Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by JonZ, Apr 26, 2004.
Too make him brooding and mysterious, of course. It doesn't play into the story at all.
Hmmm...I was wondering the same thing. Maybe the next Van Helsing movie is a prequal. Then we'll find out why he lost his memory.
I believe the animated prequel is out on DVD.
Ok, a prequel to the animated prequel then.
it's not in the animated prequel, either, and unless you can rent it for free it's not worth watching. I think maybe a lot of money was spent on animatics for an early segment of the film that was subsequently axed before any live action footage was shot, so they decided to recoup their investment with this "animated prequel."
The disc does include a 20 minute or so "making of" doc for the film that will probably also appear on the dvd and is about on par with the typical HBO First Look. The whole disc should have been a freebie like the Hellboy promo dvd that BB was giving away a few weeks ago with any dvd purchase.
I suspect the box office #'s for VH won't go down quite as much as many here suspect. If you look at the other choices for movie goers, right now, there's not a whole lot of strong competition. I supsect, guys especially, will be likely to give VH a try considering the alternatives.
I thought the movie was fun. I think I laughed more than the rest of the audience.
ABSYNTH: Anyone else wonder if they cut out some dialog around the "drinking scene"? Anyone else expecing the dialog to go like:
"What is this?"
"Careful with that! It's Absynth - makes the heart grow fonder."
It dropped 60% in its second weekend. Not exactly a promising sign.
I know one thing, If Star Wars Episode 3 was released one week after Van Helsing, the percentage dropped will be allot higher. Maybe 80-89%. Its just a guess.
I just watched the stinking pile of Hollywood manure called Van Helsing.
It was a gamble. I'd read some pretty bad reviews. But I remember liking The Mummy, and Roger Ebert's 3 stars swung the vote.
Roger Ebert has lost his mind.
That was the most gut-wrenchingly bad film I've seen since Dungeons & Dragons. And it wasn't even bad in a good way. Do they even make decent fantasy/horror films anymore? *SIGH*
That's it. No more summer movies for me.
(until Spidey 2 )
If that's what you expected, no wonder you were disappointed. "Van Helsing" is an action/adventure film, not horror/fantasy.
still a piece of shit of a movie.
I use a broader definition of horror and fantasy that covers such films as Van Helsing. Unfortunately the fantasy was Ebert's, and the horror was very much mine. I went in with no great expectations, believe me.
In any case, my question still stands.
Yet still a rung or two above Garfield (at least based on the trailers).
Saw this it's second weekend...theater was probably half full or so. Definitely enjoyed it for what it was worth...especially David Wenham. Everyone else obviously had a great time, lots of "nyuk nyuks" on the way out the door.
Can't wait for the DVD
Saw this yesterday. Only two other people in the theater besides me and the Mrs. My wife, who hates scary movies, actually wanted to see this. The CGI was so unconvincing, even she didn't flinch!
Best part: I liked Dracula's brides when they apperared more human; kinda sexy, actually. Other than that, not much memorable. Frankenstein looked like he had been assimilated by the Borg.
Suffice it to say, I would rather have seen Shrek 2.
Just got done watching it tonight.
Personally, I didn't think it was the hunk of dodo that some think it is. I've certanly sat through a lot worse. It doesn't mean I thought it was great.
The Plot - I actually thought the plot was pretty good in bringing a reason to have all of these characters in the same movie.
Frankenstein's Monster - I like the design, and I like the fact that they kept some of the basic innocence of the character.
The Beginning - Except for Roxbergh's Dracula, it was pretty spot on.
The Friar - David Wenham is probably the only person to come out unscathed from this film. His character was rather entertaining, and the only one that has personality.
The Beauties - At the very worst, they are at least nice to look at.
The Script - I guess Sommers has finally run out of dialog, since I couldn't get anything memorable about any of it. Jackman might as well be a mute, considering how little he got to work with.
The Acting - I don't put much on Jackman and Beckinsale, since they weren't given anything to work with in the first place. Roxbergh, tho, was pretty miscast. There are sometimes where he's ok, and then there are others where he was just horrible. The scene after his first wife gets killed is just filled with some of the worst acting and dialog I've ever seen. It had me withing in pain.
Lack of caring about any of the characters - Sorry, but you didn't give me enough to give a damn about any of the main characters. They were mostly blank slates.
The Whole Endgame - There should be a law in Hollywood: don't make the big confrontation between the hero and badguy a big CGI spectacle. Also, all the coincidences and "superheroic" things some characters were doing were driving me nuts.
Sloppy Filmmaking - There were some pretty gaping errors as far as I was concerned that took me out of the movie. In the beginning, how does her brother get to where she is so quickly? (Also, why the hell is he the only one with silver bullets?) Also, they must of not been moving very fast towards Rome, if we are hitting another full moon again. Also, what happened to Anna's men? You know, the ones that she had when tackling the werewolf? And, why just one werewolf? How about the thing about vampires being able to travel in the daytime if it is cloudy? Pretty risky, if you ask me.
Not horrible, but not that great either. Sommers has done better, but he's done worse. (Mummy Returns rates lower than this film.)