Van Helsing, You Murderer! [there will eventually be spoilers]

Cafe Society
1

Well, i saw this summer’s first mega-action blockbuster SFX flick. And I really liked it. It’s nothing deep, but Jackson is, well, really cool like he always is. Its not quite, say, the original matrix level of goodnes, but it is still fun enoug to lure me to the theaters again for round 2.

Not-really a spoiler here, but I was hooked on the idea in the opening sequence, which takes place a year before the movie really starts. Frankenstein shows his mug, his monster comes to life, and a certain villain appears.

Now, I should point out that Dracula and his bride are played in a seriously over-the-top style here. They chew more scenery than a lawnmower. This, actually, I sort of liked, since it hearkened back to the good bad old days of monster films. However, if you don’t like a bit of cock-eyed silliness in your monster movie action, you probably won’t like this.

Three things I really liked: there’s only one real gotcha! ™ moment. It still managed to freak me even though I kinda knew it was coming (heck, they pretty much telegraph the blow ten minutes in advance); second, they didn’t cheat the ending (you’ll see) and they really didn’t explain everything that went on. There are shifting paintings and magic all over, and part of what makes it fun is that they deliberately leave a lot of stuff unresolved.

Aside from the oddball acting, there are a couple of problems. There are a couple of plot holes, but they get covered up with a little cinematic handwaving. The other probelm is that the flick moves a bit too quickly at times. There are a lot of characters, and even the main ones don’t get a whole lot of fleshing out. They are more like archtypes than people.

Now, should probably point out that critics seem to hate it. I really don’t know why. I admit, I’m easy to please, but this is still going to be a movie sitting on my shelf in six months or so, and that’s a pretty rare thing for me.

For a contrary view, see: http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/v/van_helsing.html

2

You mean Jackman?

3

Blah, don’t bother me with the facts! :slight_smile:

4

So, after seeing the movie, could you say you have evidence that it is not based off the Manga? Or do you feel that it is all some “coincidence?”

5

How similar in style was it to the director’s Mummy movies?

6

Actually I find it quite credible that Van Helsing could be good despite the fact that the critics panned it a lot. I recently watched Underworld for the first time on DVD and was blown away by what a fun romp of a movie it was. The critics panned it, the online fanboys panned it, and they were all completely wrong. I’m beginning to think they’re all completely screwy where normal people are concerned.

7

(This is a copy of my post in the other Van Helsing thread)

I feel like I just wasted my money. Ok, the effects were nice, but this movie was got SO boring after a while. It was really predictable, there was no tention and I certainly didn’t care for any of the characters. This movie felt like Blade 2 and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

Nice effects though.

Btw, I assumed the horses were supernatural until I read what you said. It is said that they were Transylvanian and the fastest horses around. So when they made the jump I just assumed they had limited flying capabilities too. The thought that it could be a jump didn’t even occour to me.

[spoiler]It was kind of funny when Dracula discovers that Van Helsing is a werewolf and says “how can this be?!”. Did he forgot that he SENT A WEREWOLF AFTER HIM earlier!?

I may have missed something here, but when Frankenstein’s monster swings down towards the bridge, he ends up under it and that monk cuts him loose so he swings through the window. Then later, when he exits the window again he is ABOVE the bridge. What happened?

When Dracula escaped with the monster on boat and Van Helsing swims after him, he can’t follow because of the closing gate. First, it just closed before him. Couldn’t he have just dived under it? Surely he had time for that. And second, it looked like the holes in the gate were actually big enough for him to fit through.

When those baby vampires attacked the town, why was everyone OUTSIDE?! Haven’t they learned to always stay inside (preferably in their basemen[/spoiler]

8

I’m not a fanboy - never even heard of, much less read, the comics - and I thought Underworld was absolutely wretched. Just letting you know regular people sometimes hated it too. :wink:

9

[total hijack]
Underworld was one of the worst movies ever. I actually understood the plot (which seems to set me apart from the masses that didn’t get it at all) but it still sucked.

Funniest scene: The werewolves climbing Aliens style down the hallway on the walls and floor. I laughed my ass off at how crappy the CGI looked.

Rules of Engagement: whenever a wolf was transforming the vamp that was fighting him would just sit there and watch. I’d personally attack the guy before he transformed. I guess the vamps have more honor then me.

Silliest romance in movie history: She loves this guy for no discernable reason. It was also amusing how the other chick vamp was all over him too. Maybe I’m a bad judge but was that guy really that hot? Or are vamp girls just sick of pansy eurotrash?

Biggest Plot hole: Ok so the bad ass top vamp killed his daughter to prevent the crossover species. So why was it so hard to create the uber were-vamp? Couldn’t they just grab a vamp girl and impregnate her? Or if they didn’t want to be that crude seduce one? Apparently as noted above vamp girls are desperate for attention.

As I noted in a pit thread I hate it when people defend bad movies with “it’s a good popcorn muncher” by that standard any movie where things blow up and people jump around is a good movie.
[/hijack]

I know I’ll end up seeing Vanhellsing when my friend rents it so I’m just going to wait until then.

