Official "Van Helsing" Discussion Thread - Page 8

Sorry, off topic

"BEHEADING"??

No harm done. Your probably right, I was talking about something that's really irellevant. No harm done, partly
my fault as well.

I really loved it, though, and I am glad you liked it too.

Don't know if this has been addressed before:

Was the actor playing the inexplicably loquacious Monster played by the same actor who was Sloth in The Goonies ? I swear that when he was in the ice lolly costume just before the climax -- equally inexplicably telling everyone where the antedote was (what ever happened to good old Wolfsbane ?) -- he shouted "Hey you guuuuuys!!!"

Or maybe it was "Puttin on the Ritz". I dunno.

I weep for cinematographer Allen Davieu -- the only artist who has the right to come out of this ludicrous project with any self respect left intact within his no doubt frazzled body.

John Matuszak, who played Sloth, died in 1989 from heart failure.

You know, I think we just didn't "get it"

But they bought him back to life for this, right ? I mean he was like a real monster, right ?

It was definitely an iced lolly costume though.

Also -- quite obvious I haven't waded back through the thread isn't it -- was Van Helsing 1800 years old ? I mean, he was around in 73AD to slice up some dude and now he's some grumpy middle aged tart in a dust coat ?

And if the Valdaciousness (or whetever Dracula's dad was called) built the ice fortress to contain the gay vampire (those brides are so a massive beard) -- did he not think to tell anyone about it ? Like the ancestors who had to kill the gay vampire, for instance ? Or the Vatican who'd sent Van Helsing to kill the gay vampire in the first place...?

Too many questions.

Jesus, Strax - stop expecting some arthouse movie! It's probably better than something 70 years old, so just shut up and enjoy the pretty pictures.

I think you might have to be Sloth or Frankenstein's Monster to enjoy the film...

One thing that seemed visibly noticeable was Sommers' seeming cribbing of Peter Jackson and LOTR's camerawork. Every other shot was this huge spiralling epic shot that was completely extraneous, and you just felt Sommers had just watched the trilogy and thought 'Hey, I should try that!' while having none of PJ's artistry.

He probably watched them after he watched RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK for the 500-th time seeing what of Indiana Jones' escapades he could squeeze into his film this time...

Dan, I'll level with you. This is all a front.

Honestly, I was concerned for the first 10 minutes. I was all like, "What the hell ? No colour ? Booooring!" And my friend was like, "Dude, that's how they saw back then." And then the action moved to Paris and he backpeddles and is all like "yeah, except in France, where they invented film and colour at the same time."

Well, then I was all like, "Thank god that film and colour had been invented in Mordor as well by the time Van Helsing turned up to find Dracula (who was cunningly hidden away from the tireless search parties in the huge great castle on the hill with flashing lights and shit. Good plot pointing I thought).Otherwise the whole film would have been like in olden days."

Then I stopped thinking like Michael Bay and wished that now he's looking at CHUD again, he'd come into this thread and tell us how he would have made Van Helsing. I mean, if he had, that would have been awesome.

I wish that every time Van Helsing spoke, explosions come out of his mouth. That would ROCK.

Oh, oh, oh wait...I remeber now. He was "the right hand of God" (or was it left ?).

So I guess he could have made those explosions have happened.

What a missed opportunity.

He could of, and should of.

Also:

I loved the YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES homage. Great to see 1986-level special effects in a 2004 ILM-fest.

Also, Kate Beckinsale's comedy indecision. 'I love my brother! Don't kill him!' 'He's a monster! Kill him!' 'Wait, he may be a monster but I still love him' 'No, he's a big dog. Kill him!'

And don't forget the first vampire bride to die - which looked suspiciously like the actress sticking her head through one of those boards you get at the beach that give the illusion of a different "comical" body.

And with that, Hugh Jackman is sitting home at night, crying, wishing "If only I had Jefferey Combs career..."

Devestation, right there

I knew I would get you round to my way of thinking

If only Jeff Combs could be in a film which had a budget one fifth of VAN HALEN...

(it just really cracked me up when that guy up there said 'You gotta get over Van Halen')

I'm sure Pol Pot had a stash of cash, but it didn't make him feel any easier about being the figurehead for something truly terrible.

Alright, facetious example, but seriously, at least Combs has the decency to keep his embarrassments (Epidemic, anyone) confined to the small cable screen.

A few more roles like this and Jackman is going to be remembered less as cracking boy's own, female moistening, comic book hero and more like the prancing, neckerchiefed second fiddle to Maureen Lipman in the stage filmed Oklahoma !

What about his embaressments all with "Reanimator" in the title?
I know at least one of them was in the theatre for like a week.

