Rate Van Helsing

[D+1]

Simple explanatoin:
It's hard to think of a much better action monster movie.

Without EVEN thinking - Aliens.

With a bit more thought: Alien, The Mummy (w/Brendan Fraser), American Werewolf in London, Starship Troopers, Independence Day, 28 Days Later, Tremors, King Kong (original), Predator, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Thing (original and John Carpenter version)... need more? Because there definitely is more.

 

[barsoomcore]

"Cricket!? Nobody understands cricket! You gotta know what a crumpet is, to understand cricket!"

-Hyp.

I will happily take your word on the matter.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I gave it a 10, just on the red-haired vamp chic factor.

 

[Kai Lord]

Whoa, it only took you a week to formulate a response...I'll try to go easier on you next time.

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 can respect that. We all have our "Perfect 10" movies, and as we see in the other thread of the same name, a lot of people have the same "Perfect 10" movies. LOTR, Star Wars, Raiders, bla bla bla.

But its seeing those movies generally accepted to be second or third tier that make people's "Best of" lists that are often way more interesting. An example for you would be The Mummy, one for me would be Gremlins. I love, love, love, that movie. Not as much as ROTK or what have you, but it would rank in my Top 20 all time, way higher than Lawrence of Arabia or Citizen Kane, neither of which I was particularly impressed with. Blasphemy, I know.

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.

I agree. There's a huge amount of distance between Oscar-winning effects and those that we see in The Mummy.

Again I ask you to indicate the shots that are so terrible.

And again I tell you, any scene with the beetles (and I do mean literally any scene) and any of the "skinless Imhotep" scenes.

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

Bah. If Rotten Tomatoes ranking + Box Office = the measure of a movie then Titanic would be everybody's second favorite movie after LOTR. I couldn't care less what the critics or movie going public prefers. If you've read *any* of my opinions on films in this forum surely you must have learned that by now. And yes I did just call you Shirley.

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.

Objection noted and overruled. Anything you say at this point will be stricken from the record. Nah if you want to object go ahead, if it makes you feel better. I realize The Mummy is a 10 for you, and you're passionate about it. Right on. I gave Van Helsing an 8, but really its probably closer to a low 7 that I just really enjoyed. I'm not going to defend a 7 as fiercely as you're going to stick up for your 10. But I don't need to since your 10 is only a 4 in my book.

It may be your preference, but your reasons for thinking are clearly not shared by the majority of people.

Padding your opinion with box office take and the ratings of critics? As a film buff you should be ashamed. Really, I'm embarrased for you.

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.

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.

Eh. The cargo in that carriage represented the survival of all her babies. I could see a mom stating the obvious in a fit of hysteria. Quite easily in fact.

Which I don't mind every now and then but in VH it really started to get on my nerves.

One thing my friend commented about Van Helsing as we were leaving was how "convenient" everything was. "Hey look, the portal to Dracula's lair!" "But its missing a piece." "Well guess what I just happen to have the piece too!"

"But Dracula can only be killed by a werewolf."
"Well guess what just bit me today..." And so on.

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.

And what does a single James Bond film offer in the way of character development lacking in Van Helsing? Nothing. So literally the only reason you find fault with Van Helsing is because this wasn't the 20th movie he appears in where he does the exact same thing that he did in the other 19. Watch every James Bond film in the last 25 years in a super marathon. What do we know about him after all these years? He's British, a spy, gets a lot of women and blows a lot of stuff up. Oh and his codename's 007. We like him, but we don't know *anything* about him. Hell we know more about his martinis than Bond himself.

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.

Okay, so Star Wars gets a passing grade because we

1. Know the situation
2. Know who the good guy is
3. See the "good guy/s" fight really hard

All elements accounted for in Van Helsing. Case dismissed. But that's only turning your own argument against you. I don't even agree that its valid in and of itself. Did we have a clue as to who we were supposed to root for in the beginning of The Matrix? No. Was it still an incredibly thrilling opening? You bet.

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.

Interesting. I'm curious as to what bothered you so much about the movie.

Nonsense. If I play checkers against my dog, is that inherent drama?

*Hell* yes. Your dog can play checkers? Dude, call somebody because you guys should be on TV.

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.

