Saw Van Helsing last night. Entertainment rating of 10. Just about everything else gets a 3. The special effects are very well done, and the film is very entertaining, but that is all that is good about Van Helsing. The acting is pretty bad (except for some a good consistent performance by David Wenham, and some good moments from Richard Roxborough). Hugh Jackman is okay, but never spectacular, and Kate Beckinsale is very bad (urgh...that accent!). The film has a lot of dialogue for an action/adventure flick- way too much. Most of the dialogue is cheesy and bad, much more than I expected. But then again, I didn't go to see this film for the in depth philosophical dialogue! The special effects in Van Helsing are pretty amazing, but there wasn't anything really ground breaking about them. All in all, a very entertaining movie with not much substance. Gets a bout a 7 out of 10 on the getsmartnow movie scale. BTW, I'm not sure if it has opened in the States yet.
Van Helsing gets a 23% rating on RottenTomatoes.com. Not good. I've heard nothing but awful things about this movie. According to AICN.com, during the NYC screening, someone yelled out, "This movie sucks nuts!" ... And the rest of the audience laughed. Really not a good sign. Will I see Van Helsing? No. Will I rent it? Probably. It may not be worth the $10 movie ticket, but I'll gladly pay $3.50 for the rental. (Then again, if it's anything like LXG, it won't be worth even the $3.50 rental. Perhaps dollar cinema.)
you didn't like LXG? alright... getsmartnow... so you're saying i should go watch mean girls instead?
*******SPOILERS (if possible, giggle)*********** This is from the San Francisco Chronicle review: ---------------------- "Stephen Sommers ("The Mummy'') throws together plot strains from various horror movies and stories and tries to muscle things along with flash and dazzle. But his film just lies there, weighted down by a complete lack of wit, artfulness and internal logic. So it's a disaster -- a big, loud, boring wreck -- but to say that isn't enough. "Van Helsing'' has the look of a failed experiment, as well, and that makes it almost interesting. Almost. What Sommers tries to do here is use action as the only means of involving an audience. So story is sacrificed. Character development is nonexistent, and there are no attempts to incite emotion. Instead, Sommers tries to hold an audience for two hours with nothing up his sleeve but colored ribbons, bright sparklers and a kazoo. What he proves is that this is no way to make movies. A sinking feeling sets in within minutes. Van Helsing is in Paris tracking down Dr. Jekyll who, in his Hyde mode, is computer generated. (Imagine that, a potion that turns a man into a computer graphic.) They get into a battle -- who knows why, or cares? -- atop Notre Dame cathedral, with virtually every moment of every shot artificially created, the soundtrack blaring all the way. The juxtaposition of Van Helsing and Hyde has a random mindlessness to it, and it's soon followed by other random juxtapositions (the Wolf Man, Frankenstein, Dracula) best suited to an Abbott and Costello farce." ------------------------------- LINK Whoa!
That's all that matters to me. Geez, it seems like a lot of people expect every movie to be Citizen Kane or something. If you see CGI monsters in the trailer, that should be a pretty big clue.
AntiSonic, Austin70 -- my thoughts exactly! i don't pretend to be an intellectual elitist when it comes to movies. i judge a movie for what it is. i won't rate LXG on the same scale as say Eternal Sunshine, and hence i can like both movies.
Too bad Nomar can't give us his review on this one. Someone else that is in NIMF will have to pinch-hit for him on this one.
i don't really know... i watch the prviews and sometimes i think they look bad, but you know i have this overwhelming urge to go see it anyway. critics sometimes fall into a trap of trying to think no movies are good enough for them. ebert gave this a thumbs up, if that counts for anything. okay... that's it... i'm gonna go watch it now.
I've found that the older I get, the harder it is to be entertained by big, dumb movies. I don't expect Oscar performances in my summer movies, but I don't want my intelligence insulted, either (*cough**hack*Independence Day*cough**hack*). Keep in mind that I pay $10 to see a movie in Manhattan, and that's just for one ticket (wife sold separately ). Also, since there are, oh, around 37 billion people here, if you don't hit the theater (on a weekend, mind you) at least 25 minutes before showtime, you're going to have a terrible seat. Since you have to get to the theater early, and because public transportation is always a concern here, you end up planning the ENTIRE evening around this one stupid movie. Hence, IT BETTER BE WORTH IT. So, if you think I'm being overly harsh or critical, remember that I'm biased and picky because I HAVE to be. Now, proceed with the Stephen Sommers bashing...
Omg. I've searched far and wide for someone else who didn't like this movie! You're ok in my book VS, even if you don't like the Strokes.
When the main credential their marketing department can cite is that its the same director as The Mummy and The Mummy Returns, you know it is going to suck. I pretend to be an intellectual elitist when it comes to movies so I'll be happiest if they're all Citizen Kane or something. But, even if you fall short of artistic merit, at least try not to suck.
Well, I reviewed movies for a couple of years. I was more of your "I was entertained, hence it was good" type critic, so I understand where you're coming from. I've also been pleasantly surprised by quite a few movies that I thought I would hate too. However, now that I don't review anymore, I don't have to subject myself to this, even if I do admit that it could surprise me.
I don't think I'm a movie snot. I enjoyed Independence Day. I've enjoyed lots of big dumb movies and even small dumb movies like The Core, which was really crappy (but fun in my opinion). I guess what I like in a movie is a "plot." I'm only asking for some sense of *why* things are happening on screen, for there to be some logic, whether or not it's hard to figure out or not. What I have trouble with is a situation where what's happening is just totally random. If it has no connection to the scene before or the scene after or any other scene in the movie, then it's hard for me. If it's purely light and noise, it should be called a music video. I'm cool with 3-minute music video.
LOL. I didn't originally dislike Independence Day. It was a big, dumb movie, and because I was only 18 at the time of its release, it was the PERFECT kind of movie for me. And you know what? I loved it when I walked out of the theater. But, a year back, I bought the DVD, watched it again (now at the tender age of 26), and became immensely annoyed by it. An Apple computer can hack into an alien OS? The President flying a fighter jet? Jeff Goldblum playing... Jeff Goldblum? WTF? That movie didn't require suspension of belief; it required you to take your brain out of your head, put it in a box, and ship it to Abu Dhabi (bonus points for naming the "Abu Dhabi" reference). I guess maturity forced me to actually THINK about why things were happening on the screen, which is why I turned on ID4. Like I said before, you can have a big, dumb movie, but if you insult my intelligence, you're gonna get blasted. Now, for all I know, Van Helsing could actually be smart. But unfortunately, the movie record of Stephen Sommers is not promising at all. The Mummy Returns, although entertaining, made a serious run at ID4 for the title of "Most Brainless Summer Movie Ever"... And B-Bob, what exactly is a movie "snot"?