I thought you were a reanimatorfan1983 now ?

Leopards, spots. Yadda, yadda.

Lets just leave this alone, and carry on discussing Van Helsing.

I kinda like the way you think of Jeffrey Combs every time you see my name somewhere... I think it's sweet...

Ah well. Where were we?

Who are you calling sir, sir?

First of all. I didn't disliked" Darkness falls", neither "They" (I didn't watched them again, and won't). So I am a easely please.
I like Stephen Sommers's Style (I love the Mumies films) But....

VanHelsing is a very Bad movie.

I agree with all the plot holes and illogicals situation that have been said. The coach's ride near the cliff and the girl swinging and catching the antidote made me give up. I really wanted the movie to end. When Van picked the girl and the fryar and jumped, I said: fuck( outloud in the theater). I never do that, I despise people who talk while watching a movie.

The acting of Kate (and a lot of people) was very bad, but to her defense Stephen Sommers doesn't give you a lot . He prefers action.

This film has some good stuff, but is badly outweighted by the bad.
I think The mumie's return was over the top, but Van Helsing makes it looks like Driving Miss Daisies.

You laugh NOW Charles B, but apparently you haven't heard who plays the villian in the next Van Helsing movie. Hugh Jackman willface the biggest challenge of his career, and Van Helsing will be in for the fight of his life against,,,,


















DAVID LEE ROTH!!!!!!
JUST KIDDING, er, uhm, I hope.

-Dear Stephen Sommers,
If you are reading this I want you to FULLY understand that the above comment was purely fictional and intended as a joke only.
Please?
I was Only Kidding!-

Glad my typo cracks up someone else, as much as it did me.
Roth could play a creature of some sort in the next one, wouldn't even need creature make-up, or CG

Hey, I got an idea.

Van Helsing does not deserve all this attention.

Let's turn this into the Jeffrey Combs appreciation thread.

Here is what was WONDERFUL about Van Helsing!

I finally broke down and saw it today, not wanting to contribute any cash to it on it's openeing, but as a horror fan doing my painful duty. It was actually a very suprising movie! It broke with conventions and trends and was a work of true originality.

How so?

1) Kate Beckinsale

Ok, she was gorgeous in this. Her accent was horrible, and her acting was paper thin. Normally when someone so delicious is in a film, and they show that little talent, we get to see her in the old rumpy bumpy. In fact, her acting was so bad I expected full penetration with a potential werewolf provided necklace.

But it was not to be! WAY TO BUCK THE TREND!

2) Hugh Jackman

Big budget movies are great chances for actors to gain exposure for being mroe than what their last role provided. they get to flex their craft and show they are capable of more than the last film they are remembered for, and this prevents them from being pigeonholed as actors.

But this was not to be! Jackman played a man who could not remember his past, angry yet driven to fight for the side of good, reviled by his peers for his destructive and violent methods, and went into a form of feral rage before the film ended. I never expected the up-and-coming A-list actor to replicate the role of Logan/Wolverine in a different film entirely! WAY TO BUCK THE TREND!

3) Sets

Some of the sets were truly impressive. Large looming castles, dark cathedrals, tattered villages. Often a film of this caliber will take the easy way out, and try to dazzle you with electricity or even a cyborg. But when enough care and dedication has been applied to a film of this epic scale we will certainly not see any of that.

But this was not to be! We had Cyborg monsters, high tech weapons, mechanically inclined midgets, slide projectors, cattle prods and LOTS of electrical cabling. A less talented director may have limited himself to the technology available to the time period his film is set in, but not for this one! I never saw it coming. WAY TO BUCK THE TREND!

4) CGI

As time goes on we see computer effects develop so far that we can no longer distinguish what is real, and what is pure fabrication. So advanced it has become, you will lose the chance to appreciate a computer effect for what it is. It is an art that as it nears perfection will not be acknowledge for its greatness. The casual observer has to wait for long drawn out documentaries on DVD to show how the effects were done before they get to appreciate the mastery of computer effects.

But this was not to be! In their infinite wisdom, the effects in this movie were painfully obvious! So much that you got to appreciate each one for what it truly was. no more waiting for the long winded DVD, you could clearly see each bad matte, the unnatural motions and physics defying swings and leaps, and the oh so obvious fake sets in the glory the first time through. I could point at the screen and yell "hey, thats computer generated!" with a big shit eating grin during almost every major scene in the movie, not having to painfully wait to see them exposed on the DVD months later. WAY TO BUCK THE TREND!

