The version here (iTunes Movie Trailers) cuts away half way across, shows Kate (sp?) looking down the canyon, then someone falling, but I think that last is a different scene. However, it is possible to see that the chasm is about six horse-lengths wide.
Yes.
No, I saw it too. My take on this scene is that the horses are supernatural (that’s why it looks more like they’re simply running over the gap instead of jumping), but the carriage itself does fall and smash along the side (as Van Helsing leaps forward, firing his gun backwards in true action hero style). Overall, I can deal with it if the horses are supernatural (don’t know how I’ll feel in VH lands on a horse, but we’ll have to cross that broken bridge when we get there).
Also, from one of the new trailers, is he supposed to be fighting Mr. Hyde? I see him getting beaten around by a really big CGI guy, but it doesn’t look like Frankenstien’s monster.
There was a story about the naked flying human like creatures…
This film has the stink of failure all over it. “The Hulk,” anyone? It will lose vast amounts of money.
When will you all learn? This is a commercial, that you will pay to watch, for video games and happy meals with toys! :mad:
Fagjunk theology: Not just for Sodomite Propagandists anymore.
I’m suprised no has mentioned that this film looks ALOT like The Leauge of Extrordinary Gentlemen. European motif, literary figures, same looking FX, same lighting. I expect it to be a dud also.
The thing that leapt off the screen during the trailer and throttled me was the sheer awfulness of the heroine’s accent. Kate - Beckinsale? Bosworth? Sure ain’t Hepburn - at any rate, she made the woman who voiced Natasha Romanov sound like Meryl Streep. Plus, Howard Stern wants his wig back.
And I KNOW they didn’t have him (Van Helsing, not Howard Stern) battling Frankenstein, when everyone knows it was Frankenstein’s monster.
Anyway, it’s Fronkenstein. Frodrich Fronkenstein.
Am I the only one who thinks that it’s even stupider to make a movie about the relative of a non-title character from Dracula? “Young Dr. Van Helsing” is bad enough, but “You remember that guy from Dracula? The old doctor? Well, what if he had a swash-buckling brother/nephew/cousin?” Please. I mean, “Son of Dracula and the Mummy Queen” type things are bad enough, we don’t need movies about the extended families of supporting characters.
I think Howard Stern would kick Frankenstein’s monster’s ass!
Did anyone else at all LIKE the trailer?
I was all for seeing it, but the CGI on the trailers looks really ropey. I was let down by The Hulk last year when they said ‘oh, the trailer CGI isn’t finished, it’ll be better in the film’.
But it wasn’t. A repeat seems likely here. I’ll wait for it on DVD or something.
I think the motivationn here is that the rights to Gabriel Van Helsing can be locked up, but Abraham Van Helsing is in the public domain. We sure don’t want other people making action figures and Happy Meal toys.
That makes sense to a certain degree, but why link the character to Abraham Van Helsing at all? Perhaps I am underestimating the public, but I don’t think the average person has any idea who Dr. Van Helsing is. People know Count Dracula. The rest of the characters in the novel aren’t anywhere near as famous. I don’t think they’re going to attract viewers on the strength of the familiarity of the Van Helsing family name, so why not just give the character an original name and not try to make some transparent and feeble connection to a better-known story?
Well they were wrong, weren’t they?
Walk this way…
Saw it last night- it’s entertaining in a campy way and doesn’t seem as long as it’s 2+ hour running time, but that’s faint praise. Here’s what you can expect (no spoilers):
-Good cinematography and decent special effects
-Outrageously over-the-top action sequences. The horse/carriage jumping the ravine scene had people openly laughing in the theater (the horses aren’t supernatural, just Transylvanian)
-Liberties taken with every literary/horror movie character featured.
-“Tributes” (i.e. ripoffs) of other movies- Van Helsing’s boss is like the angry police chief from every loose cannon cop flick I’ve seen, there’s a bit straight out of James Bond Q scenes, some Vampire Hunter D overtones, et. al.
-Standard action movie dialog. Van Helsing says something badass, sidekick says something cowardly yet humorous, VH and female lead talk like they’re at each other’s throats but you can tell that they’re masking their passion for each other, etc…
-Strangely enough the Frankenstein material is sorta faithful. At least more so than any of the other stuff.
-A pretty weak ending.
It reminded me a lot of old action/horror movies- campy but entertaining. YMMV.
I bet you a dollar that it is supernatural.
Sounds like a perfect film to me!
Well, for pretty much every Dracula story you have, you have a Van Helsing character. He’s either a decendant (Sundown), the real deal (Dracula 2000), the real deal just at a different time period (The Satanic Rites of Dracula), or just some wacko who happens to have the same name but no other recognizable connection (Nadjia). The name Van Helsing is a given for the vampire’s main adversary in most cases, much like villains in movies are often named Cain. He is Dracula’s antithesis, so if you’re going to have a movie about Dracula, you should have on abot the ol’ VH. It just seems this time around, they wanted to take the story from a different perspective, and well, you see what they ended up with.
Eve asked:
And, if they are in it, who’s on first?