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

[Chad R]

As has been said before, the first weekend's take says more about the marketing campaign and initial interest in a movie more so than how well the mass audience is enjoying it.

The second week's drop-off is the real indicator. If it's in the 50% drop-off range, that's normal for event pictures these days and tell us little. If it's closer to the 70% range like HULK, then people aren't eating it up.

 

[LorenzoL]

With Troy opening up next week and the bad word of mouth that is receiving, I'll be shocked if Van Helsing doesn't drop on the 70% range for next weekend.

To think that I was really excited when I first saw the images and the teaser for this movie.

I have to thank Sommers and Universal for butchering the monsters characters that we have grown to love.

In the future, I will avoid watching Stephen Sommers movies specially in the theatres until he redeems himself and proves that he's not a hack.

 

[Chazz_S]

My quick, quick thoughts on the movie:

-Bad movie, though entertaining enough. Not something I particularly would want to see again (PERFECT to watch bits of on HBO or something)

-Hyde was the most entertaining baddie, although a bit 'didn't I already see this before?' (LXG)

-Hottest Beckinsale has ever looked

-Dave Wenham was actually pretty solid, and in the film much more than I had expected. Very anti-Faramir in this role.

-Jackman rules, but really wish the character would've been written to be more interesting. Felt bad for him having to act through all the cheesy crap, especially the end.

-Frankenstein was a friggin pansy. We saw him toss the hell out of Drac in the beginning and that's about it. He's got one of the brides trapped in the room while Anna swings away on the rope- somehow his weak ass couldn't even keep the bride from pursuit as we see her catch up to anna shortly. Also, he couldn't pull himself up from a rope.

 

[Malcolm R]

Doubtful. "The Mummy Returns" was a big budget sequel. I think "Van Helsing" performed very well on its own. If and when there's a "Van Helsing Returns," its opening will provide a more apt comparison to TMR.

 

[John Medeiros]

Same here...I'm going again this week.

And I am having a ball watching the Legacy Collection.
John

 

[Neil S. Bulk]

If it was well produced, it would have been good. Probably the best produced "B" movies are Raiders of the Lost Ark or Star Wars.

Neil

 

[Evelio Figueroa]

The film was ok, but this brings up an interesting question though. If the werewolves need the full moon to stay in such form, then how is it that the 1st werewolf was able to attack in broad daylight on what looked like to be an overcast day?

 

[Alex Spindler]

I was pretty optimistic about this film, having been a semi-fan of Sommers from his previous work, with The Mummy is probably his best with Deep Rising easily outclassing TMR. Unfortunately, Van Helsing is going to have to muscle with The Mummy Returns for last place. In total, this feels like a more expensive but less ambitious LXG.

I won't go into the plot inconsistencies, as that isn't what the film is really about. The true problem is just that I never cared. As they kept layering more poor attempts at story, I just started to care even less.
First there is Frankenstein creating his monster, which he succeeds at. But Dracula is funding him, which turns out to be some plan to give life to his stillborn children, but the machine only works with the right body in it, but if they get out of the machine the babies die, but vampires already reproduce through biting so why does this matter, but then Van Helsin is millenia old, but it's because he's the Left Hand of God, but he can't kill Dracula unless he's a werewolf, which Dracula wisely relies heavily on werewolves for his dirty work, but he keeps an antidote in a deep cavern in his castle in case a werewolf turns on him (which would take him an hour to reach and break open the glass casing), so of course Van Helsing becomes a werewolf, but he loses control, while other werewolves can easily be tasked with activities, even in human form, but his new found girl friend is able to swing her way to the rescue and save him just as he kills her.

But I don't care. The shoehorning of each of the classic monsters into the storyline felt especially poor and curiously harm any sequel potential in favor of providing short shrift to them all in one film. Their more cartoonish take on the monster special effects made this less of a horror film than Sommer's Mummy film, so it largely exists as an over the top stunt and special effects. But the stunts are even more silly than an afternoon watching Universal Studio Florida's Action Stunt Spectacular. I lost count of the number of times someone swung through the air on convenient ropes and/or throw important items through the air.

The one liner dialogue was okay, but the exposition and other filler was just plain terrible. I almost liked their version of Q and sort of liked Kevin J. O'Conner, where he usually is a bright point in a Sommers movie. Those were certainly the high points.

