This is another of those "I didn't hate it, but I didn't really like it either, and if you make me watch it again I might have to kill you" movies. (Sheesh -- I have a lot of those. I could make an Amazon list LOL).
I'm not sure what went wrong with it. I think playing it campier would have helped, just as they did in The Mummy, where they had touches of the old Karloff classic combined with camp, a few scares, and just a plain old Universal horror movie salute. I thought VH would be more like that too, but like a lot of directors, I think they got too caught up in how many special effects they could cram on the screen and then threw in some convoluted plot. And VH himself -- when he kept talking about all this mystery in his past, I was like "Uh-oh...isn't that just like Wolverine
( ... )
That was very much my feeling about it too. I went to see it because I loved The Mummy and The Mummy Returns ... but if I'd paid for a ticket I would have demanded my money back.
As a devoted Hugh Jackman swooner, I'd been looking so forward to Van Helsing for about a year, so I was devastated when I saw it and it was so dreadful. I thought it was silly and boring - it wasn't even enough of a parody to make that aspect of it worthwhile. :(
I thought that with Hugh Jackman and David Wenham, this movie would be worth seeing if only for the eye-candy value alone, but even that didn't help. The brief glimpse of half-nekkid Hugh at the end wasn't enough to make up for the rest of it. What a let-down.
I'm a Hugh Jackman fan too, so like you, I'd been really looking forward to the movie. In fact, it was at the top of my "must-see" summer movie list. I'm just thankful that I only paid a $1.00 to see it as police employees here get into one or two local theaters for a buck if they show their IDs. And even for $1.00 I felt ripped off!
I thought it was fun, but then I didn't pay to go see it, LOL! Hugh looked very nice, especially half naked near the end. I do hope he's the next Bond, I actually think he could get me interested in watching the movies again. I agree that there was too much CGI, and sadly it was BAD CGI way too cartoonish! Did you notice that they'd used a Jeykl/Hyde CGI that was almost identical to the one in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. I also thought that the guy doing Dracula was doing a fair impression of Gary Oldman, what I couldn't decide was if he was doing it on purpose. I could say that about the whole movie though, I couldn't decide how much was tongue in cheek and how much was meant to be taken seriously.
RE: Van Helsingii2none59August 4 2004, 21:48:15 UTC
Why do I have a feeling that your reply has just dropped in my mailbox after lingering for weeks in cyberspace? LOL (I just happened to be in this thread after answering another delayed post and saw your message).
Oh! I noticed that too! About the Jekyll/Hyde CGI looking almost like the one in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (and one vampire woman) (which I didn't seen until it came to DVD rental).
I had really thought Hugh might have the beginnings of another franchise (in addition to Wolverine in X-Men), but I can't imagine another Van Helsing. Then again, there have been a load of movie sequels that had me scratching my head, considering their predecessors had done dreadful business!
Comments 10
I'm not sure what went wrong with it. I think playing it campier would have helped, just as they did in The Mummy, where they had touches of the old Karloff classic combined with camp, a few scares, and just a plain old Universal horror movie salute. I thought VH would be more like that too, but like a lot of directors, I think they got too caught up in how many special effects they could cram on the screen and then threw in some convoluted plot. And VH himself -- when he kept talking about all this mystery in his past, I was like "Uh-oh...isn't that just like Wolverine ( ... )
Reply
I don't think the filmmakers were worried about accuracy at all, LOL!
Reply
All this movie did was make me run for my copy of "The Bride of Frankenstein" -- the original one with Karloff. Now *that* was a movie!!
"To a world...of gods and monsters."
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I agree that there was too much CGI, and sadly it was BAD CGI way too cartoonish! Did you notice that they'd used a Jeykl/Hyde CGI that was almost identical to the one in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. I also thought that the guy doing Dracula was doing a fair impression of Gary Oldman, what I couldn't decide was if he was doing it on purpose. I could say that about the whole movie though, I couldn't decide how much was tongue in cheek and how much was meant to be taken seriously.
Reply
Oh! I noticed that too! About the Jekyll/Hyde CGI looking almost like the one in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (and one vampire woman) (which I didn't seen until it came to DVD rental).
I had really thought Hugh might have the beginnings of another franchise (in addition to Wolverine in X-Men), but I can't imagine another Van Helsing. Then again, there have been a load of movie sequels that had me scratching my head, considering their predecessors had done dreadful business!
Reply
Leave a comment