Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kai Lord" data-source="post: 1537281" data-attributes="member: 3570">Okay obviously you're just not rational. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />  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.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" />  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....  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> 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?  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":]" title="Devious    :]" data-shortname=":]" /> 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.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. Who said mummies aren't cool?  No one here.  Who said werewolves, Dracula, and Frankenstein are all cooler than mummies?  Oh that would be me.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> The beetles and the, um, mummy.  You're just messing with me now, aren't you?   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> 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.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> 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.)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 [spoiler]holding her and howls at the moon[/spoiler] just flat out *worked* for me, even on a purely dramatic level.  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.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" />EDIT: Nice talking to you, as always.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification