DodgingCars

Actually the soundtrack was one of the few entertaining things about the movie. The classical guitar on top of the orchestra music was pretty cool.

The movie? It sucked big time. This is one of those movies where if someone told me they liked it, I'd have to seriously consider never listening to their opinion on movies again. Yes... the movie is THAT bad.

Horrible plot, bad CGI, bad acting, etc. etc. The end is completely hokey. There are scenes that are reminiscent of something Ed Wood would have done if he had the budget.

The Antipodean

I think it's great when the School for the Blind gets to take field trips.

Thanks, I'm here all week!

Giles

Giles

oh so cruel, but funny

The Antipodean

...For the love of god, Stephen Sommers, have some shame.

(Last one, I promise.)

steebo777

I think babka is taking a pretty hard verbal beating from everyone. Even though I agree with nothing in his post, everyone as their own opinions. But what got me was the fact that "Just about everyone clapped afterwards"... I don't know who went to your theater dude, but at the screening I saw it at, about 10 people left during the movie, 1/4 of them got up and left with about 5 minutes left in the film, no one in the theater clapped afterwards and a few people actually booed when the credits popped up (which I was laughing histerically at, gotta love Detroit though).

And babka, there's no reason to start another thread on this 'film'.

babka

There is no need to be baggin' on me like that. I really thought this movie was MUCH better than LOTR and Potter. Go see the movie and alot of you will also say that the special effects were tight. But in all honesty, I have been an avid home theater enthusiast & dvd collector since '97 and am not the 6-pack joe shmo. Plus, I saw this for free since I work in the industry. And no...I did not collaborate on this film. But it truly was great. I would love to see a 3-discer for this when it hits the shelves. I saw this in Burbank Cali, and 90% of the crowd clapped at the end. Although, I always find it weird that people clap at a movie with JUST the audience and nobody who participated in the film's making. I bet this flick will make bank...no doubt about it.

caiman

I've seen the trailer, the TV spots, and a clip on Leno, and the effects are shit. Not tight at all, dawg.

EvilConradBain

Well Babka I saw this movie and I thought it was crap. What other movies do you recommend?

cupon

Does this film have any redeemable quality? Is there at least one interesting scene, panorama shot, color technique, anything?

Can you at least point to 10 seconds and say, "disregarding the mediocrity of the film as a whole, that 10 second shot on the bridge was clever and well done."

Anything?

phapsu

I just came back from the free preview, at the Century City AMC 14 (near Beverly Hills). I got the free ticket through Rolling Stone web site. I thought the movie was bad. The room was half full ( all free tickets ). The middle section was half full. The left and right sections were basically empty. Nobody clapped or said anything when the final credits rolled. We all silently filed out of the room. My 9 years old kid, had he seen this movie, would have said "daddy, it was not a good movie". The accent was bad, the CGI was way too much. There were some scenes that reminded me of LOTR ( the castles ), but this one definitely can not be compared to LOTR. Dracula with Christopher Lee, sans CGI, was much better.

DodgingCars

Yes. I thought Jackman did a pretty good job with what he was given. I thought Frankenstein's voice acting was pretty good. I actually kinda dug the soundtrack.

There were some scenes in the movie that made me laugh (intentionally, not accidently ), some that made me jump, and some that were pretty tense.

But honestly, these were few and far between. I was ready to leave at the halfway point, but decided to stay.

Zodiac_Speaking

I'm just hopeing that it is dumb fun, like Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman or House of Dracula-I'm not expecting it to be Drcula (31) or something. SHHEEESSHHH! Everyone has a freaking opinion before they even seen it. Although, today, reviews have been mixed: D, B, F, F, D, D, B+, D, B-, C+, ect., I'll judge for myself. Plus, when I saw all those "negative remarks on aintitcool.com-the movie sucks balls, I knew that I won't be reading any reviews until today, I just don't trust them on that site. I get a review up tomorrow.

slop101

Here's the best written positive review of VH that I could find. It's a fun read and appropriate for this thread. Enjoy!


I don't know about you but I'm getting tired of critics.