Once again we have:

1. Know what the characters are trying to do
2. Watch them try hard
3. See them care

All represented in Van Helsing. But it doesn't matter. Those prerequisites are accounted for in a legion of crappy films. But, as you said, you probably like a lot more crappy films than I do.

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.

You continually miss the point. Once. Again: If the "action" in an action movie *sucks*, the "script, performances, and direction" in the rest of the movie DOESN'T MATTER. The movie is going to suck. That's the point. Read it, learn it, know it.

That doesn't mean I'm not agreeing that the inverse is *also* true. Case in point: The Matrix Reloaded. Probably the most techically proficient car chase sequence ever put on film. But I wouldn't even rank it in the all time top ten. Why not? Because the drama that put the characters in the action just wasn't that interesting or credible, unlike the finales of The Road Warrior or The Fast and the Furious.

Does that mean the Matrix freeway chase isn't entertaining in its own right? No. It was just on HBO the other night and I happened to flick it on right before the chase began. Its not that great a movie but I still watched the whole chase sequence before switching it off when Neo comes and saves the day. Why? Because it earned my interest with compelling characters in a well scripted showdown? No, because its fun to watch a lot of crap get destroyed on the freeway.

Now, take a movie that has a lot of fun rollercoaster action, throw in werewolves, Hugh Jackman, and Kate Beckinsale, and what do you get? Return of the King? Not even close. But you do get a fun two hours, which is much more than can be said for The Mummy.

However, I'd still be more interested in just watching your dog beat you at checkers.

 

[Babette]

hey...hey

i enjoyed it.
not what i had expected...for some reason i was expecting something a little more serious..(true..i was )..but the vamps powers were awsome...i like it when a movie shows how truly awsome and hard to kill an uber character can be..(and by non humans)..anywhoo it was fun
i enjoyed it.

 

[Thanee]

for some reason i was expecting something a little more serious..(true..i was )..

You probably havn't given the movie poster a closer look then... the repeating crossbow, the shuriken, the various monsters, that hardly make sense in a single movie...

Bye
Thanee

 

[Dimwhit]

All that stuff Kai Lord said.

Well argued. And I agree with most everything you said. Though I like The Mummy more than you did. Still enjoyed Van Helsing better. It was a run romp!

 

[Dinkeldog]

Simple explanatoin:
Some people are fans of the genre, and have actually SEEN the movie, while others aren't or haven't.

I gave it an 8, ALMOST a 9. It's hard to think of a much better action monster movie.

I'm scared. I agree with Reap. Actually, I was torn between 8 and 9, and decided to be charitable.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I will happily take your word on the matter.

It's not mine, it's Raphael's!

-Hyp.

 

[barsoomcore]

Whoa, it only took you a week to formulate a response...I'll try to go easier on you next time.

I don't find insults, veiled or not, particularly conducive to good discussion. If this is the sort of tone you want to take then I'd rather abandon the conversation altogether. Please, no more of this.

If I said something that irritated you and caused this sort of attack, I'm sorry. Let me know and I'll try to avoid doing so in the future.

And again I tell you, any scene with the beetles (and I do mean literally any scene) and any of the "skinless Imhotep" scenes.

*shrug* Okay. I don't know what you object to in those scenes. They look just fine to me.

I couldn't care less what the critics or movie going public prefers. If you've read *any* of my opinions on films in this forum surely you must have learned that by now.

I'm not asking you to care; I'm still trying to get you to explain why you think one movie is so much better than the other. If you've got evidence, holler.

Eh. The cargo in that carriage represented the survival of all her babies. I could see a mom stating the obvious in a fit of hysteria. Quite easily in fact.

Yeah, about as easily as I could see a girl running into danger to save her new pet dog.



It's not that the specific case is indefensible -- it's that the movie is ridden with stuff like that.

Watch every James Bond film in the last 25 years in a super marathon. What do we know about him after all these years? He's British, a spy, gets a lot of women and blows a lot of stuff up. Oh and his codename's 007. We like him, but we don't know *anything* about him. Hell we know more about his martinis than Bond himself.

Really? You must be watching different movies than I've seen. I know Bond is unflappably debonair, ruthless but never sadistic, loyal to his country, almost never afraid of anything, always has a backup plan, has no concern for government property, is cheerfully disrespectful to authority -- especially to pompous types who want him to be serious, and has a deep-seated soft spot for a pretty face. I know he can handle almost anything, I know he's got gadgets and tricks up the ying-yang, I know he's capable of wild n crazy stuff that most people would die horribly attempting. And I know he's written by people with huge sacks of money at their disposal, so just about ANYTHING is possible.

When I see some random guy standing in a street with a BMW tearing towards him, I'm marginally interested. My interest rises when it's James Bond, because I KNOW Bond to a sufficient degree that I can anticipate something really wacky is about to happen.

Keep in mind, please, that I'm not talking about "character development" in the, let us say, Jane Austen sense. I'm not saying we need loads of details about the character. Obviously that gets in the way of an action movie.

But what defines great action movies is that they present to us just the character details we exactly need in order to get excited about what's happening.

Okay, so Star Wars gets a passing grade because we

1. Know the situation
2. Know who the good guy is
3. See the "good guy/s" fight really hard

All elements accounted for in Van Helsing.

Sure, for the opening sequence, which was great. Even the first twenty minutes of the film are really, really good. For just these reasons.

After that the movie starts to fall apart, precisely because those elements start getting confused and emptied.

Did we have a clue as to who we were supposed to root for in the beginning of The Matrix? No. Was it still an incredibly thrilling opening? You bet.

Okay, leaving aside the fact that I think the opening to The Matrix was slightly cooler than the Gap ads that had used the same technique (only better) in the months prior to the film's release, it's still the same principle as in the opening to Star Wars.

Pretty girl is inoffensively typing at a computer when threatening goons with guns burst in.

Gee, you can't figure out who the good guys and bad guys are in this situation? Of course you can. It's remarkable how little context one needs for a single sequence to work. But it STILL requires performance, script and direction.

Hitchcock's famously described this principle many times. He uses it in Rear Window to marvellous effect -- if we see someone rooting about in a room, acting furtive, and then we see someone else coming up the stairs, we are immediately put into a state of suspense. In Rear Window, of course, the suspense is much heightened because we're invested in Grace Kelly's character and so the idea of her getting caught is even more worrisome. But even if all we know about someone is that they're looking around where they aren't supposed to, that's enough to generate tension.

That's what I'm talking about as to "performances". The actor doing the snooping has to convince us that they are doing what they're not supposed to, that there will consequences to being caught. The script has put them in that situation. The director has to make sure the audience understands the situation.

You continually miss the point. Once. Again: If the "action" in an action movie *sucks*, the "script, performances, and direction" in the rest of the movie DOESN'T MATTER. The movie is going to suck. That's the point. Read it, learn it, know it.

I'm talking strictly about the "action". I agree that if you take the action out of an action movie, you're unlikely to have anything worth watching. Just like if you take the comic bits out of a comedy, you'll have a dull (though mercifully short) film.

Maybe I'm deeply misunderstanding this, but I don't see how it's relevant. I'm not talking about the rest of the movie. I'm talking about the action. The action requires performances, script and direction if it's going to succeed. Action needs to be well-performed, well-scripted and well-directed. Maybe you agree with that and are arguing some other point that I don't get. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but honestly I don't understand why you keep saying that if you take out the action, an action film will suffer.

I agree with that idea, but I don't understand why you think it's important. I haven't been trying to argue that if you consider everything besides the action in Van Helsing, you'll have a bad movie. I've been arguing that it's a bad movie because it's poorly directed, poorly written and poorly acted. Action scenes and non-action scenes alike.

Does that make it more clear?

I have to say, KL, that the tone of this post really caught me off guard. Maybe I'm feeling especially insecure today, but I feel like you're going after me rather than my arguments. We've gotten into it enough times that I'm not going to blow you off, but I do hope this doesn't represent some change in your attitude. Maybe it's just me.

Anyway, I hope I've been more clear. I remain unconvinced that there's anything at all clear about VH's supposed superiority over The Mummy, but I'm willing to listen to any arguments you have (though I'm probably not the only one sensing a certain "circularity" to that discussion). I still feel like we're passing in the night on the "performances, script and direction" issue -- apparently you're trying to get at something that I'm just missing. Or vice versa.