• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Van Helsing

I just saw this movie.

I both liked it and hated it.

I liked some parts, because they entertained me. I hated so many other parts that, overall, I cannot reccommend the movie.

This movie had the exact same problems that the later Batman movies had - massively hyped pacing at the expense of total lack of committment to character development. You cannot develop more than 3 characters (including the villian) in a movie unless the whole movie slows the pace down (which is what good movies like X-men and Lord of the Rings did - slow the pacing to develop the larger number of characters). You simply cannot develop a lead (Van Helsing), his sidekick (the fryer), his romantic interest and ally (Anna), his other ally (F's Monster), a half-ally/half-enemy (Anna's brother), his opponant (Dracula), and his opponant's ally's (3 wives, Igor, an undertaker, and his werewolves), all in the same fast-paced movie and expect me to give a damn about any of them.

And that is what happened. I couldn't have cared less if most of these characters had died. I didn't care about any of them in any way. Heck, I barely knew anything about them. Sure, I knew a couple of tidbits about their past, and that was it. Motivations? They were at best surface motivations, done so sparsely that it looked like the writer was checking off boxes on a list and got to "motivation" and put "family business" or "likes science" and that was it for a particular character.

If only they had cut way back on the number of characters, or slowed the pacing, this could have been a good movie. You don't need Frankenstein's monster, or Igor. You don't need Anna. You don't need werewolves or Dracula's 3 brides or his children. All that was needed to make this a good movie was Van Helsing, the Fryer, and Dracula. That's it. Focus on those three characters, really develop them, and focus on their conflict. Forget the other characters, because they are mere distractions from the task at hand - which is telling a good story. If you love those other characters enough - leave them for a second movie.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

There's no way they wouuld have gone without a love interest.. and if not for Kate, doubt if I would have bothered to watch it. ;)

Hmm is this like the 2nd movie that Kate is in where a werewolf fights a vampire lord? ;)
 


Piratecat said:
Incidentally, how many folks hadn't realized that the friar was Faramir from LotR?

I hadn't realised going in.

In the first shot of him on screen, I thought "Isn't that...?", but it wasn't until about the third shot that I could see him clearly enough to be sure.

I was pretty pleased with myself for recognising Kevin J O'Connor under the Igor make-up, though :)

-Hyp.
 

Piratecat said:
Heretic. :p

Incidentally, how many folks hadn't realized that the friar was Faramir from LotR?
I knew him from someplace but could not for the life of it remember where.

Igor's (Kevin J O'Connor) voice gave him away. ;)
 

Krug said:
There's no way they wouuld have gone without a love interest.. and if not for Kate, doubt if I would have bothered to watch it. ;)

Hmm is this like the 2nd movie that Kate is in where a werewolf fights a vampire lord? ;)
I think she realizes there is a slot for "lead female" in pulp movies. Its a niche market but you can build a fan base and have steady work.
 

Hand of Evil said:
I think she realizes there is a slot for "lead female" in pulp movies. Its a niche market but you can build a fan base and have steady work.
Although casting rumors I read the other day have her as the front runner for the female lead in Ron Howard's adaptation of The DaVinci Code which is certainly not a niche market work.
 

Krug said:
There's no way they wouuld have gone without a love interest.. and if not for Kate, doubt if I would have bothered to watch it. ;)

Hmm is this like the 2nd movie that Kate is in where a werewolf fights a vampire lord? ;)
Yep, and there's most likely going to be a third.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0401855/

I've figured out why I liked Van Helsing.

Okay, so it has a paper-thin premise, a silly plot, gaping logic holes, silly accents, and no chemistry between the leads. It also has a group of mismatched heroes, non-stop action (even when you'd rather it slowed down, it just keeps going), outrageous stunts (even if they're CGI), evil monsters to kill, great star power at least on Jackman's part, and some quite funny bits. It takes itself seriously enough that you know they're making an effort, but also not so seriously that it doesn't have fun with the premise (eg Carl, and the vampire brides acting like something out of the Rocky Horror Show).

In other words, it's exactly like the sort of action-adventure campaign I aspire to run. Plot and backstory? Couldn't really care, as long as long as there's at least a show of having one. Depth of characterisation? Eh, as long as your attack bonus and saves are done right, I'm happy. Logic? That's what the non-stop action is for, to keep you from noticing the holes. A party of mismatched types? Fits every game I've ever been in. Over-the-top action, larger-than-life heroes and villains, and plenty of horrible monsters to kill? That's where it's at.

Other recent movies that fit this template, more-or-less: SWAT (the latter half of this is basically one big dungeon crawl) and Underworld (a LARP set onscreen).
 

Joshua Dyal said:
Although casting rumors I read the other day have her as the front runner for the female lead in Ron Howard's adaptation of The DaVinci Code which is certainly not a niche market work.
By niche I meant female lead in action based movies, Sigourney Weaver being one of the last ones, much like Ashley Judd in murder/mystery dramas and Julia Roberts in romantic comedies.
 

Huh. I was looking for some sort of confirmation that the person walking around being called Van Helsing was actually not human at all -- and that Dracula calling him Gabriel was hinting that he's actually, in some form or another, the Archangel Gabriel, fallen to earth and stripped of his memories.

I couldn't quite make it work in the movie, though. But that was the only thing that made Dracula knowing Van Helsing make any sense to me at all.

Overall I liked the film -- had a very good time, laughed a lot at the little homages and outright swipes . . . and I had a completely similar reaction to the Ballroom mirror scene. I didn't think the effects were all that great -- often very cartoon-y. It was a nice touch that you never saw Dracula's demonic form until the very end of the film.

PLot stuff did nag at me a bit, though. I mean, if Dracula can summon up an entire ballroom full of vampires for one little dance, and vampires procreate by killing people, why did they need to revive their little alien pod vampire children in the first place?

Overall, dumb but fun. It's a summer movie.
 
Last edited:

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top