The usual roundup of trailers during the Super Bowl was rather disappointing. The only movie I thought I’d even want to see was Van Helsing…
However, what I’m calling The Underworld Effect is coming into play. See, Underworld’s trailer was bitchin’, but the movie was utter crap, and I think Van Helsing could go that way.
What do you guys think?
I will go see it, but this thread will go something like this…
It sucks…
Its going to be crap…
The special effects look bad…
They copied that off the Matrix…
never fails.
Its worth watching in my opinion. Though i haven’t seen the trailer, I like the concept and I owe Jackman just because he was Wolverine.
I’m there.
I’ll be there. Hugh Jackman is an extremely charismatic leading man as well as a great action hero. Stephen Sommers has already proven he can make crowd-pleasing action-adventure-fantasy movies with The Mummy 1 and 2 and The Scorpion King, and all of those had plenty of humor to go around as well. Plus, did anyone else notice he is resurrecting the actual old Universal horror movie monsters (using “The Wolf Man” instead of a generic “werewolf”)?
If nothing else, Van Helsing should satisfy anyone who ever wanted Castlevania: The Movie, or a live-action Vampire Hunter D.
I’ll go, but I won’t be expecting too much. With that many monsters, it can’t be all that good.
I agree with ultrafilter. If they had just stuck to one monster, instead of shooting for Dracula, and the Wolf Man, and Frakenstein, I’d have higher hopes. As it is, each monster will agverage at most one hour of screen time, which doesn’t leave much room for things like character or plot development.
I kept thinking “this is going to be this year’s League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” - a movie by a bunch of dimwits who ignore the source material they’re exploiting and substitute special effects for characterization or a coherent plot.
Why bring up character development for the Wolf Man, or Frankenstein, or Dracula when we have dozens of films based on those characters already 
we all know their background stories, no need to flesh them out. If anyone remembers seeing the Monster Squad as a kid, they’d agree that multiple monsters can be handled quite well.
I will go just to see Hugh Jackman rip his shirt off on a big screen with surround sound. I am fairly certain that the movie will suck.
If Hugh Jackman isn’t the most loaded name since Dick Butkus, I dunno what is.
Anyone remember The Monster Squad?
Some of us would appreciate a movie that goes a little deeper than “Bad monster! Kill it!”
Yes, Monster Squad rocked. 
Van Helsing looks like it will be a fun movie to turn off my brain and go watch the pretty pictures. I’m not expecting a good story or great acting. I am expecting lots of action and groovy monsters. I vote for fun Summer movie.
I’m not sure on this one. The wolfman looks more like a wolfman than the walking cat feces from Underworld, which is good, but Dracula and the other vampires go all stretched-faced CGI, which looks silly. And some of the other monsters looked too CGI to be scary. But maybe we will find out wolfman’s got nards, and all will be good.
With the nitpick that Sommers only produced Scorpion King and didn’t direct it (that job was done by Chuck Russell), I’d tend to agree. I’m not the biggest fan of Sommers’s Mummy movies, but his monster-on-a-salvage-boat flick Deep Rising is stupid in exactly the correct way and is thus huge fun. The guy knows how to organize and deliver a film, and as long as Van Helsing doesn’t take itself too seriously it should be large-scale, knowingly dopey summer fun. (Underworld, by contrast, was just inept. Sommers is a lot of things, but inept is not one of them.)
The “too many monsters” problem, from what I’ve heard, isn’t actually an issue. My understanding (which is sketchy, so don’t take this as gospel) is that Frankenstein and the Werewolf are dispensed with quickly, as setup and background (don’t know if it’s just a prologue or the whole first act), and that the battle against Dracula and his Brides will be the bulk of the film. This is held up if you look carefully at the trailer: The Frankenstein scenes are in black-and-white (which suggests a flashback), and the Werewolf scenes don’t show a lot of variation in setting and costume (which suggests a short sequence). The vampire-related scenes, however, are all over the place with tons of variety.
And one final note: Elena Anaya (from Sex and Lucia) is playing one of the three Brides. She is a very talented actor and damn hot and a Spanish performer getting a nice big-ticket American break is a good thing in my mind.
forgive my ignorance of the comic book source material, is this Van Helsing supposed to be the Abraham Van Helsing? and is his fight with Dracula in this the one in the Stoker novel or another one?
and I loved The Monster Squad! That was such an affectionate look at the genre!
I thought it looked like a fun movie. I’ll see it.
First of all, Monster Squad is one of my top three favorite childhood fantasy films–forming the ultimate Triple Feature along with The Goonies and Explorers (who remembers that one?)
And I will definitely go see Van Helsing. My opinion goes something like this:
Hugh Jackman = good
Monsters = good
Vampires = really good
Literary references in otherwise dumbed-down movies = good
Of course, the vampire mouths look horrendous and I don’t see why Frankenstein has to come into the picture, but let’s be honest–I’d watch Hugh Jackman fold laundry.
I dunno, guys…I love monster movies, and I love CGI-laden brawl-fests, but the trailer alone felt stupid and insulting. My expectations are set very, very low.
I thought for sure it was a Castlevania movie. Simon Belmont would kick Van Helsing’s ass!
Not “Frankenstein”; “Frankenstein’s monster”. “Frankenstein” was the doctor who made the creature that everyone ends up calling “Frankenstein”. Argh.