This feeling of disenchantment has been building for a while, but it came to a head at the screening of VAN HELSING the other night.

Now, VAN HELSING is a long movie, but it didn't feel long. It's also a horror comedy, not a horror film in the strict sense. And the audience seemed to be "getting it." So did the critics, the local reviewers who were surrounding me in the nearby seats. They laughed along with the film's comical conjunctions of monsters, the over-the-top Dracula (Richard Roxburgh from MOULIN ROUGE), the references to older Universal horror classics ("It's alive, it's alive, it's alive"), the lush photography — both digital and otherwise — and framing.

I know I was enjoying it. The film was a kick in the pants. VAN HELSING was fast-paced, but without neglecting emotional development; it was well-photographed, had (mostly) good special effects, and even undermined at times the usual expectations of the so-called tent pole summer blockbuster.

But then, once the film was over I could hear, as I remained for the credits and all the rest of them made ready to vamoose, that in fact the critics around me didn't like VAN HELSING. That in fact they hated it. They wondered what ever the hell happened to Dr. Frankenstein (played by Samuel West, he is killed in the film's prologue), they couldn't figure out who played Dracula, they disparaged the (perceived) noise, the incoherence, the archness of the thing. My sources tell me that the online geeks also hate the movie, though I haven't had a chance to check all those postings at CHUD and AICN yet.

You know the feeling. You like a movie but the critics hate it. It's as if every reviewer in the nation had received their talking points in the e-mail that morning and had their mind made up before even entering the theater. If you were conspiracy minded, you would think that there was a cabal of critics who dictate the views of the many.

Now, it is true that reviewers can be as emotional and biased and vengeful as any other human being. They get tired of, say, Burt Reynolds, and the next thing you know they are trashing a film without noticing that it is Reynolds's best performance in years.

There is also a form of groupthink involved. It used to be worse when all the critics were base din New York or Los Angeles. Then it got better with the rise of the alternative papers, spreading out across the country and more or less doubling the number of movie commentators. But then it got worse again with the rise of the WWW, when opinions were more easily accessible, and early opinions — opinions based in many cases on advance screenings that even the critics are not officially invited to — became the Holy Grail of the internet.

Call me stupid or naïve, but I am really puzzled as to why VAL HELSING is such a bad film. I mean, it's not as if going into a Stephen Sommers film you don't know in advance that it is going to be a blend of RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK and ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEETS FRANKENSTEIN, only without the Abbott and Costello. It's not as if you are going to think you are walking into an Alain Resnais film instead of the first of the summer popcorn films.

But then, these nattering nabobs of negativity might charge that VAN HELSING fails even on its own terms. But I fail to see how. Sure, it takes the Universal monsters and shakes them up like a cup of Yahtzee dice. But there was no consistency to the original Universal version of these monsters who had variable powers and who died and were reborn willy-nilly or as commercial necessity demanded. And they certainly were not faithful to the source books (just as Frank Miller and others do variations on the geeks' beloved Batman). Only Coppola in his Dracula film (which VAN HELSING somewhat resembles) made a faithful adaptation of DRACULA (the first Universal DRACULA was technically based on a stage play, not the Stoker novel). Certainly what Sommers does to the Universal monsters is no worse than what HBO's DEADWOOD does to western heroes.

One phenomenon that I have noticed over the years is the gathering of critics after a movie — not even after, but as the end credits are rolling — and the weird power psychology behind their conversation. Whoever is the alpha dog that day sets the agenda for how the film is treated. You can hear their sibilant 'S's resonating over the final chords of the music as they try to come up with a microdot of a dismissive tag line or make a connection first before anyone else can so they can claim ownership. Even if a critic silently disagrees with the alpha dog (who is usually the daily reviewer), the AD has still set the agenda because the silent critic is silently responding to it.