I feel like I should have liked it, but I wasn't able to find any of the fun B-movie charm that I found in THe Mummy or Deep Rising, but instead found that lifeless special effects-fest feeling I had watching The Mummy Returns.

 

[Doug Wallen]

Well, count me in the minority. I enjoyed this film, as did my son. We felt it was all a summer movie should be. It was a very pleasant way to pass a few hours together. Wouldn't mind seeing it again.

Yes, I am familiar with and really enjoy the originals, but I also found this VH pleasantly diverting.

 

[Billy C.]

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Call me crazy, but I have to imagine that Universal was hoping for mid-to-high 60's opening weekend. They know Troy is coming. They know Word of Mouth is mixed. If it made $54M this weeknd, I can't see it making for than $140M, which would seem to be a noticeable disappointment, given the MANY "outlets" (sequel, TV show, Video Game, NEW FRANCHISE) they had riding on it.

I agree the drop next week will be telling, but I can't imagine it won't be at least 60% or more.

Am I crazy in thinking that's noticeably less than they were hoping for, all things considered?

Take care,
Chuck

 

[Jason Seaver]

A good big, noisy summer action flick. It's possible; look at some of Sommers's earlier movies, look at Star Wars, look at Die Hard, look at Terminator 2. Hell, look at Kill Bill and Hellboy. All examples of movies that don't require lowered standards to enjoy.

Movies like Van Helsing make the audience have to work to enjoy it, to actively resist the natural tendency to think and make connections between what's going on now and the rest of the story. That's the filmmaker sloughing their responsibilities off onto the audience, and should not be encouraged.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

I believe MOST people go to the movies for the exact opposite reason - not to think. Much like most TV shows today.

 

[Nick Totoro]

A couple things really, really, really bit at me and made me giggle while I was watching this flick Friday:

1) Every time Dracula spoke I kept waiting to hear "bluh, bluh, bluh... I vant to suck your blood... " and have him hand me a bowl of Count Chocula...

...and...

2) Whenever listening to Frankenstein's Monster, I kept waiting for him to take out a Baby Ruth and scream "Heeeyyy, you guuyyyyyss!!!!"

Nick

 

[Jason Seaver]

Maybe. Still, in my case (I can't really guess how other peoples' heads work), making connections while watching a story unfold is kind of automatic. The "turn your brain off" thing is like trying to remain ignorant of the time when there's a clock sitting in front of you - it takes an act of will to ignore it.

And "most people come to not think" is really not an excuse. Telling the story well doesn't take that much more time and money than telling it poorly, and it's not like doing so will make anybody recoil in disgust. The people who don't mind a poorly-executed movie will get the same enjoyment out of it as they would otherwise, while the rest of the audience will enjoy it, too. That's more people liking your movie, spreading good word of mouth a reviews, coming a second time, and buying DVDs. I mean, that'd be a good thing, right?

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Couldn't agree more. To me that's the difference between a Van Helsing and a Pirates of the Caribbean.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

Like or Hate Van Helsing one thing I'm dismayed about is now not only are the suits producing movies and then watching the numbers they have the movie going public doing it as well.... oh no a 55% drop off , this means its a bad film, or I'm not going to see it becasue it dropped 60% after the first weekend. Who cares people do you like the movies or not. I Liked the Hulk I liked Van Helsing. I don't need to look at charts and graphs to tell me that. I Went to see Van Helsing on a Rainy Saturday Afternoon and it made it enjoyable.

 

[Jason Seaver]

I think that's a bit unfair. Yeah, I'll pay attention to box-office numbers, but only as a sort of secondary indication. If anything, a massive drop will push me to see it sooner, since otherwise it's leaving theaters. If you see ~200 movies a year, being able to read the tea leaves about what's going to stay and go is a useful skill to develop.

 

[Kevin Grey]

Nah, I think that $55 million was probably a reasonable expectation all things considered. I certainly didn't expect it to best Mummy Return's opening since VH isn't a sequel. Hugh Jackman is an asset to a movie but hasn't really opened a movie on his own yet.

 

[JamesP]

I saw it on sunday, and I was entertained. I wasn't looking for some brain stretching kind of experience, just to be entertained for a couple of hours and I was. I will see VH again before I see any of the Matrix sequels again.