*** Official VAN HELSING Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Justin Hargis]

I'm a huge fan of The Mummy and The Mummy Returns. I was hoping for a third one. However, I don't think Rachel Weiz was up for a third one.

Van Helsing is shaping up to be one hell of a summer movie blockbuster. I can't wait to see it. I doubt I'll be disappointed, especially since it was mentioned to resemble The Mummy Returns.

I'm already ready for Van Helsing 2 and I haven't even seen the first one yet.

I read movie reviews. However, I take them with a grain of salt. Because, everyone has their own unique perceptions on what makes a good movie.

 

[Mike Broadman]

This movie looks stupid that it would be a fun rental. If it wasn't Hugh Jackman, I wouldn't even think of seeing it. But then I didn't watch Kate & Leopold just because he was in it, either.

 

[Malcolm R]

"Critically praised" and "fun summer movie" are usually mutually exclusive. The best summer popcorn flicks are usually the worst reviewed.


Why would it be bad? He talks in the book.

 

[Iain Jackson]

I saw this last night, thankfully it was free entry for me...

Van Helsing is terrible. Awful. A catastrophic waste of time and money. It makes the Mummy Returns look like a masterpiece (I actually enjoyed The Mummy Returns, but it clearly wasn't great).

The film started off ok, and there was a reasonably entertaining scene with a surprise appearance from Mr Hyde (as in Dr Jekyl and...)
but soon thereafter the film deteriorated into a complete mess of abominable script and dire acting.

The only good things I can say are that the production values are generally very high, a couple of the (many) action sequences were ok and quite a few of the visual effects were impressive (the human-werewolf transformations were well done). Unfortunately, a lot of other visual effects are shockingly poor (ironically the wolfman himself looks pathetic) and the movie as a whole had no real sense of pacing or intelligent plot...

And to think I was really looking forward to this a few months ago...

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Rotten Tomatoes (regular/cream of the crop)
Pirates of the Caribbean (79%/63%)
Jurassic Park (83%/100%)
Terminator 2: Judgement Day (96%)
Spider-Man (89%/87%)
The Lion King (91%/100%)
Sixth Sense (86%/76%)
Gladiator (77%/71%)

You'd have to define "best", but by my accounts, the best summer flicks are usually well-reviewed...because they are well-made and accomplish their goal. I consider T2 the benchmark summer film and sequel. It was hugely hyped, and outdid the hype. It went above and beyond.

If by best you mean highest grossing, then that doesn't always work out.

Take care,
Chuck

 

[ChrisMatson]

Reviews are coming in and they are mixed, but mostly poor.

Peter Travers @ Rolling Stone:


RottenTomatoes--33% (Average rating 4.8/10)

MetaCritic--45%
Kirk Honeycutt skews the average--he even liked New York Minute with the Olsen Twins.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

James B., stoic as always, isn't quite so kind as Peter (0.5 out of 4)

Click me

"Van Helsing is the worst would-be summer blockbuster since Battlefield Earth."

Definitely not a good sign.

Not that resident horror nutbag Scotty W. wasn't enough (I look forward to your review).

Take care,
Chuck

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

No, the worst reviewed does not equate to the BEST summer popcorn flick. And it has never been.

~Edwin

 

[Malcolm R]

Never said it always did, never said it always has. But I have observed that in the summer, the critics' idea of good entertainment does not usually parallel the masses. Critics are looking for story and characterization, audience is looking for explosions and special effects.

More from Rottentomatoes:

Men in Black 2 (Rotten: 38%) = $191M
The Mummy Returns (Rotten: 46%) = $200M
Austin Powers in Goldmember (Rotten: 55%) = $218M
Armageddon (Rotten: 41%) = $202M
Pearl Harbor (Rotten: 25%) = $197M
Scooby Doo (Rotten: 26%) = $153M

 

[Craig S]

Dave Poland skewers Van Helsing in his column today. My favorite line:
I hate to say this, but I don't think I'll be able to stay away this weekend. I need a few more titles for my "Worst 10" list this year...

Edit: OK, I see Chuck beat me to James B's quote while I was editing my post.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

James B.'s was even better:

And Malcolm, your quote was "BEST summer films", not highest grossing. You'd be hard-pressed to find many people now that consider any of those films the best they saw that summer. Hype-driven, and hype-killed. I'll never dispute that you can hype an "high concept" action movie to a decent box office. Van Helsing will make over $100M. And then die a horrid death, unmourned and forgotten by this time next year.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

No, the HIGHEST grossing films do not equate to the BEST summer films. And it has never been.

~Edwin

 

[Craig S]

Now for a different perspective - Harry Knowles loved it. But his review IS filled with caveats - he basically says you have to approach it like a 9-year old boy on a sugar high.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

9-year olds on sugar highs like ANYTHING. I liked Yor, Hunter From the Future as a kid. I saw it theatrically and TRIED TO GO BACK AND SEE IT AGAIN.

I admit it. If I was 11, I'd probably think this was going to be the best movie ever, and would proclaim it as such after seeing it.

But I'm not 11. And Yor didn't hold up

Take care,
Chuck

P.S. Edwin, are we saying the same thing?!?!?

 

[Scott Weinberg]

That's so funny that you'd say that, Chuck. It's the exact same argument I took with a few critic pals who liked the flick more than I did.

"Yeah, it's stupid and sloppily made, but KIDS will like it."

"Um, so a movie can be crap IF it's geared towards kids? What kind of logic is that?"

Van Helsing is precisely the sort of movie that a 12-year-old boy will love. When that same kid comes back and watches it again after ten years...he'll slap himself in the forehead.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

 

[Robert Crawford]

This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "Van Helsing" please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.

All HTF member film reviews of "Van Helsing" should be posted to the Official Review Thread.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.


Crawdaddy

 

[Justin_S]

I used to be looking foward to this, but now I think it looks like pure shit. The CGI looks beyond terrible. Jackman was on Leno the other night, and they showed a clip with one of the flying vampiresses attacking him on his horse carriage, and the vampiress, along with the action in the clip, looked so incredibly fake that I was very surprised that the Leno audience wasn't laughing out loud at the clip. The things I've read in reviews sound beyond ridiculous, and its pretty damn ignorant that in the commercials they are referring to Frankenstein's monster as Frankenstein. The only reason I'll see this is for the gorgeous Beckinsale, and I sure as hell won't pay for it.

 

[Stevan Lay]

I must admit though that Hugh Jackman was not in top form in this movie. And even Richard Roxburgh who's usually reliable and solid turns out a comical performance. But I will blame the script department for their lacking.

Watch out for David Wenham though as he will be our next big Aussie exporter.

 

[Gary->dee]

I saw her on Conan last night. Easy on the eyes little-to-no personality. She said aloud 'I just got engaged blahblahblah', the audience didn't respond, she looked to them then they began to give her the 'who the hell is this chick again oh yes let's just clap for the hell of it' lazy applause.

Oh yes and they showed that same clip of the pale flying vampire chicks attacking. My god, if anyone has any complaints about CG in the new Star Wars movies then they should concentrate on Van Helsing instead. Looked so awful. Even the video game looks better.