Van Helsing

[QuinnBW]

[SIZE=1][SIZE=1]xxx[/SIZE][/SIZE][COLOR=DarkRed][COLOR=DarkRed]xxx[/COLOR][/COLOR] i just watched Van helsing twice. The effects are good.Actually i watched the movie for the acter and actress too. haha.. though i havent watched Underworld yet... :cool:

[Semjaza]

I went into this movie with such low expectations that I really didn't hate it as much as I expected. It is by no means a good film, but I didn't hate it as much as I figured I would based on previews and impressions thus far. It probably helped that I saw it at 12:15 AM on Friday too. Being fully awake probably brings out this movie's problems a bit more.

[spoiler]In terms of the effects... they weren't awful, but they aren't the best either. The main issue is that they were just overused. There were subtle uses of them that worked just fine and I actually thought Mr. Hyde was pulled off surprisingly well for a such a large, fullly CG character. However, the vampires and everything else were just really overused.

The acting was outright terrible. While Hugh Jackman wasn't bad, I almost got the impression that he knew how ****** this movie was. He didn't seem to be all that interested in anything he did in it. Everyone with an accent was just awful, particularly the brides.

The story was really stupid, I have to admit. The whole idea of baby vampires like that made little sense to me... especially considering that the babies looked more like little devils than anything I'd ever associated with a vampire. Hell, even the brides looked more like harpies than vampires, but whatever.

The whole good boy Frankenstein thing wasn't that bad... what was, was the fact that the guy was completely coherant and spoke in better English than most of the townspeople. I don't know what was up with that. There's also very little explanation as to why Frankenstein is the "key to life" and why he'd be any more useful than anything else. I mean, I came up with my own reasons as to why it would make sense, but the movie is completely devoid of them.

And that's kind of the problem, I guess. You're stuck with so many nonsensical ideas in this film and things that simply do not jive with other literature on these characters. So much that you're stuck connecting dots yourself, trying vainly to form some sort of normal storyline.

Oh well.[/spoiler]

[RainbowChick]

Well I've seen it and I really was expecting some action movie with a crappy plot line...so it was better than I thought it would be. I had fun even thought the acting was horrid and the accents even more. The vamps didn't exactly look like vamps to me...strange and the whole baby vampire thing was whacked. But I already knew that stuff before seeing the movie so it wasn't all that disappointing.

[xmystic_silverx]

[size=1]I just saw the movie the other day. It was a good movie, better than I thought it would be.

I think the reason I enjoyed it so much, was probably because there was a monk, and he always had these funny lines!

Then I knew there had to be some relation when I saw the part when he asks the woman to do his a favor for saving his life! He reminded me of Miroku, except he was more of a coward.

This movie is a good one and you all should see it!

".. okay well, you guys can tell me how that goes when you get back.." - monk
[/size]

[NorykoAngelcry]

[QUOTE=xmystic_silverx][size=1]I think the reason I enjoyed it so much, was probably because there was a monk, and he always had these funny lines!

".. okay well, you guys can tell me how that goes when you get back.." - monk
[/size][/QUOTE]

[SIZE=1][COLOR=darkred]That FRIAR (remember, he wasn't a monk yet!) was played by David Wenham, you kids might remember him from such movies as Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers or Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. . he played the very important Faramir! ^_^ My buddy and I both recognized him immediately, and turned to each other, "Dude, it's Faramir!" . . it was pretty funny. . :D [/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Luminaire]

[color=crimson]Actually, NorykoAngelcry, David Wenham was the entire reason I went to see the movie. ¬_¬

To me it was more comedy and cliche. I started saying what would happen before it happens and my friends ended up asking me if I had already seen it. Some of the effects were very over done. [spoiler]When the carriage catches on fire, that didn't make any sense to me, unless I completely missed some huge fireball hitting it. Almost every explosion filled the entire screen. Most of the time, there was nothing that could combust like that.[/spoiler] I know movies don't have to be logical, but this one was so illogical it had me laughing and crying at the stupidity of it. As everyone else said, the accents were terrible.

