Maybe I'm just getting old. I don't think so. I love special effects-laden films....IF the story holds my interest. IF there are characters to care about. VAN HELSING was relentlessly loud, overstuffed with pointless special effects, poorly acted. The story was crap. Look, I take these things with a grain of salt. I know it's a summer movie. I could actually watch The Mummy movies (I don't say they're great). But I'll go with the Chronicle's review on this one. Maybe not an F. How about a D? Looking forward to Troy, Shrek 2, Day After Tomorrow, Chronicles of Riddick, Stepford Wives, Spider-man, The Bourne Supremacy....
Okay... here's my line on Van Helsing. It's a B. What I didn't like (and agree with the majority of critics on): --Yes the dialogue is horrible. The friar guy isn't funny in the least. Not in the beginning, not in the end. --The beginning five-ten minutes. I squirmed in my seat, it WAS actually as bad as most people say. And I would understand if someone said "this movie stinks" during that part. Instead of trying to channel a vintage horror movie, it ended up being a failed mockery. --The CG... spotty at places, reminding me of the effects in Disney's "The Haunted Mansion." That's not good. --Kate Beckinsdale... hot and what not... but the acting was not very good at all. The poorness of the accent is just insulting. I feel that an accent is not the essential part of the character. Like Russell Crowe in Gladiator... bring some some modern dialogue and an Assie accent for a Roman general... but we bought it. You DON'T need an accent. If you can do one then it's a bonus, but if you can't, then how about not doing one at all. Some people complained about DiCaprio's Irish accent in "Gangs of New York." Well... there's nothing to complain about if you see this one. Here's what I do like (and what ends up redeeming the movie): --Certain actions scenes were great. After the first five minutes, the movie makes a turn for the better. The battle with Mr. Hyde is very nice... it's not unnecessary, nor does it need to be explained, because it sets up Van Helsing's reputation as a murderer. --The CG. It really worked in some places, such as the chariot chase you see in the trailer. And later on there's a Werewolf / Vampire fight that's pretty good. --The story. It's a compendium of various stories... and while some people are gonna say it was bad, I thought it was pretty original. And the ending is NOT predictable. Well... I mean it's no Sixth Sense or Life of David Gale twist, but I mean it's not textbook. --Last fifteen minutes. Very explosive... brings you to the edge of your seat. --Soundtrack. I mean it's not trying to be Oscar worthy, but the overblown sound actually fits in with the action for the most part. The redeeming element of the soundtrack for me was the harpsicord music that they play during travel scenes. Haha... sometimes I really like small things like that, it was very catchy. In the end, if this movie was actually made for 170 mil, then the studio is sure to lose money, but for pure entertainment purposes, the movie was more than entertaining. If you liked LXG or Underworld, you should also like this one. If you didn't, well then, don't expect too much.
I dunno about that... I think this movie is probably geared towards the everyman. As I walked out of a theatre I heard this middle aged woman go "wow that was awesome."
Personally, I just don't understand this whole dumbing down of movies. These big movies have gotten to the point where it's just a collection of action set pieces rather than a movie. Characterization and, to a great degree, storytelling is thrown out the window because it doesn't fit in with Short Attention Span filmmaking. I haven't seen Van Helsing, and I probably won't until video at the earliest. But since the comparison to LXG has been made, I can talk about that movie (since I've seen it). LXG was a very clever concept that had so much room for a story, and instead we got a whole bunch of running around and blowing stuff up. Instead of mining the rich backstories each of those characters had, we just throw them together and make 'em do stuff. Everything that could've made that movie something special was discarded because it wouldn't have allowed for a big action scene every six minutes. I don't look for Citizen Kane in every movie. I like plenty of popcorn movies. I like a lot of really stupid movies, but just like comedy has gotten to the point where funny isn't nearly as important as gross, action/adventure has gotten to the point where CGI, effects and "cool" set pieces are the only thing rather than trying to tell a story first and letting the CGI, etc. serve that story. As Jeffrey Wells wrote about what apparently were Sommers' ideas behind this new film: "Always keep your visual images on a high-calorie level. Don't use CG to enhance your film -- make CG the entire point of it. Always undermine period detail if you're shooting period - don't ever let your audience feel lost in another era. Always make certain your actors have great hair and are dressed really cool. Always keep the attitude and swagger levels at peak. "And never hold back on the high-tech weaponry, of course. And always have stuff going on in the sky... swirling storm clouds, lightning bolts, etc. Never make the audience wait for anything. They are easily bored -- stupid, really -- and must be constantly stimulated with 'ooh...aah' images. Keep that video-game energy alive and pulsing." Sadly, it's the spectacle that gets people in the door. Movies that require a little more from their audience often get crushed by the spectacle movies. There are still good movies made, even some larger movies, but too much of the kind of crap that LXG was gets made today (and with LXG it's extremely frustrating since there was so much chance to make a good movie with that source material. The same goes for Van Helsing, but I can't comment on what they got out of it since I haven't seen it). And I will leave with more from Jeffrey Wells since he says it better than I do: He looks like a nice-enough guy in photos, but as a filmmaker the man is ADD emptiness personified. His shooting style is like a dog's -- eager, expectant, anxious. And he's one of the biggest CGI fools around. He sits, right now, near the top of the list of bad guys in the big-budget popcorn realm today, up there with McG, Michael Bay, Barry Sonnenfeld, Roger Kumble and the ultimate Lucifer, George Lucas. If Sommers had the cojones or the character or the brains, he would consider the lesson of M. Night Shyamalan's shooting style. Shyamalan often holds back. He understands that creeps and chills can be delivered more effectively by showing less, by using silence and making audiences wonder and wait for the payoff, rather than assaulting them left and right.
