What's new

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

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
But how unrealistic do the physics have to be before they become ludicrous with respect to what people reasonably expect from such a movie? For example, we laugh at the sight of Wile E. Coyote “hanging” in the air just before falling thousands of feet (then walking away from the fall) in a Road Runner cartoon, but do we really want the same level of nonsense from a monster movie? For some people, apparently they don't mind if it's on such a level. Maybe they just don’t care if it’s not scary or thrilling or moving (because of no sense of any real danger or tension or drama), any more than they care about those things in the cartoon. It’s just eye-candy fluff to them (“hee hee! I love the Beep beep! and the crash!”). Some of us were hoping for a little more, though.
 

Ernest Rister

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2001
Messages
4,148
"But how unrealistic do the physics have to be before they become ludicrous with respect to what people reasonably expect from such a movie? (snip)...but do we really want the same level of nonsense from a monster movie?"

Van Helsing is a cartoon, it is intentionally over-the-top and intentionally silly, and I bet Sommers and everyone else was laughing their heads off at the shot of the carriage jumping over the bridge, or Kate's over-the-top accent ("Ugh! Van Hhhhhelsing!"), or the brides wailing over their bat babys....BAT BABYS people!

DRACULA
Igor! Why must you torment that poor creature so?

IGOR
It's what I do.

Come on! :) You're expecting realism from something so OBVIOUSLY silly and intentionally campy? The Wile E. Coyote comparison is an apt one...you don't demand realism and physics in a cartoon, nor would you demand such qualities in a Zucker or Brooks comedy. Van Helsing isn't a thriller, it's a tongue-in-cheek, campy, action comedy.

The ship doesn't sail in a straight line? There's an underground weapons lab underneath the Vatican run by Faramir, but the ship doesn't sail in a straight line?
 

Scott Weinberg

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2000
Messages
7,477
Wile E. Coyote bouncing up from a 1,000-foot fall of a cliff is perfectly acceptable.

A poorly drawn or shoddily animated character...isn't.

Just out of curiosity, how much do you guys think VH will drop this weekend? 45%? 55%?
 

Jason Seaver

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
9,303
No; I was expecting something resembling excitement or suspense, though. Yes, Van Helsing was often intentionally silly and campy, but was that all it was supposed to be? It certainly at least had pretensions of having a character arc, or stirring something other than laughter from the audience.

And I'd also ask that you stop sullying the good name of Wile E. Coyote by associating it with this dismal movie. Chuck Jones put a lot of care into getting every frame of a Roadrunner cartoon exactly right, displaying precise comic timing and use of the image that Stephen Sommers can only hope to someday acquire.
 

Michael Were

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Feb 7, 2001
Messages
82
I am glad I have provided so much fodder for you guys to banter over.

All I am trying to say is that the cgi looked lazy throughout the film. I don't think that has anything to do with the (wannabe) campy style of the flick (it's just that they were too cheap to make that scene look good). I didn't want the physics for reality sake; I wanted it because it looks "right" (there really is a difference in my mind). But that is just one very miniscule hole in a Van Crapular film that stole two hours of my life.

Can anyone defend the dead Kate in the sky at the end of the film? That was not campy nor cheesy but some pasteurized cheese food product.

Michael

Oh, and there really is a weapons lab under the Vatican (next to Christ's Corpse).
 

Ernest Rister

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2001
Messages
4,148
(shrugs) I was laughing...of course, my best friend had just whispered "Simba!", so maybe that had something to do with it.

I don't understand why the response to this silly, campy horror-comedy is so vitriloic. You'd think it was a Michael Bay or Joel Schumacher film :)
 

Michael Were

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Feb 7, 2001
Messages
82
Ernest,
I think you meant vitriolic and I really don't feel too bitter. I just am pissed enough to want Sommers to give me back two hours of my Van Life. No wait, I am vitriolic.

Michael
 

Nick Sievers

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2000
Messages
3,480

Personally I don't blame ILM for this, it was the same case of the Mummy Returns of just throwing in scene after scene of CGI I highly doubt there is one scene that doesn't contain at least a few CG shots. Sommers seems content with thinking the more over the top action the better, wait for the extended action sequence to end and give a 2-5 minute exposition scene then throw more CG action at us.
 

Steve Christou

Long Member
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2000
Messages
16,333
Location
Manchester, England
Real Name
Steve Christou
Did you guys see the same movie I saw? eh? I enjoyed every minute of it.
My girl summed it up perfectly when we left the cinema "It was so silly." Exactly, a mad horror romp, James Bond in Transylvania. They messed about with the usual horror rules a bit [only a werewolf can kill Dracula? hmmmm okaaaaay], but they're not exactly written in stone are they? The horses jumping over the bridge was a highlight, loved it. More gore would have been nice. Some of you whingers will be first in line to buy the dvd I'm pretty sure, come on. :D
 

Chad R

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 14, 1999
Messages
2,183
Real Name
Chad Rouch


Actually, I'd say that was the problem with it. Whereas I thought it was okay, and diverting for 2 hours on a hot spring Florida day--the lack of good characters, intelligent dialogue and good plot is what would keep me from going back to it. There's just nothing there to make repeated viewings worthwhile. All that exists is spectacle, and spectacle only works the first time you see it.
 