Black moods such as this one make me wonder what the point of movie reviewing is in the first place. My somber and inchoate brooding is reflected, or anticipated, really, by L.A. TIMES reviewer Manohla Dargis in an interview at SensesOfCinema.com. Dargis tells her interlocutor:

"Frankly, I am pretty bored with most of the film criticism I read, to the point that I am beginning to think we need to start re-examining what it is and what it's good for, if anything. Of course, most of what's out there isn't really criticism but a degraded form of reviewing — just thumbs up, thumbs down, with a heavy dose of plot synopsis. Even reviewers who are somewhat more ambitious than the average hack tend to write about movies as if they're reviewing books. They pay very little if any attention to the specifics of the medium, to how a film makes meaning with images — with framing, editing, mise en scène, with the way an actor moves his body in front of the camera. To read most film critics in the United States you wouldn't know that film is a visual medium. There is smart writing on movies out there — FILM COMMENT and SIGHT AND SOUND are two oases — but there is a wearying homogeneity nonetheless. I'm not really sure where it comes from or why it exists. All I know is that there are received ideas about how to look and write about movies, and that not many critics deviate from those received ideas. (And frankly, it can be hard to do so when you're on deadline and when you're writing a lot. I'm still figuring out how to get out of the box.) At least some of it, I think, is due to the phenomenon of critics who absorb the ideas and voice of other critics. Although I'm sure it would horrify Hoberman to hear this, there are writers who now slavishly write in imitation of Jim's style, much as an older generation imitates the late Pauline Kael in voice and prejudice. The thing is that although Jim's imitators can, to a modest degree, approximate his style they're simply nowhere as smart. They also don't get that he has a definite worldview and that his style dovetails with that worldview."

I can add some confirmation to this diagnosis. There is a writer in my home town who obviously clears his views (silently, no doubt, and from a distance) with Hoberman's reviews and the VILLAGE VOICE in general before proceeding with his critiques.

Here are some further, disconnected thoughts on VAN HELSING.

For me, the main reason to see VAN HELSING is Kate Beckinsale. She's been creeping up on my since MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING, but I'm won over. She is a great comedienne and a great action star.

There is a scene in VH where Hugh Jackman — the new Clint Eastwood — tears off his shirt and roars. My first thought was, Man, this guy could play Tarzan, too.

Apparently bare breasts on a woman are acceptable to the MPAA as long as there are no nipples.

So why are the townspeople so mad at the start of the film? Is it a critique of groupthink — the kind we see in critics?

Is the character called Top Hat an homage to Riff Raff?

Shuler Hensley is a dang good Frankenstein's Monster.

Every new film is really a Bond film. Here, Van Helsing gets equipment from his Q that reminds you of Johnny Depp in SLEEPY HOLLOW.

The vampires' mouths remind me of the horrific FRIGHT NIGHT vampires.

Kate Beckinsale reminds me a lot of Karen Allen in the first RAIDERS film.

Did I mention that I love Kate Beckinsale?

Zodiac_Speaking

Good article. Most reviews are a lot of plot synopsis and little in the form of a true critique-that's why I always take a review with a grain of salt. Most of these reviewers on the 'net are what I like to call arm-chair directors. They seem to always know how things should be done. It is okay to, like what we all do here, to post an opinion. But just because something came a cross to someone a bit disappointing, doesn't mean the whole film is "sucking balls". Is Van Helsing good or bad? I don't know. I'm going noon tomorrow.

Apocrypha

Just got back, despite how much I despised what S.S. did to the MUMMY VAN HELSING is a great time at the theater.

It opens with a terrific homage sequence in b&w at Frankenstein's windmill and I wish the whole movie could have been done like the intro, still one of the coolest sequences I have seen open a Universal "horror " film in some time
I really like the lack of music cues in certain sequences which allowed for a little atmosphere and ambiance to build.
The David Wenham character is somewhat of a distraction, and he is left with very little to do other than be the forced comedic presence, which fits perfectly with the films Sommer's modeled his on.
The action is cartoonish but spectacular also alot of the cinematography and set design is quite outstanding.
Most importantly the MONSTERS look awesome. I like very little CGI but the Wolfman is really good in this movie.
And the physical make up for the Frankenstein monster is superb.
The cast one and all take their performances to the hilt of camp, again certainly something Sommers intended. Overall I think its too bad this film is getting knocked, its exactly what it was intended to be a great time for movie lovers who relish the classics and don't have trouble letting the kid inside out.