germanic / romanian. it was poor, rather unprofessional. MrPaige -- aren't the tastes of the public every bit as responsible for the decaying of movies as an artform as those directors? if they are able to entertain the audience with their craft, which is their ultimate responsibility, then should we bemoan anything?
Well, the fact that they come out to movies based on pre-release hype is the audience's fault, but many of those movies fail to make their money back and drop off considerably after the first week (moreso than the average in most cases). So, the fact that studios are still willing to make these movies (while bemoaning the rising costs of movies, etc) is, to some extent, their fault. The fact is, these blockbusters should be blockbusters, but they aren't. The audience would be larger if they'd pay attention to the fundamentals. Audiences don't go to these movies in large enough numbers to justify their costs and often these movies are outright flops (LXG, for example, did $66 million. That's for a movie that cost in excess of $100 million) while smarter movies, if they do flop at the box office, do often manage to find their audience on home video and far outsell the big-budget flops (The Bourne Identity is a recent one. It did good business in the theaters but has done very, very well on home video. All for a movie that was fairly low profile while in theaters. It was advertised, but it didn't have the hype). People will put up with lesser movies to an extent. For one thing, Hollywood is good at making movies look like they're going to be good, which drives people to the theater in week 1 regardless of the quality of the actual movie. And for another, there are a good many people who go to the movie over and over again because even seeing a crummy movie is doing something and getting out of the house. The thing is, it doesn't take any more money to make the story better. Start with a better script and maybe you aren't writing off the losses on movies like these.
I totally agree on how the movie kept going and going when I was expecting/hoping it would end soon. ofcourse my main reason for wanting it to end was that I drank way too much coke and was about to explode. It did carry on and on though to the point where I was like, "ok, finish already". I didn't really care to see the stupid vampire babies pop twice, or the howling by the wolf when the chick died.
You know what movie went on and on, but it was damn worth it Brother Hood of the Wolf. Really liked that movie.
I enjoyed it. It was a fun night, mostly cause I was with 2 lady friends of mine. The movie had good entertainment value, I will give it that. There were some pretty cool scenes like when he was shooting that cross bow of his in Transylvania.
haha... yeah... i remember this movie because it was the first date of me and my current girlfriend. i remember there was something about africa, an Indian, and incest?
I'm looking forward to seeing this on video. From what I hear, it's supposed to be a lot like Castlevania.
Number 1 at the box office with $54.2 million. Of course, if the reviews are any guide, the thing will barely break $100 million despite being over halfway there already.
btw, saw it and give it a C+...It is what it is...don't expect more than that...the best thing is interconnecting Wolfman/Frankenstein/Dracula to a story unlike before...If you are a genre fan of this ilk, you will likely enjoy it...but, don't expect a "Raiders of the lost ark" type-movie...We heard this before with the Mummy, among others, but you can't replicate a movie that is lacking a strong leading character combined with too much hard-to-believe aspects while still achieving such a high fun factor...It may never be replicated to achieve that in a film and we need to accept that...
It will probably break it, but it won't go much higher than that. Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle opened to almost $40 million and barely passed $100 million overall. It's likely not going to get to $150. $125 million might be a stretch. For a movie that cost close to $200 million all in, I would consider that a flop. What a crazy world that an opening of over $50 million has to be a disappointment (since it means the movie very likely won't be profitable). The Hulk opened to $62 million and couldn't double that before the end of its run. Scary Movie 3 opened to nearly $50 million and barely did $110 million. It's not going to be too long before we see a movie open to $50 million and fail to reach $100 million. Maybe not this movie, but it's going to happen one day in the not too distant future.
I don't think it's going to lose money. I think I read on Yahoo that it made 50 more million in overseas release. Money will continue to trickle in until they about break even.
Another thing to consider is that these days, films actually make more money off of DVD sales than the box office gross. And big budget action flicks make a lot in the international markets, because US movie makers don't have much competition when it comes to slick, high production valued, eye candy. So unless Van Helsing pulls a "Hulk", then it will end up making money in the long run.