Peter Apruzzese

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 20, 1999
Messages
4,894
Real Name
Peter Apruzzese

No, a *cartoon* is a cartoon, not a live-action movie. There's no way that Sommers thought he was making a silly, over-the-top film, he's not that smart.
 

Steve Schaffer

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 15, 1999
Messages
3,756
Real Name
Steve Schaffer
Steve,

You don't get it do you? It doesn't have to be Van Helsing, it could have been any ambitious special effects thrill ride extravaganza. See, the more successful these movies are the fewer incomprehensible pieces of auteur drivel like Magnolia or Mulholland Drive will be made.

I'll take exploding carriages over rains of rubber frogs any day.
 

Vickie_M

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2001
Messages
3,208


One of my favorite posts ever! Especially that quote.

This is the one I loved most...

"Don't you have a heart?"

"NO!" :D :emoji_thumbsup: :D

I'm feeling guilty that I downgraded my score for Van Helsing because I thought, well, I can't give it the same score as Troy, since Troy is the "better" movie. What the hell? I enjoyed VH a lot more than Troy. I'm still mulling it over.
 

Ernest Rister

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2001
Messages
4,148
"No, a *cartoon* is a cartoon, not a live-action movie."

Though a film be live action shot
With all the SAG cards right
May become a toon when the director employs
Every animator in sight

How much animation does a film need to contain before it is safely deemed "toonish"?
 

Peter Apruzzese

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 20, 1999
Messages
4,894
Real Name
Peter Apruzzese
If it's made with ink & cels (Fantasia yes, Mary Poppins no). If it's shot in a computer (Toy Story yes, Attack of the Clones no).

I'll grant that because of the sheer amount of CGI painting in the film, you *might* be able to call "Van Helsing" a cartoon. But the film's problem isn't its technique (flawed as much of it is), its problem starts with an addle-brained script, lifeless direction, and a cynical "the-audience-will-buy-anything-if-it-sounds-loud-and-almost-looks-good" attitude. The popcorn movie mentality, "shut your brain off and you'll like it". Why should I? - many "summer movies" don't require the brain to go away. Because the filmmaker isn't talented enough to make an actual *good* movie, I have to accept garbage? I don't think so. By that reasoning, Emmerich's "Godzilla" should also be held in high esteem by all the "Van Helsing fans" - it's the same kind of film made with the exact same intelligence and talent - but it's not. Why?
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675


That reminds me of something from 30-35 years ago. There was a woman who achieved short-lived fame by getting up on stage and singing badly, off-key, etc. This was supposed to be entertaining, as in "giggle giggle! Look how campy! Look how funny!". The problem was that I think people came to realize that the joke was on THEM--that what they were really doing was rewarding a lack of talent disguised as "campy, silly fun". It doesn't require any real talent or ability to do something badly. Another example is the "artist" who dumps a load of garbage in front of an art museum (my artist uncle told me about this one) and calls it "performance art". Is that really art, or is it someone trying to hoodwink you into accepting his lack of real talent? Is Sommers really some sort of "genius" at brilliantly creating silly, stupid, braindead (people seem to revel in the idea of turning off their brains) "fun", or is he just Ed Wood with a big budget?

Ed Wood's "so bad they're good" "B" (or D or F) movies could at least be excused for being made on miniscule budgets (along with other bad movies we laugh at, such as Robot Monster and The Creeping Terror). He couldn't afford to hire good writers, actors, etc. What's Sommer's excuse for making a B or D or F movie with an A budget?
 

Ernest Rister

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2001
Messages
4,148
"Is Sommers really some sort of 'genius' at brilliantly creating silly, stupid, braindead (people seem to revel in the idea of turning off their brains) "fun", or is he just Ed Wood with a big budget?"

Who said he was a genius? He's just making a silly movie. And I find it odd that time and time again, everyone seems to work in some reference to the budget of the film. Maybe perhaps that's the real issue that's rankling people - not the content...the terciary issue of commercialism.

"Ed Wood's "so bad they're good" "B" (or D or F) movies could at least be excused for being made on miniscule budgets (along with other bad movies we laugh at, such as Robot Monster and The Creeping Terror). He couldn't afford to hire good writers, actors, etc. What's Sommer's excuse for making a B or D or F movie with an A budget?"

Ed Wood has no excuse. He wasn't trying to make something horrible. Yes, folks - in art criticism, intent is indeed a factor. Doesn't mean you have to like it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,813
Messages
5,123,610
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top