Sessa17

The reason I kind of bashed on babka, & I will again b/c this post does the same thing, is that he makes such bold, enthusiastic praise for a movie, he says he sees in advance, yet offers nothing to back it up. Anyone could have posted what he posted without seeing the movie. His posts are basically just "hey look at me, I saw the movie early, it was the greatest thing ever". I mean, to me, the post comes off as someone trying to brag about seeing a movie early. It may not be the case, but without giving any reasons at all to his over the top statements, I just find it a bit suspicous.

And now that I've actually seen the movie, & enjoyed it more than I though, I REALLY have no clue what babka is talking about, as the movie is not that good, not even close.

Although, I have been industry screenings before, & on the way out they tell you wherever you go, whoever you talk to, drum up as much enthusiasm for the movie as possible, & they even tell you to hit the internet to drum up some word of mouth.

babka

Get lost! Your posts are useless & fulll of negative vibes. And your implications as to why I said it was great quite frankly are stupid.

I could rag on you as well, but I am better than that....Go post elsewhere!

DVD Smurf

Collector or not, why tell us this before telling us that you work in the film industry?

What do you do in the (film, I assume) industry? Director, camera grip, editor, scene builder, or script writer etc....

What exactly makes this film such as a great film? What was the moral of the story? I am curious as you opened the door and let all of us in.

And I am also inerested in what films you would recommend...

And I will still see this film this weekend...

Cheers

DVD Smurf

Deftones

I just saw it.

It was OK. Nothing special, nothing too horrible. I've never been a huge Universal monster movie fan, but I can see how purists will see this as crapping all over the legacy of them.

The special effects are much, much better than the previews make them look.

I was surprised at how little Hugh Jackman actually talks in this flick. He's a pretty good actor, so you'd think they'd spice up the dialogue a bit, but they don't

Kate Beckinsdale's accent is horrific. She looks smoking hot, though, so I can forgive her.

Sessa17

I didn't rag on you at all Mr. Touchy. I explained my observations about your posts, of which you denied none & now made a reply that reads like a little kid who got picked on rather than a professional in "the industry". And if you think my posts are usuless, then you contradict that by replying. Clearly they meant something to you. Rathery than get your panties in a bunch, why not just explain what makes this movie so amazing to you.

n0fear88

i jus got home frm seeing van helsing, and thoroughly enjoyed it!

my only gripe is the ending...but i wnt spoil it for ya'll jus GO CHECK IT OUT...

it truely is great...i wouldnt say LOTR great, but ****ing kick ass nonetheless

my theater was packed out too! its so cool when that happens makes it all the better i reckons...Screen 4 of my cinema is the largest, meaning it has the most seats, and seeing all those people flock in made me smile

anywyas, go see folks!

G's Rating: ****/5

Mr. Cinema

This movie....SUCKED ASS. The dialogue was as crappy as the effects. If you thought Mr. Hyde looked sucky in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, wait til you see the version in this piece of trash. Frankenstein's monster (if you could call it that) is a huge waste of space. Only thing I liked was the Wolf Man and all he is used for in this movie is running around in circles. Some words of advice for Hugh Jackson, stick to Wolverine.



I have just seen a movie worse than League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

I know what's going to happen though, this movie will make a ton of money because the average movie goer is way too easily entertained.

antennaball

WTF?

Anyway, I just got back from seeing it and I thought it was horrible, and that's rare for me because I enjoy a lot of critically-panned movies. The whole thing just seemed like pure cheese to me, and not in a fun way. The acting was sub-par and the plot (or lack thereof) was mundane. Some scenes were just so draggy and others were laugh-out-loud funny in unintentional ways. Poor David Wenham...

However, for those saying the CGI was crappy, I definitely would disagree. It looked pretty damn good to my eyes.

Oh well, that's why opinions are so cool....

cupon

Was Richard Roxburgh scary playing Dracula? He was also in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, so maybe he's a walking, talking jinx.