Van Helsing

[Skillachi]

Oh yeh i just remembered to say this to willy. Thats how dracula is supposed to be a handsome evil person. Thats how he got women to b around him to be later used as slaves or food. Dracula has always been a calm cool person except when angered and he shows the correct amount of confidence for somebody immortal... which is how he is to be portrayed.

[Omega]

Anyone who likes van helsing is obviously not a movie person.
Van helsing had a plot that was not only paper thin but one
that has been used a million times. The movie creators oftoday think they can sell the public a cliche story based on the fact that it has cool special effects in it and the people who support these movies are the ones that are causing them to make movies like that. The special effects were cool but i have a much higher standard for what makes a good movie. All in all it was about a four out of ten.

[Cler1c]

4 ou tof 10 seem a lil low to me still i woul dsay its closer to 7 or 8 of 10 ... i mean i loved dis movie and dats rear for me to appreciate these types of movies.

suh all in all van helsing worth the bucks .... if u already watch shrek 2

[Greatis]

Omega your ratings may actually be right if you are judging the movie for every conceivable element. However I would not judge a movie like Van Helsing for plot.

I went to watch Van Helsing without high expectations. I had seen the preview therefore knew the plot from then (a thin over used one as you said) so went to the movie just for laughs if any and the special effects.

I believe in watching movies for specific things. Like a movie maybe good with special effects, the rare movie with a good plot etc.

[Malloc-X]

but the plot is what makes a movie great

[Greatis]

[quote author=Malloc-X link=board=29;threadid=4204;start=0#msg41052 date=1086806822]
but the plot is what makes a movie great
[/quote]

yes but alot of the comedies that you watch do they have good plots?

[PanChan]

i must say i agree with y'all about tha CG it was GOOOOOD!!!!
i especially enjoyed the final fight scenes with dracula n van helsing's werewolf form (him look TUFF as a werewolf ;D)

didn't really go to see the movie for the storyline still.....i love fictions like those....frankenstein, werewolves.....ESPECIALLY dracula! have always been a dracula fan... i was disappointed with dracula. don't think they portrayed him the way he's supposed to be....
he lacked a certain finesse....dracula's supposed to be suave and cool with the dark and evil in him still bein evident.

i'd give it a 5.5 out o ten

[Skillachi]

[quote author=PanChan link=board=29;threadid=4204;start=15#msg41270 date=1086874966]
i must say i agree with y'all about tha CG it was GOOOOOD!!!!
i especially enjoyed the final fight scenes with dracula n van helsing's werewolf form (him look TUFF as a werewolf ;D)

didn't really go to see the movie for the storyline still.....i love fictions like those....frankenstein, werewolves.....ESPECIALLY dracula! have always been a dracula fan... i was disappointed with dracula. don't think they portrayed him the way he's supposed to be....
he lacked a certain finesse....dracula's supposed to be suave and cool with the dark and evil in him still bein evident.

i'd give it a 5.5 out o ten
[/quote]

I want to qoute wat Pan said for willy. Dracula's supposed to be suave cool with the dark and evil still being evident. And i do agree he lacked the finesse but it was a good enough dracula for me

[Xenocrates]

OK. I've seen it, and here are my thoughts:

Two words: Sensory Overload. Van Helsing starts off with a blast, continues with successive blasts of increasing intensity and as if you didn't think the mind blowing, non-stop, break-neck, high intensity action couldn't get any more extreme, it multiplies the frenetic pacing of the plot, runs the gamut of every possible action sequence imaginable, and explodes with a climax befitting a thousand atomic explosions, that rape your visual and aural sensibilities to the point where when the credits finally start to roll, your brain gives thanks that it is finally over, and you walk out of the picture with a headache the size of Texas. From the director of "The Mummy", "The Mummy Returns" and "The Scorpion King", comes one of the most intense horror flicks I have ever seen. As to why it needed to be so intense, I will never understand. It would appear as though the director was trying to outdo Bad Boys II. Well, he succeeded. The movie was moving so fast that if you blinked, you would have missed out crucial elements of the plot. There are points in the movie where it's frenetic pacing becomes absolutely ridiculous.

Sommers does however, make sure that even though this is a horror picture, it does not take itself too seriously, nor too lightly. There is a bucketload of comedic points (the now classic trademark of a Sommers picture), but these are not too many. All Stephen Sommers pictures find themselves with a delicate balance between horror and comedy (See "The Mummy" and "The Mummy Returns&quot. Van Helsing is no different. However, it retrains itself so that the horror elements are not taken for granted. David Wenham, who plays "Faramir" in the "Lord of the Rings" movies, turns up in this picture as the friar, a rather ubiquitious character, an ecclesiastical equivalent of James Bond's "Q", and the movie's comic relief. That he does fairly well - although towards the end, he becomes somewhat annoying and useless to the plot.

There are a significant number of problems with the picture however, and that may have to do with its insatiable overindulgence with computer generated imagery. The backdrops and environments are excellently done. The vampiresses were wonderfully convincing (actually, the vampiresses were damn brilliant!). However, something was wrong with the wolf man, both the final and the transformation phases. Something wasn't particularly convincing there. Horrificly created yes, but his movements lacked the canine indiosyncracies of movement that would have made it a lot more frightening. I just never got the impression that this creature could exist. I will not even begin to talk about Dracula's alter-ego. That final fight was nothing short of absolutely ridiculous. Most of it was just a blur of half-baked CG rendintion. It was too kiddish, cartoony and unrealistic. The director needs to realise that sometimes going over the top with CG can cause the movie to loose its credibility. That's exactly what happened, and that's exactly where this movie fell down. Oh well. Nice try.

With those flaws aside, the movie is otherwise dripping with some very good CG. It's a pity most of it could not escape my well trained eye. Ofcourse, I don't expect most people will be able to see through it, and that's a good thing. The acting was decent enough to carry the plot, although Dracula's role seemed a little overacted. No fault of the actor I assume, as Stephen Sommers is the type of director that loves his archvillians to be over the top (remind yourself of The Mummy and The Scorpion King characters from his last three pictures).

This is definitely a summer blockbuster candidate. It's probably more of a good cable TV prime time premier. Hopefully, Spider-man 2 will come around and do what X2 did last summer: Blow them all away. All in all, Van Helsing was ok, but not great. Not by a longshot.

3 stars (out of 5).

[Skillachi]

Question Xeno this movie was rated as horror?!?!?! i was not aware of this, i thought it was a action adventure movie. As a horror movie this movie was nothing.... as action adventure though it deserves 2 thumbs up