On the lighter note, I thought Dracula was adorable. Who played him? I want his phone number! ¬_¬

~Lumi ^_^[/color]

[xmystic_silverx]

[quote name='NorykoAngelcry][SIZE=1][COLOR=darkred]That FRIAR (remember, he wasn't a monk yet!) was played by David Wenham, you kids might remember him from such movies as Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers or Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. . he played the very important Faramir! ^_^ My buddy and I both recognized him immediately, and turned to each other, "Dude, it's Faramir!" . . it was pretty funny. . :D [/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote]

[size=1]Really? I can't believe I didn't recognize him! Man! I don't see Faramir playing the roll of a friar.[/size]

[Semjaza]

[quote name='Luminaire][color=crimson][spoiler]When the carriage catches on fire, that didn't make any sense to me, unless I completely missed some huge fireball hitting it. Almost every explosion filled the entire screen. Most of the time, there was nothing that could combust like that.[/spoiler'] I know movies don't have to be logical, but this one was so illogical it had me laughing and crying at the stupidity of it. As everyone else said, the accents were terrible.[/color][/quote]

I've seen a lot of people complain about this and I don't know how people aren't catching it. I thought it was really obvious. [spoiler]There's oil lanterns on front of the carriage. The werewolf knocked into one and it crashed over the top of it. There's even the sound of glass shattering as he does it and the lantern is no longer on the carriage afterwards lol.[/spoiler]

[NorykoAngelcry]

[QUOTE=Luminaire][color=crimson]Actually, NorykoAngelcry, David Wenham was the entire reason I went to see the movie. ¬_¬

On the lighter note, I thought Dracula was adorable. Who played him? I want his phone number! ¬_¬

~Lumi ^_^[/color][/QUOTE]

[SIZE=1][color=darkred]You make it seem like it was a bad thing that you went just to see David Wenham? Or am I misreading the face that you used? ^_^

As for Dracula, he was played by the very talented Richard Roxburgh -- Most known, I would think, for his roles in The League of Extraordinary Gentleman (he played M) and Mission Impossible 2 (he played Hugh Stamp - henchman of Sean Ambrose) and Moulin Rouge (as the Duke). . As for his phone number, he told me not to pass that around, sorry Lumi..[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Ryan]

I think the only good actor in the movie was the person who played Dracula. Everything else was over done and I did not really like it. I guess I just expected more. But Mr. Hyde was a surprise. I had forgotten about him.

[Fate]

[color=teal]The movie was terribly overdone, but I wouldn't mind seeing it again just to get an extra serving of cheese. It as enjoyable for the cliches alone.[/color]

[The_Ghost]

I hate to say it...I loved this movie. I also saw it at like, 11 or so...but I've seen it twice now and it wasn't too bad.Music-wise, I was on the edge of my seat. I absolutely LOVE romainian-gypsy type music, and this thing had tons of it.

I too recognized David Wenham. He and Jackman were the only reason I went. Well, that and to see how the heck they planned on fitting Dracula, Wolfman, and Frankenstien's monster in there. Personally, I think the plot was dumb. Trying to cram Frankenstien's monster in there was just not smart. I mean, werewolves and vamps are a good connection because werewolves serve vamps. You could easy have a good story with Van Helsing chasing after those two. But no one listens to me! ;) [spoiler]The whole plot twist with Gabriel was extremely and blatantly dumb. If they were going to do it right, they should've had more about the no memory bit and pulled up the truth much sooner. That way you can see Van Helsing wrestle with the thought of being the left hand of God and so on and so forth...or maybe that's just personal preference.[/spoiler]

Anyway, I heard someone talking about a sequel for this movie. My jaw almost hit the floor. Who else can this guy fight? the boogyman? the telemarketers? Is there anything else left? He even got Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde. (who I am sick of being portrayed as a big tough guy. He's supposed to be slightly normal looking phsycopath, more brains than brawn. Or maybe that's the way I picture him?) I did kind of like Jackman's attitude, and the friar. But heck, I guess have a thing for men in trenchcoats and friars that swear. :blush:

[Epitome]

[size=1]I did end up seeing the movie, and I was very impressed. It looked a little shaggy in the previews, but great story line, and great acting as well made it come together. One point that I disliked is that [spoiler]Kate Beckinsale dies at the end. It just makes no sense to make the hot one die.[/spoiler] But besides that, a great movie.[/size]

[Boo]

[color=gray][size=1]Anna.. I mean the movie, was really nice ^^;; Although sometimes it was a little predictable, the action filled those parts in.
I have to agree on every single word Seraph said.
The movie was in my opinion better than Lord Of The Rings II & III (mainly because I don't liked those terribly much lol). Nice acting, nice storyline and nice Anna. That's all there is to be said -.-[/size][/color]