10

Another vote for Underworld as crap. Ugh, what an awful movie. Vampires can either be really cool or really, really cheesy. Guess which path Underworld took. When I think vampire, I think Dracula, not whiny goth kids. Actually, I’ve got a theory about this: the vampires in Underworld, with the exception of Victor, are not actually vampires; they really ARE whiny goth kids who think they’re vampires. I think this adequately explains why they’re all completely inept, especially in comparison to the Lycanthropes (would it have killed 'em to use the entire word just once?!)

What, this is a Van Helsing thread? As luck would have it, I just saw it. Not really deep, but it was fun. There were some “duh” moments, but there were just as many scenes where they went for the non-obvious. I fully expected the light grenade to be used to kill Dracula and was pleasantly surprised that it wasn’t. One thing does stick out, though: if the lycanthropy antidote is supposed to be in case a werewolf decides to turn on Dracula, what good is it locked up in a tower? Shouldn’t Dracula carry it at all times?

11

Kind of a fun movie. But as I commented to a friend afterwards, it wasn’t nearly as bad as Punisher. My favorite ‘oops’ moment.

[spoiler] Friar dude: At midnight, you will be able to kill him. But you must have the antidote before the clock strikes twelve!

Van Helsing: Check me out, Dracula. It’s midnight, and now I’m going to turn into a werewolf and beat you up.

Dracula: :eek:

Bells: Dong.

Van Helsing: menacingly One.

A 20 minute fight ensues, and we never again here another chime.[/spoiler]

But hey, I’m not complaining. I saw it for free.

12

I also wanted to ad to the Underworld tangent.

Apparently if you are a vampire… You all live in the same house. And if you aren’t fighting werewolves… ummm Lycans… you just lazily hang around the house day and night. Vampirism is really just like a very bad party.

13

Its absolutely nothing like Hellsing. If there is some relationship, it could only be that ther director saw Hellsing and thought: time for a Vampire movie… and I like the big hat and leather coat thing.

That’s about it.

Somewhat similar, but less emphasis on the plot and a bit more on the action (i.e., Mummy 2, but cooler and les annoying). In some ways, the whole movie is an excuse for cool SFX, and that was fine by me. They were cool SFX. Less humor, and Jackman plays it straighter than Frasier. I’m araid Dracula doesn’t have the menace Imhotep did; he’s fun but on a totally different level. His acting was a sort of spoof of the over-acted originals.

And the horses probably could have actually made that jump. It was about 25-30 feet, with a slight height advantage from the side they jumped from. At 25-30 MPH, I think you could just about do it.

[spoiler]It was kind of funny when Dracula discovers that Van Helsing is a werewolf and says “how can this be?!”. Did he forgot that he SENT A WEREWOLF AFTER HIM earlier!?

…

This does make sense: the other werewolves were under his control even before midnight at the first full moon. Van Helsing was not and never was. Dracula wasn’t shocked that it got Van Helsing (well, maybe that Van Helsing survived the attack that long) but that he [Dracula] had no control over him. They should have explained this better.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]I may have missed something here, but when Frankenstein’s monster swings down towards the bridge, he ends up under it and that monk cuts him loose so he swings through the window. Then later, when he exits the window again he is ABOVE the bridge. What happened?

…

It’s hard to tell, I know, but if you look closely he was swinging in a wide arc; the window he hit was toward the end of it and he was above the bridge level.
[/spoiler]

[spoiler]When Dracula escaped with the monster on boat and Van Helsing swims after him, he can’t follow because of the closing gate. First, it just closed before him. Couldn’t he have just dived under it? Surely he had time for that. And second, it looked like the holes in the gate were actually big enough for him to fit through.

…

That did bother me. On the other hand, given that the boat had six rowers, Van Helsing wasn’t going to catch up.
[/spoiler]

[spoiler]When those baby vampires attacked the town, why was everyone OUTSIDE?! Haven’t they learned to always stay inside (preferably in their basemen

…

Partly, but they thought there were maybe 3 vampires. This was a giant swarm of bats, more or less. And noticve tat people who were inside got killed anyway. but I agree they were pretty stupid.
[/spoiler]

[spoiler]if the lycanthropy antidote is supposed to be in case a werewolf decides to turn on Dracula, what good is it locked up in a tower? Shouldn’t Dracula carry it at all times?

…

Presumably, he thought he’d have at least a little warning; all the others were under his control even before the first full moon. And he can fly; he knows they’re fast, but he probably figured it wasn’t a major risk. I would’ve though the same thing.[/spoiler]

Here’s a non-spoiler for you: I think Van Helsing is actually supposed to be Longinus, as in “Spear-in-the-side-of-Christ-Longinus”. See below:

Masada was in 73 AD, as the friar says, 1700 years before the movie begins. That’s only a lifetime and a few miles away from Jerusalem at Christ’s death. Accordong to some story I heard from somewhere, Longinus was supposed to be cursed to live until the last days, possibly being the eternal soldier. Its similar to the the fate of one of the men in “the Green Mile…”

14

That was pretty much my reaction. While I didn’t like it as much as I thought I would, I didn’t really dislike it that much either. It’s was just really boring.

