Okay, a lot of people thought the movie "sucked nuts" upon its initial release. Having a chance to see it again after theaters on DVD, I realized that it wasn't as great as I initially thought it was, but still very entertaining.

I was wondering if anybody here has more input after/if they got and viewed the DVD.

How about an option for those of us that actually enjoyed it the first time around and still think it's a whole lot of fun? "About the same" just seems like it'll merge right into the votes of people who still think it was so-so or meh. Basically, it applies to the other options you listed.

It's still 20 min too long and has the retarded Frankinstein's Monster in it. If it wasn't for those two things I'd like it a lot more.

In my second viewing, their was still to damn many rope scenes.

I still think they tried to put too much into one movie. It wasn't a bad movie, just more suitable for a 13 year old than an adult.

Yep'. And I doubt I'll ever watch it again.

The opening scene was very cool!

a 13 year old with A.D.D.

I voted Not great, but not bad either. Its a decent time-waster to watch around midnight.

I voted Kate Beckinsale.

I liked it in theatres and I still like it now!

MATT

Where's the "wouldn't see it a second time if you paid me $100" option?

I enjoyed it a bit more watching it again. I was expecting something a little more serious when i saw it in theaters so left a bit let down (not uber dramatic serious, as i was expecting some slapstick, just not over the top weirdness from Dracula and Co.), but at home it was a good movie to have in the background.

Didn't like it the first time, was unbearable the second time.

:\

This movie is pure garbage.

Why buy it or even watch it again if you didn't like it the first time?

People give movies second chances... i can't imagine buying a movie you disliked, but perhaps a friend or significant other wanted to rent it. Then there's the idea that people's tastes or perceptions may change.

YOu just can't get over the rope scenes can you?

You guys were expecting this to be good in the first place? It was directed by the master of cheese.

After another viewing while I was drinking vast amounts of alochol...why all the hate?

This movie is highly entertaining and while it isn't that great, it sure as hell isn't abysmal. Hugh Jackman does a great job of playing an action hero, and Roxburgh may ham up Dracula, but then again who hasn't done such a thing with the character? True, the last ten minutes might be stupid, but they don't ruin the the movie IMO. Dang, Kate is a hottie!

The movie was a fun summer matinee outing with the family. Nothing more, nothing less.

This movie sucks balls no matter how many times you watch it!

oh man, it was a whole lot less.

Still sucks. The director, Stephen Sommers, had too much money and believed in the "it's just a dumb popcorn movie" excuse too much, resulting in a film with so much action and special effects that it became repetitive and boring. It's the same problem that The Mummy Returns had.

Good thing that Van Helsing majorly underperformed. Maybe this'll cause him to return to his The Mummy or Deep Rising style.. lots of action, but more evenly paced and with time spent on creating entertaining characters as well.

Sometimes you just aren't in the right frame of mind when you see a movie. Like someone else posted, he was expecting something a little more serious, so it was letdown, but knowing it is campy before viewing the second time, it was much more enjoyable.

I left the theater scratching my head when i saw the Fifth Element. It was so so. But then I watched it on video and it blew me away. I guess I just had something else on my mind the day that I saw it. It happens.

My friends and I rented the DVD the other night. They enjoyed it the first time, I was giving it a second chance.

The film is still a piece of shit.