Van Helsing.
 

:y:

or

:n:

I hear it's all CGI, no story.

Thoughts??

Haven't seen it yet, but I want to. From what I've seen though, I :y: it

i dunno, i've seen the trailer like 7000 times in the past 6 months and it's never looked particularly interesting to me.

I've heard more negative reviews of it (both official and just random people) than I have positive. I dunno. All I'm hoping for is a summer action flick. I'll see it when I go home for summer this week.

The Bourne Supremacy, Spiderman 2, and Collateral though...:drool:

Saw it yesterday and it wasn't terrible but nothing amazing. Pretty funny actually. If you're looking for a deep plot then probably not the movie you're looking for, but if you like the whole vampires thing you'll probably be happy with it.

It had it's low points but I give it a :y:

I give it a :y: I enjoyed the hell out of it.

LOL, I never thought of that. Good point.

I saw the previews, but i don't think it will be all that good. So i gotta say :nono:

They really don't, they refer to it as "the Frankenstein monster" or "the monster."

Anyways, this movie rules. The plot isn't too thick, but it's there. And anyways, when you have a bunch of precreated characters like Dracula, Frankenstein and his monster, and Van Helsing, spending too much time fleshing out the characters is a drawback because you'd spend the majority of the movie screaming "I KNOW THAT YOU ASSHOLES!!!" If you're looking for innovative storytelling, this isn't for you. This is a movie for fans of the scifi/horror genre looking for some serious action in an anachronistic fashion. This isn't a movie that makes you think, it's a thoroughly enjoyable asskicking-fest. If you're looking for anything else, you're an idiot for watching this movie.

The Toronto Star gave it * out of ***** and they're usually pretty acurate

you get what you expect really, cos of all the negative reviews i was expecting it to be horrible but i left happy

Van Helsing is a load of shit.

All the reviews that I have read so far on the net say that it wasnt any good. They said that it was just another movie that people down in the end. I think that I will still see it though.

saw it tonight, I really enjoyed it. Nothing overly specatular about it, but it wasnt horrible. Worth the 5 bucks admission.

Probably cause most people don't know that Frankenstein was the name of his creator and not the monster himself. I would gamble to say that 85% of normal Americans think that Frankenstein is the monster himself. Almost everybody I have ever talked to thought that. :|

Anyways, my point is...they probably just called him that so the normal idiots wouldn't be confused. :lol:

My mate James promised to poke my eyes out with a knitting needle if I see it, he says its so bad.

My friends and I came to this conclusion: As long as someone was fighting someone, the movie was very cool. When they stopped and tried to tell a story, it all went downhill.

Oh, and Kate Beckinsdale's character really sucked.

BTW did anybody else notice that that friar dude is Faramir from LoTR?

All i had to say is that...

I DIDNT KNOW THAT WEREWOLVES WERE BETTER THAN...

It was ok, nothing mind blowing, but worth the admission.


David Wenham = the goods :cool:

I really didn't enjoy it at all. :-\

Just got back from it.
Waste of 14 bucks.

Some good CGI in it. But it still sucked.

Awful movie

Spoilers below: Highlight to read
There was no explanation as to how Van Helsing: the human, managed to live 400 years after he murdered Count Dracula, and why the hell he even murdered Count Dracula in the first place. Also I thought it was pretty ironic that Kate Beckinsdale could survive being thrown through a metal building, but got killed after being speared by the werewolf.

*some spoilers, I guess*

It was a decent attempt at recapturing a big over-the-top "thrill ride" adventure movie, but Van Helsing ain't exactly Indiana Jones when it comes to making that sort of thing enjoyable.

The plot was shot full of more holes than Sonny Corleone in The Godfather. MVP already covered the biggest plot-holes, and there was just some things in there that REALLY should have happened but didn't. I don't know about you guys, but I was dying to see Dracula and the Frankenstein monster throw down for a few rounds. Instead, Van Helsing steals the spotlight again and becomes an uber-huge werewolf (why he's different than the other ones is beyond me) and kills Dracula. If they really wanted to have the vampire/werewolf fight, why not just use Anna's brother, since his family was supposed to kill Dracula in the first place?

Granted, it was rather cool to see the old classic monsters re-imagined. The werewolves in particular were pretty shweet, although I don't remember werewolves ever being able to climb on walls like the creatures from Aliens. Dracula's brides had their moments, although their voices were awfully annoying. And what was with Dracula's little Oompa-Loompa followers? I don't remember them ever being in any movie or book or anything before. The cameo of Mr. Hyde at the beginning was nice, but I really wish they could've gone all-out with that and brought in a few of the other lesser monsters for cameos. The water sequence would've been a few notches cooler if, say, the Creature from the Black Lagoon showed up.

As for Dracula, I did like the new guy's interpretation of him, but I really wish they'd gone with the classic Bela Lugosi-type that we know and love. Also, the gigantic monster version of him just looked rather silly.

If there's one thing about the movie that disappointed me the most, it's definitely Frankenstein's monster. The opening sequence of the movie (the re-creation of the famous "windmill" scene) had me all excited, because it looked like they were going to keep it close to the old movies. It seems like the monster should be a critical point to the movie, maybe even take out Dracula himself, and he ends up being a total non-factor in the long run. I'm glad they made him more verbose, like the original Shelley monster, but his voice just got on my nerves, especially since he DOESN'T DO SHIT throughout the movie. Damn, people, is it really that hard to write a film icon into the plot?

All in all, Van Helsing was a huge disappointment. They brought back so many awesome monsters, and for what? To have them all job to Hugh Jackman. No awesome monster-vs-monster battles, no classic curses or even a coherent storyline. Just Jackman trying to be the next big adventure hero, and an overdose of computer effects. A triumph of matter over mind, you could say.

(edit: Lon Chaney wasn't Dracula. I was thinking Bela Lugosi)

I liked it.

I dont try to over analyze movies. I enjoy them for what they are and this was an action packed movie with two elements that I deem awesome. Werewolves and Vampires.

The werewolf/vampire fight at the end was awesome. I just wish it was longer.

:y::y:

Saw it. Wasn't the best movie ever, but it was good.

Yeah, I thought it was a good movie. :y:

Not the best ever, it did seems very cartoonish, but hey what do you expect from a Steven Sommers film?

The only great things about the movie was the acting of Hugh Jackman, Richard Roxburgh and Kate Beckinsale. :y:

It did have a good script, but the Frankenstein monster looked horrible. I thought the Wolfman was cool though.