I didn’t expect … anything at all, really, from it, story-wise, but I would have thought that at the very least it would have kept me entertained. But not really. Wasn’t really exciting, wasn’t funny, wasn’t scary, wasn’t interesting. Just was.

And I still think the character designs for every monster except the werewolves was awful.

15

Saw it yesterday ( Van Helsing ). We had a pretty good idea what we were putting ourselves through, but had a morbid curiosity anyway. I hated it. My friends hated it. The audience hated it. Heck, at the end of the movie when we were exiting and saw a long line at the ticket stand, the immense shouts of “it sucks” and “save your money” were pretty incredible.

Some thoughts. . .

They really played up Miss Beckinsale. The number of scenes she entered with a camera shot of her high heels was uncanny. Felt like the director had a foot fetish.

The effects, really, just werent jawdropping. Their were some ok shots, but alot of it screamed digital fx just like some old movies scream * stop-motion-photography *.The vamps faces seemed kinda plastic, stiff, unmoving.

Some of the lines in the movie were just awful. Most jokes invoked some scattered laughter, but not as much as the corny lines the heroes exchanged with the creepies when they were fighting. Or the scene with the horses and the bridge.

At least I didnt see anyone getting kicked in the 'nads.

Towards the end, when Beckinsale is dead and her face appears in the clouds and a tear rolls down her cheek. Wow, that was sappy.

16

I saw the movie last night. There are a few moments when the movie isn’t taking itself seriously that I really liked it! (The James Bond-inspired introduction to high-tech gadgets by Q/Friar Carl). But not long into the movie, the filmmaker lost his sense of humor and tried really hard to be Cool and Sexy “To the Extreme.” This movie could have worked tremendously well as a comedy, but as it is, it turned out to funny by accident.

It exceeds your expectations as to just how derivative, ham-fisted and trite it has the capacity to be. The tear-in-heaven family reunion ending was only one of the moments that induced snickers, laughs and guffaws throughout the theater.

Beckinsale: “Some say you are a murderer, some say you are a holy man. Which is it?”
Me, in the audience: “A little bit of both?”
Jackman: “A little bit of both.” :smiley:

17

Just got back from seeing it. A fun romp, but not as fun as I had hoped. None-the-less, I will see the sequel.

Everytime I see Jackman I think “young Eastwood.”

18

I enjoyed it. I only had two problems with it really: it was too loud, and too dark. Sure I know it’s supposed to be night…but it’s a movie and I want to see…they needed to up the contrast a bit at least. The movie was one non-stop big noise from beginning to end. The few moments of quiet were like islands in a stormy sea of cacophanous noise.

I don’t go to action/FX movies for the plot…that would be like watching sports for the plot. So the slight incoherencies in the plot didn’t really bother me. There were a few instances where it was obvious that the writer had no clue as to how to logically get from point A to point B. So like the physicist in that famous Sidney Harris cartoon who has " then a miracle happens" as the second step in his equation, the director bull-shitted his way through some parts. for example:
towards the end, he needed Beckinsale’s character near Van Helsing so he can kill her as part of the plot, but the friar has the cure and is racing to give it. So what does he do? He has a rediculouisly improbable lightning bolt split the walkway in two, requiring Kate’s chartacter to do a silly series of Tarzan-like chain swings over the gap.

I liked the Frankenstien’s Monster and I was glad to see that he was still alive at the end

19

Personally, I think they really need to find a new editor. I liked the movie, but i’ll agree that whomever edited the last 30-45 minutes should be fired.

20

Just saw it: a disappointment. Way too much of the sensibility of a modern, stupid action movie; not nearly enough spooky atmosphere. Way too much impossible architecture, impossible animated stunts. Specifically, way too much rope-swinging. Overloud, overblown score trying to force the audience to be excited; no buildup of tension at all. Action scenes long enough to become tedious. There were some good points (Jackman was really good). But I’m left with some questions, which I’ll put in a box:

[spoiler]1) Okay, when you do a monster movie you get to make up the rules. In the 1930’s, Universal made up the stuff about werewolves and the full Moon. But what’s this nonsense about a werewolf changing back to a man every time a friggin’ cloud goes in front of the Moon?

  1. Speaking of werewolves, there’s one left over. The first Wolfman seen in the picture, the one that the brother and sister are trying to eliminate – what the hell happens to him? The Wolfman we see later is actually the brother, and then the third one is Van Helsing. What happened to the first one?

  2. What’s up with Mr. Hyde? Why the hell did he appear as a giant, hulking monster? That’s from League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, for Christ’s sake. Does Stephen Sommers think that’s in Stevenson’s book? Would he recognize Stevenson’s name? I was expecting a lot of references to old Universal movies, not to a crappy 20th Century Fox movie from last summer.

  3. That “light bomb” thingie – could that possibly have been telegraphed any more clumsily? Stupid plot device anyway (though even more annoying in Blade II, where we’re shown that a high-powered UV flashlight will quickly destroy vampires, even the super-vampire “Reavers”, which kinda made me wonder why Blade bothered with any other weapons).

  4. Lastly, where did Sommers get the idea that friars don’t take vows of chastity? Must be some order I’ve never heard of.[/spoiler]