Spoiler-free review: Van Helsing.

[Nishiko]

Short version:

Vampire Hunter D meets Pirates of the Caribbean, with the Silliness knob cranked up three notches.

Long version:

Pros: This movie delivered everything the trailer promised it would. The action was nonstop from start to finish, with absolutely no expense spared on the special effects -- if nothing else, this is definitely a feast for the eyes, and trust me, your eyes are starving when you arrive at this banquet! As the short version of the review suggests, this is by no means a horror movie, and it sure as hell isn't following any specific rules when it comes to monstrous guest appearances; this movie takes canon and flings it out the nearest window overlooking a cliff, then takes wanton liberties with what's left. The funny thing is that it all manages to work somehow. Friar Faramir -- yes, you read that right -- not only provides the comic relief in this movie, but he's also got the best lines, period: the first such line he uttered was, to me, the most memorable (I'm still giggling about it). The succubi were extremely well done, as were all the transformation sequences. I rather liked Dracula, though I couldn't stop staring at his hair everytime the back of his head faced the camera -- he had the spiffiest hairclip and a lovely 'do. ;D This was also the first time I'd seen baby vampires, thus proving that yes, Dracula really does do something with his women once in a while. *snicker* He's got quite the personality, and he's not the only one of the monsters to have one, either. Kate Beckinsale was rather nattily-dressed (I loved her corset!) and managed to break several laws of physics. The strangest and most notable thing I saw was the astonishing lack of blood despite the surfeit of weapons used.

Cons: Copious plot devices for the plot-what-plot story (including the occasional deus ex machina), zero character development with fairly stereotypical characters, a few statings of the obvious, cheap comedy, no intellectual stimulation, and absolutely no scope for speculation outside the existing story. This is very linear, rather predictable, and doesn't require a brain to watch. If you're hoping to see something that grabs your soul deeply and shakes it in its fists, you'll be disappointed. This is a visceral film with lots of pretty lights, nothing more, and you must be willing to suspend disbelief during its 141-minute course. The one thing I couldn't ignore was Hugh Jackman's failure to pick an accent. :P

The appeal is similar to that of Independence Day: good for at least one or two watchings, after which it loses its charm. It is kinda fun and I would probably see it again, though I don't consider it worth full evening ticket prices. Go watch, be dazzled, giggle lots. The only thing I wondered during the movie was what the DVD's outtakes would look like. :)

[jsniderfamily]

From the perspective of high-schoolers, my daughter and several of her friends saw it and commented more about the poor acting than I thought they would.  Do teenagers care about the acting??  They must.
They also said that action movie nuts would love it.
I guess I am going!

[BillyTucci]

We're going to see it tonight.  More so for the "fun factor."

[BillyTucci]

 >:(

Dug some of the designs, hated the direction and editing.  I'm getting so frustrated with wanting to be a director myself  and dealing with all the Shi/Magnificent 7th Grader/Victoria Cross stuff that I'm starting enjoy films and Hollywood less and less.

[Nishiko]

>:(

Dug some of the designs, hated the direction and editing.  I'm getting so frustrated with wanting to be a director myself  and dealing with all the Shi/Magnificent 7th Grader/Victoria Cross stuff that I'm starting enjoy films and Hollywood less and less.

Since you now know what kind of bullshit is involved in making a film -- never mind that most films produced aren't original nor encourage audiences to think -- it doesn't surprise me one bit to hear you say that. They say that's The Way It Is, but it wouldn't have gotten that way if someone hadn't made it popular. IMO, it takes only one film to make a different ripple in the Hollywood cesspool, but while I believe you could do that, I doubt those you're working with will let you; after all, why change what works? :P

[flerk]

Since you now know what kind of bullshit is involved in making a film -- never mind that most films produced aren't original nor encourage audiences to think -- it doesn't surprise me one bit to hear you say that. They say that's The Way It Is, but it wouldn't have gotten that way if someone hadn't made it popular. IMO, it takes only one film to make a different ripple in the Hollywood cesspool, but while I believe you could do that, I doubt those you're working with will let you; after all, why change what works? :P

A summer blockbuster isn't made for "thinking", especially one made for over 100 million dollars. When budgets get that high, the director is being directed by producers, studio heads and stock holders.