5) Story and Physics

Another thing we expect of big movies is a plot that is a bit hard to grasp sometimes. the characters are rich in detail, and the story has epic overtones and tragic consequences. When we do see that character die, we feel a real loss because we have taken a journey with them, and do not wish to see that journey end. And for as great as this is, it causes us to miss some of the actual action as we are paying attention to the characters and miss the events of their lives.

But this was not to be! Always looking out for us, they put our needs first. No petty plot got in the way of watching the swinging. No deep story being told drew our eyes away from the exploding gremlins, nor did any little detail of the consequences of the action pull our eyes away form rope swings across 100 yard chasms! Not even the basic laws of physics that the weight of a person woudl not be enough to overcome the weight of the rope, let alone the chain, to maintain the velocity to pull it off. None of that useless crap got in the way of seeing our beloved characters really swing! WAY TO BUCK THE TREND!

6) Timeline

Often we follow a story in these well made movies along a pre-set course of time. The plot and the tension are keyed to their events occurring over a given span of time. Often we feel the direness of the circumstances as we KNOW there is not much time left, yet we must endure the moments preceding it to get there. We also know when a limited amount of time is available, we must hope that our heroes save the day in tim. If there is but one minute left, we will see that minute in utter agonizing detail so we know the import of its passing. If the enemy can only approach at a certain time, we learn to dread that time for fear of our beloved heroes well being.

But this was not to be! Every night was a full moon when we craved action, so there was no delay between what we all really wanted. And when traveling across entire countries we had to endure but a fewminutes before the next full moon, so that the werewolf we all wanted to see yet again could arrive. Even the dread daylight is not enough to prevent the bride, oh she of heaving breast, to appear to our noble heroes. But they are sure we woudl never wonder "why is that bloodsucking bitch out in broad daylight?" becaue these things matter little when compared to seeing yet egain her breasts. Of course, her acting was poor and and yet we did not see her turned into a chineese finger trap between Wolverine and the horny Friar, so 2 common trends were cast aside with one single moment here.

But oh the agony if we had to endure a full minute at the stroke of midnight. To know that we had but that instant to resolve the very fate of our heroes. Sure, a common movie may have stretched the minute out by slowing the speed of the actions down, and let the chime of the clock tell us how close doom was. But that would make us CARE about the character, and we just might miss one of the 18 bazillion werewolf/demon vampire transformations that took place in that fraction of time... so wisely they threw the laws of time out completely and gave us a glorious 10+ minute ride at the stroke of midnight. And none of that slow motion stuff, when you are changing form 80 trillion times you don't want to do it at any speed but full speed. WAY TO BUCK THE TREND!

So see, this was adventuresome film making like none other I have recently seen. and yet, it is adventuresome in that instead of breaking new ground like you would EXPECT in a big movie, it purposely copies elements of many other movies, only changing those things that give you a sense of normalcy, like the actual character origins, their actual imagery, or the basic technological and linguistic level of the era. Just enough to surprise you, and that is really what was important right?

I went in hoping for a great action ride with great effects and decent plot. I left with none of that, but I was completely surprised since it lived up to NONE of my expectation, and in that regard it is truly a triumph of filmaking!

WAY TO BUCK THE TREND!

P.S. So as to not sound completely unimpressed, there was one scene that I laughed out loud at, and it was the single redeeming moment in this whole steaming pile. It was when they show the picture of Vlad Drakula and they took the classic Tepesch painting and superimposed Rich Rox's face into the picture. So we went from scowling tyrant with a mustache (who DID look like Chris Lee actually) and put the face of the poofmeister on it. I almost pissed my pants that was so pathetically done and so funny to see.

Great post. gret review !3ullseye

After eagerly awaiting this film since the project was first announced about two years ago, my wife & I finally got the opportunity to go see VAN HELSING at our local drive in complex last night on a double bill with DAWN OF THE DEAD. Another film that I had high expectations for.

I grew up watching all the Universal classics on the FRIGHT NIGHT LATE SHOW
here in the Buffalo area as a kid. I was obsessed with them & I begged my Mom for anything & everything I saw in stores that even remotely featured these legendary creatures.
FAMOUS MONSTERS magazines, Aurora model kits, PEZ dispensers, you name it. If it featured my favorite monsters, I HAD to have it!

So, to see them featured in a major, MAJOR motion picture & get THIS sort of attention for the first time in my lifetime ( I'm 42 ) has just been thrilling.
Oh sure, there've been an incredible amount of Dracula, Frankenstein & werewolf films released over the past few decades. Some of them quite major productions with a LOT of fanfare ( the Langella DRACULA in '79, BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA in '92 & the Deniro FRANKENSTEIN a couple of years after that, to just name a couple ) , but none of them on THIS scale!
And although there's been no shortage of "monster mashes" featuring the big three ( & more ) all in one film ( with THE MONSTER SQUAD & NBC's HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN in '97 being recent examples ) but , again , nothing to this level. UNIVERSAL has invested a LOT of resourses into this film & the very special properties that it features.

