Van Helsing

2. When a clock strikes midnight, you only ever hear the first BONG... and it takes 20 minutes for all 12 strikes.

I don''t really care, since I have no desire to see the movie, but that''s kind of a big spoiler to just throw casually into the middle of a paragraph, warning or no...

edit: me too

Point taken. Edited.

Thanks.

Although I haven''t seen Van H. it for some reason strikes me as a second attempt at making something like ""League of extraordinary Gentlemen"" movie. Plus I have to agree that Van Hal. does look like Vampire Hunter D only with out the whole talking hand thing...

Please don''t go see this movie.
Someone has got to compensate for $27 that my family members(yours truly included) unwittingly contributed to it so far.

This is the kind of movie which makes me want to find the director and rob my money back, and then make him pee in his pants.
They''re going to start on a sequel soon, this is really depressing.

I''m all for action/scifi films, I''m looking forward to Spiderman 2 and Day After Tomorrow, but this...this... Van Helsing is the first movie to truly make me feel like the director just spit in my face.

This movie should''ve had 90% less CGI, starred Kevin Sorbo and Lucy Lawless, and Frankenstein should''ve been played by Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Oh and this movie also should''ve had 100% less of the obnoxious blue filter.
If you''re making a film which has no strong points except for the visuals, then for Christs sake dont make everything in a f*cking blue color !
It''s not artistic, it''s irritating as all hell.

I''ve been avoiding the films with ""blue hue"" in the trailer like the plague, i.e. ""Underworld"", and I''ve been right so far.
The only reason I went to see ""Van Helsing"" is because Roger Ebert gave it 3 out of 4 stars, while apparently being delusional from his weight-loss diet.

"Mr.Swarvey" wrote:

Have you ever changed into a werewolf? It takes 6 bongs, MINIMUM.

I would think that after six bongs, you''d just be easily confused and really hungry.

VH isn''t that bad. Go see it matinee people.

"Sanjuro" wrote:
"Mr.Swarvey" wrote:

Have you ever changed into a werewolf? It takes 6 bongs, MINIMUM.

I would think that after six bongs, you''d just be easily confused and really hungry.

Nice.

""Hey man, is that Van Helsing?""
""Van Who-sing?""
""Van Helsing, man""
""Oh yeah, yeah....who?""
""Aww man, forget it-man I could really go for a taco!""

VH was about the movie my wife and I thought it would be. Campy. Action Filled. Swords. Monsters.

Clearly we liked (well actually love) Mummy 1 and 2, and just kind of...enjoyed VH.

But without the severely lowered expectations going into the movie, I would probably be making many of the same comments as above. As it was, I liked Frankenstein, liked Werewolf, loved that you could in no way associate Roxburgh as the Duke in Moulin Rouge with Roxburgh as Count Dracula. Really liked both sidekicks (Igor and the monk played by faramir guy).

spoiler dislikeage

I wish they hadn''t done two spawnings of the vamp kiddies, because one seemed to really diminish the other. Movie in general partially suffered from Matrix 2ism, in that you never believe the super good guys can really be hurt by the super bad guys, and so it''s difficult to put yourself in their place. (whereas in Mummy 1 and 2 you had several characters you could empathize with). ""I wonder what this chemical bomb that can shine like the sun will be good for?"" either needed to be done in a funnier way or not at all...okay especially after having seen Buffy seasons 1-5 on DVD for me at least.
I did like the vamp effects, and not for the female vamp body suit effect (which to me is a tad disturbing if you''re into that sort of thing...). My wife didn''t like the fact that the vamps insta-changed from human to vamp and back again.

We had fun, but the mexaplex movie place that was showing it in 3 theaters...ours was about 1/10th full, although that was Monday night.

"shihonage" wrote:

The only reason I went to see ""Van Helsing"" is because Roger Ebert gave it 3 out of 4 stars, while apparently being delusional from his weight-loss diet.

He''s shown a decided weakness for mediocre action-heavy films in the past. Particularly anything coming out of Hong Kong.

p.s. All of his (excellent) reviews over the last 10 years or so are up at Suntimes.com, and it''s updated each Friday with movies that''ll be in the theater that weekend. Look up the ""Great Movies"" section. His descriptions of his favorite movies are enough to make me want to see movies that I KNOW I''d hate. Good stuff.

I agree. Ebert is an excellent reviewer. I don''t always agree with his opinions though, but that''s another matter entirely.

[code:1:7061acebe8]
1. Troy (2004) $45.6M $45.6M
2. Van Helsing (2004) $20.1M $84.5M[/code:1:7061acebe8]

Ooof.

I saw Van Helsing on Saturday. Based on the comments here I went in with low expectations and actually thought it wasn''t half bad for a no-brainer, action-packed, lighter-than-air summer movie.

Dracula and the Monk sidekick characters were great, everything else was pretty much forgettable.

Ooof.

Word of mouth on Troy should help it a lot the next two weekends.

I can''t believe some of the great movies coming out this summer. Next movie: Shrek 2 in 4 days!

"slambie" wrote:

I saw Van Helsing on Saturday. Based on the comments here I went in with low expectations and actually thought it wasn''t half bad for a no-brainer, action-packed, lighter-than-air summer movie.

Dracula and the Monk sidekick characters were great, everything else was pretty much forgettable.

Slambie, I''m with you there. I think the main issue is that they couldn''t decide what to do with it, and in hedging, sunk the movie.

Either you are going to camp it up, or play it straight. It takes a talented director and writer to do both. This guy, ain''t one of them.

Send the techno packing, can the gadgets, write a straight forward, but funny, script, and you''d have a winner.

The music was way to loud and prominent. Not that it was bad. It was just like, ""Here, we are giving you traveling music.... NOW!""

They also went way over board in improbability of what ordinary people can withstand. Its one thing when the hero gets thrown back 10ft smack into a wall and shake it off. However, when you get smacked 40ft against a wall and then fall 12 ft down and just shake it off, its a little much. Not to mention all the times swinging 100 yards on a 50ft rope or chain and just landing and taking a few steps. You got to be going at least 40 mph at that point. Make them tumble or stumble at least a little. Its far more believable; especially if its CG.

I tried like all get-out to avoid the reviews and commentary- even in this thread!- and so went to see it (relatively) unspoiled. Granted, I never saw ""The Mummy"" or ""Mummy 2"" (and I disliked ""Independence Day"")so am not keen on summer blockbuster/actioneers....I loved this film.

Once I suspended ""all"" disbelief and let the fim wash over me, I can truthfully say I had a blast! The homages were good- especially the ""big"" one- about which I have yet to see anyone comment on (shame ,shame on them if they consider themselves horror pic fans!) and I felt that the acting was decent- just sorry that Anna wasn''t written a ""little"" better...highlights: gaspowered-magazined crossbow (I want one); Dracula''s wives; Carl (the FRIAR).... definitely worth the matinee price. Loved the B&W opening.

Heck with it! I am not waiting on the DVD release. I just emailed my fiance and we are going to see VH this week. I like action movies too much to miss it on the big screen.