Unfortunately it is The Way It Is, because 54 million dollars worth of tickets were sold the first weekend and the people in charge don't give a damn if it was a good movie. A good movie to them is one that makes 54 million dollars its opening weekend. So, of course they will still make them the way they have been making them, because we all go and see them.

(I didn't)

[Nishiko]

A summer blockbuster isn't made for "thinking", especially one made for over 100 million dollars. When budgets get that high, the director is being directed by producers, studio heads and stock holders.

Unfortunately it is The Way It Is, because 54 million dollars worth of tickets were sold the first weekend and the people in charge don't give a damn if it was a good movie. A good movie to them is one that makes 54 million dollars its opening weekend. So, of course they will still make them the way they have been making them, because we all go and see them.

(I didn't)

All too true, o flerkish one. All too true. Alas. :/

[Doc Furious]

>:(

Dug some of the designs, hated the direction and editing.  I'm getting so frustrated with wanting to be a director myself  and dealing with all the Shi/Magnificent 7th Grader/Victoria Cross stuff that I'm starting enjoy films and Hollywood less and less.

Welcome to the party. ::)

[Dr._Kyle_Stevens]

I happend to like to eve though Mr. Summers did the whole thing a entirely different thing with the chracter, it was more a fantasy film or so to say House of Frankstein with Van Heling and Dr. Jekkel/ Mr. Hyde crossed-over with the Hunchback of Norte Dame.

Not only the actions scene were too fast to see, but you have to understand the whole storyline to know what's going on.

The twist of it was making Van Helsing a soldier of God, naming him Gabriel, who had vaguely any memory of his past, except for fighting the Romans in 73 AD.

He had seen God, and he was spared having no memory of meeting him.  But Van Helsing's name in Dracula, was Abraham, and he was Dutch,aswell.

The monsters I thought were unique in there own little way. The the Wolfman being victious and full of bloodlust and also Anna's brother under the control of Dracula. Even though deep down he didn't probably wanted to kill anyone but he was weak willed to fight Dracula, and usually the werewolf and vampire would fight each other to the death apart of the time or in the classics.

Dracula, more compassionate....some what. Also wore earrings. And took shape of a demonic bat, and some of the quirks he had like dancing to himself and controling a little army of his own and 3 lovely brides. Not to mention that they add the Vlad Dracula background to his background. A perfect villian for a monster film.

Frankenstein, Summers made him more intelligant and less braun. Either way you look at his character he doesn't seem to be evil or let it rule it. In fact, I like how they displayed him, all he wanted to be is exist to live as a " normal human being". He knew the Bible, which was awesome and was devoted to his father, which, in the old tales he would usually kill his creater.  I can live with the way they protayed him. Made his more knowable instead stupid and mindless killing machine. But I would mend with classics.

The 3 brides, more like harpie-like bat monsters but were a good distraction for Van Helsing and Princess Anna. Reminded me of the Weird Sister from Macbeth.

Anna Valerious, beautiful, nimble, and bold. I like the way her chracter was brought up and honored her family, living by their code,aswell. In my opinions if you see what happend to her character first understand her character's plot and the storyline, you'll get it.

Igor, disloyal and febbled minded, weak willed. Always gets what's coming to him in everyway you see the way he's character was always displayed. I liked his deformed body effects, the twist arched over back and his disloacted neck, too.

Dracula's children, victious little " craps" and got what was coming for them in a way.

The undertaker or Top Hat, too sneaky and was good for a comedy role.

Carl, brillaint in his own way, and will never know it. I like hi chracter because he had knowledge of the monsters, Van Helsing sould had the same knowledge,aswell.  Good comedic roles or lines. He was a good weapon crafter but never could follow the whole thing through.

Creature of the Black Lagoon, was supposed to have a camo-appearance but Sommers felt like he was over doing it.

Dr. Jekkel/ Mr. Hyde, funny role and was a good fight for Van Helsing. Not to mention that they mixed modern time and old time ways in this film, aswell.

And I am done with my personal review of Van Helsing.