So, does VAN HELSING live up to my hopes & expectations?
Honestly, how could it?
I mean, I've got about 40 years of expectations built up for this movie. So, it was in a tough, tough position.
But, hell , I had a good time watching it if nothing else. Sure, there were plenty of groan inducing moments & there was a LOT for me to criticize.

Let's see, where to start...

- Mr Hyde.
What is it lately with these gigantic, Incredible Hulk-like CGI Mr Hydes? First we get the one in LXG, now we get this one. I don't know, he just didn't really work for me.
He just didn't seem at all like a Mr Hyde to me. Actually he looked & moved more like how I imagine The Beast will look when adapted for the screen in X-Men 3.

- Dracula.
I didn't hate this version like many here ( & I'm sure elsewhere ) did, but he also just didn't come across to me as particularly Dracula-like.
He was a pretty good villain in this, but honestly, I wish they'd have gone for a Dracula more along the lines of the one from DRACULA 2000. That, to me , would have been more appropriate.
The one they used was a combination of a second rate Gary Oldman Dracula & a James Bond villain.


- Frankenstein's monster.
Again, in trying to create a new vision or be 'cutting edge" or "state of the art", they went too far away from the monster that we know & love. This creature was simply too far removed from being recognizable as such IMO.
Trying to create a giant Karloff version might not have worked, but I'd have liked to have seen something more along the lines of the butish monster from Hammer's too often overlooked EVIL OF FRANKENSTEIN. Now, THAT would have worked for me!
Instead we got something that seemed to me more akin to Marvel's old Deathlok The Destroyer cyborg charecter from the 70's.
The transparent cycling, electrical brain, the glowing heart... it was just all too damned futuristic to me. The creature didn't seem at all a product of gothic, victorian era graves.

- Dracula & The Brides offspring.
WTF?
One would think that something who's animation is supposed to be such a dreaded, feared thing, the thing that drives the film's plot infact, would be a lot scarier & more effective than those things. Know what I mean?

- Kate's charecter ( or lack of one... ).
She was a LOT more effective AS a vampire than she was aa a vampire slayer.

- The Wolfman.
Hey, I've got no problem with how the werewolves looked. But that business of them returning to human form everytime there was a little clous cover? UGH!!! ARRGH!!!

- That smarmy as hell ending.
You know, the faces in the clouds. I almost hurled!


So, what DID I like about the film?
Well, quickly to keep this post from becoming a book...

- Atmosphere. Atmosphere. And
MORE atmosphere!
I love it. I'm a freak for atmosphere.

- The sets ( & mattes etc. ).
Everything that went into the creation & presentation of the film's "look". The castles, the villages, the vatican's secret catacombs etc.. It was all just eye candy to me.
To me, the monster's lairs were far creepier & more effective than the monsters themselves.

And here I was thinking someone actually had something to say about VAN HELSING. Let down.

MODs! *screamed like a child would "Mom"*

I love that this is the thread that gets bumped by spam.

Aw I won't let you down, Josh

When this movie came out, I was very much against it. As a long time fan of FFC's BS's D I longed for the day when I could see a Anthony Hopkin's Van Helsing spin off. I'd been telling people that his work in that movie was comic genius ("Ja ja ja, she was in a lot of pain and then we cut off her head, put a stake through her heart, burned her and buried her and now she's found peace"), and I wanted them to get the chance to see what I was going on about. Apparently a Hopkins VAN HELSING was in the works for a number of years but ultimately hot shot X MEN star Jackman got Sir Anthony booted from the project

So, I went in actively angry that the film was being made, but ultimately that didn't matter because I saw the movie with a bunch of friends and myself and one other friend had eaten alot of nutmeg right before school let out (we saw the movie around 8 PM) and so I quite frankly don't remember much of what took place during the two hour running time. I've never had the urge to go back and revisit it either (judging by what other Chewers have said about it, and other film fans in general, this is a wise decision)

Here's what I'll say about VAN HELSING, it's an idea that deserves a reboot. I heard Guillermo Del Toro was talking to someone about it.

Exactly.

Del Toro is the man who should have made this film to begin with (if it must be made at all). I would love to see him tackle the Universal monsters.

Interference deleted! now you can all keep discussing VAN HELSING in peace.

What's everyone's favourite Van Helsing scene? I'd go with Igor and his

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaDiIDSqKEI

Seriously, Igor is the best thing about VH.