Van Helsing

[jasamcarl]

Wow alot of post modernism running through this thread. "Yeah it was bad, but it was very good at being bad, so it was good!!!" And please don't throw up a lame strawman about how some were irrationally expecting this to be Hamlet. Most of the negative prof reviews i've seen make clear upfront that they were willing to accept the movie on its own terms, but were simply worn out by the repetitive reliance on special effects and general lack of suspense; there were no grand expectations involved, they simply didn't enjoy it. It even got a negative comparison to the Mummy (which i hated) in that respect.

So I think the key question is if you didn't think that this (apparently) awful film was bad, have you ever really seen a movie that you'd be willing to label as bad or that you simply didn't enjoy on any level? Is any artistry or tact required at all, even in B-movie genre pictures; or are you simply conditioned to respond to any CGI craptacular with feelings of excitment? Or to get preemptivly defensive in expectation of the inevitable criticism that the movie, however lamely TRIED to feed into your nerdy appetite? Was your enjoyment of this film even sincere?

 

[Dimwhit]

So I think the key question is if you didn't think that this (apparently) awful film was bad, have you ever really seen a movie that you'd be willing to label as bad or that you simply didn't enjoy on any level?

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Crapfest.

I didn't really think Van Helsing was a 'bad' movie done well. I just liked it. I got out of it exactly what I thought I would. I didn't think the CGI was that bad, the story was fine...it was a great popcorn movie for me. I fully expect that after the summer it over, there will have been several movies I liked better than this one, but that's just fine with me.

 

[Piratecat]

Or to get preemptivly defensive in expectation of the inevitable criticism that the movie, however lamely TRIED to feed into your nerdy appetite?

If you're going to ask this fairly interesting question, please do so without the insults. (Unless I'm misunderstanding you and you're not being insulting; it's not entirely clear.)

 

[KidCthulhu]

It could have been a lot better movie, with some more logic. But hey, I went expecting popcorn and cheesy, and that's what I got. I was upset by the amount of CGI. When I get 2 hours of build up of the fight between Van Helsing and Drac, I want to see them fight, not giant CGI monsters. If I want to see CGI monsters fight, I can stay home with my PS2.

Then again, I was really pleasantly surprised by David Wenham, who submerged his looks and dignity into a cheesy comic relief role and ended up being the best thing in the movie. It's hard to do that kind of role well, and to sell some of the more flimsy comic moments and not look like a goof, but Carl was my favorite thing about the movie. And, let's remember, that despite the hunky male lead, the dippy monk (err, friar) was the only person in the movie who got any!

 

[jasamcarl]

If you're going to ask this fairly interesting question, please do so without the insults. (Unless I'm misunderstanding you and you're not being insulting; it's not entirely clear.)

'Nerdy' is as much self deprectating as anything. I mean, I'm one to talk given the board i frequent. I don't mind nerd films, as long as they well done and have some conceivable appeal to those who aren't obsessed with aren't prone to become obsessed with any mythology presented.

 

[Morpheus]

Hey I can give you all a different reason for the "Gabriel" thing.

His name is not Gabriel Van Helsing. The only person in the whole movie who calls him Gabriel is Dracula. The only person who knows Van Helsing's true identity is Dracula; not even Van Helsing knows (amnesia and all that).

So his assumed name is Van Helsing. Dracula knows him from the good old days (and I mean old days) and knows him as Gabriel.

If that's not enough for you, here's four more key words from the movie:

Left Hand of God.

(Pay attention, it's all there.)

Yes, that makes sense. It also clears up the biggest plot hole for me.

 

[Crothian]

As I said, more people remember Hyde from the old black and white movie than from the original literary version. Heck, more people know of Dr. Jekyll from comic books and cartoons like Scooby Doo than they do from the book. Claiming that only the book's interpretation is valid because it's the original isn't a good position to take. Like I said, these monsters have all entered the collective mythology now; they have a life of their own completely independent of the original literary source material. Given that, claiming that the version in the movie is "wrong" seems a difficult position to defend.

The old black and white movie was pretty accurate. And the day we start basing characters of the scooby doo interpretations is a sad day indeed. Heck, warner brothers version was pretty accurate as well, least they got the look of Mr Hyde right.

Just because people have been messing it up for 100 years is no excuse.

 

[theburningman]

I liked Sommers's Huckleberry Finn adaptation, haven't seen his Jungle Book adaptation, dug Deep Rising, loved The Mummy, disliked The Mummy Returns (pretty much just The Mummy all over again, but with more special effects and less of that pesky dialogue and plot).

If you take away David Wenham's friar and Kate Beckingsale's...well, never mind, I can't decide if Van Helsing was 1/2 hour too long, or 2 1/2 hours too long.

And by the way...

You get quality big-budget movies once in a while when the director's emotionally-invested in the project (e.g. LotR, Batman, Titanic). These guys were willing to put their careers on the line (and in Cameron's case, his house and a heap of his own money) to have final cut. But this is just a paycheck movie for Sommers. Universal called him up and said "we want to cash in on all of these monsters we have rights to--can you direct something we can turn into a new theme-park ride?"

I don't really think this was a "paycheck movie" for Sommers. The final credits included a dedication to his dad. Unfortunately that doesn't make the movie any better.

 

[Desdichado]

The old black and white movie was pretty accurate. And the day we start basing characters of the scooby doo interpretations is a sad day indeed. Heck, warner brothers version was pretty accurate as well, least they got the look of Mr Hyde right.

Consider it a sad day, then. I've never read Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and I've never seen the old black and white movie either. I've seen him tons on shows like Scooby Doo and Loony Toons, though.

I'm not really defending the movie. It wasn't really that good. It was League of Extraordinary Gentlemen when I was hoping for something more in The Mummy's quality range. It had it's moments, it wasn't horrible, but it wasn't really that hot either. Don't know if I'll see it again anytime soon, or buy it on DVD, although I'm toying with the idea.

 

[Thanee]

So I think the key question is if you didn't think that this (apparently) awful film was bad, have you ever really seen a movie that you'd be willing to label as bad or that you simply didn't enjoy on any level?

Yeah. Highlander 2.

Havn't seen the Hulk, but I'm sure it would also end up on that level.
Oh, and don't forget Matrix 3.

Also the awful Final Fantasy movie, which had nice computer graphics but well... nothing else. Nice computer graphics alone don't make a movie.

Is any artistry or tact required at all, even in B-movie genre pictures;

It surely wasn't that bad.

or are you simply conditioned to respond to any CGI craptacular with feelings of excitment?

Well, actually I don't care. I don't care if the CGI is the best in the world or not. In van Helsing, while there certainly was a lot of CGI, it seemed good enough most of the time. Most of the computer animated stuff looked pretty cool and worked fairly well, really.

What made the movie so fun for me was the combination of fast pace, a decent (altho quite simple) story, which was pretty much consistent and not completely random, cool characters, great scenery and costumes. All this together as a whole make the movie as entertaining as it was.

Or to get preemptivly defensive in expectation of the inevitable criticism that the movie, however lamely TRIED to feed into your nerdy appetite?

*shrug*

I just wanted to see a fun, entertaining movie, and that was what I got.

Was your enjoyment of this film even sincere?

It surely wasn't the best or even one of the best movies I have ever seen, but it surely was way above the average stuff that finds its way into the cinema.

Bye
Thanee