care about it or not.
Ever watch a sporting event and think, "Hey, these guys don't care if they win or lose?" How much fun was that game? You see a lot of excitement there?
Athletes give you that feeling because, for the most part, they DO care. The good ones do, anyway. Actors have to give you that same feeling about their characters if what we watch them do is going to give you any excitement at all. Through their performances.
The script has to give you the rules of the game -- it has to let you know the conditions under which the action will take place, so that you can follow what's happening and try to predict (though always with imperfect confidence) what will happen next.
You seem to be thinking that "action" is something distinct from "performances, script and direction". What I'm saying is that great action is CREATED by performances, script and direction.Kai Lord said:
Jackie Chan, Bruce Lee, Arnold Schwarzenegger -- these actors (and others) succeed as action stars because they are able to deliver performances that sell the action. Arnold is utterly convincing as Conan because you believe he's really trying to kill that guy. You really believe Jackie is scrambling for his life. Actors who are less convincing are less successful.
Ever watch fight scenes out of context? It's surprising how much LESS exciting they are. I have a couple of "Ultimate Fight Scene" DVDs that while I like them (finding them good references on staging fight scenes in my own movies), aren't the slightest bit exciting. Not many people will just sit and watch them. That's because you've got nothing riding on the outcome of the fight. You've got nothing invested in it. Even your airline audience, devoid of headphones, has a good deal of context coming their way -- it's surprising the degree to which a movie's story can often be divorced from the sound. Especially good movies, I've noticed (let's not discuss My Dinner With Andre, please).
So again, action scenes DEPEND on performances, script and direction. They're not something that happens while those three elements are on holiday. Not in good films, anyway.
I told you I took goofy films seriously.
NotNew@Enworld
First Post
IMO the combination of Dracula, Frankie and Moonpooch is just an excuse for a commercial smorgasboard like the last three Star Wars movies. But I think we've all heard that one before.
I think the CGI was overdone. Stunts that would have been more credible with an old-fashioned stuntman were pixelized kinda like in Matrix Reloaded.
And it seems the director (I won't mention his name) feels more comfortable spending ten million dollars on special effects than fifty cents on a decent script.
Speaking of special effects, the action seemed to come out of nowhere and for no apparent reason other than to show off flashy cool funky CGI.
Anna I found generally useless except when she hit that tree and got slammed against several walls. That was funny.
That said, it was worth it for the silly entertainment function it filled. Good thing it only cost 4.5 euros.
I think the CGI was overdone. Stunts that would have been more credible with an old-fashioned stuntman were pixelized kinda like in Matrix Reloaded.
And it seems the director (I won't mention his name) feels more comfortable spending ten million dollars on special effects than fifty cents on a decent script.
Speaking of special effects, the action seemed to come out of nowhere and for no apparent reason other than to show off flashy cool funky CGI.
Anna I found generally useless except when she hit that tree and got slammed against several walls. That was funny.
That said, it was worth it for the silly entertainment function it filled. Good thing it only cost 4.5 euros.
D+1
First Post
Quite entertaining but notable flaws including
- too long
- fight scenes animated and edited by someone with severe ADHD problems
- failure to establish any real relationship between Van Helsing and Anna
- a not too original take on the characters/subject matter
- can't decide if it wants to be gothic horror or light-hearted escapism and so does neither approach full justice
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
barsoomcore said:
"Cricket!? Nobody understands cricket! You gotta know what a crumpet is, to understand cricket!"
-Hyp.
Similar Threads
