Hey folks, Harry here... UNIVERSAL and Stephen Sommers recently screened the completed print of VAN HELSING in New York City and I've only received 3 reviews so far. 2 Negatives and 1 Positive -- and personally - I believe the Positive review simply because ... well, you'll have to read it for yourself.
Yeah, i just got back from the "2nd ever screening of Van Helsing"( says Stephen Sommers). This is complete bullshit, but I did get in the door just 10 minutes before writing this. I felt, "Screw what i was told, i need to tell the world about Van Helsing."
This movie is hilariously bad. I ate dinner before going, got a water at the theater and was hitting my head with the water bottle at parts. This movie is funnier when it isn't supposed to be then when it is.
So, heres the good, the bad, and the ugly...
The Good:
a) Allen Daviau's cinematography. This was the only thing that i truly liked about this movie. This caliber of cinematography would be oscar-worthy in another movie. However, in this crap-fest, its really put to waste. He still manages to make the best of it though. Seriously, if you see this movie, really watch the pictures, forget about the bad acting and lackluster plot.
b) Alan Silvestri's score. The only other good thing about this movie. Seriously, if you took out the dialogue, this movie would be a whole lot better. Just let the music and the pictures do the talking.
The Bad:
a) Hugh Jackman/Kate Beckinsale/David Wenham: They all try their best here, but Stephen Sommers laughably bad script just limits their performances.
b) The Monsters: Its fun to see Universal return to their roots. I just wish they could've used them better.
c) The Visual Effects: Not as bad as the 1000 Agent Smith battle in that other shitfest Matrix:Reloaded, but still, ive seen much better and would expect much better from the movie Universal is relying on doing well this summer.
The Action Sequences: Some were fun. Some were laughable. Some were just plain annoying and boring. When seeing this, watch for the Carriage sequence, and the masquerade ball. Those are fun to watch. The others are just ehh..
The Ugly:
Richard Roxburgh and his Vampire Clan: Holy shit. For anyone who saw Underworld, this guy is overacting more than the guy who played Kraven (the head of the vamps. Wow, Kate Beckinsale sure does love movies with vampires.). And his three brides, the best comedic trio since the three stooges and the Marx Brothers. Seriously, when you watch them, feel free to crack up, most of the audience at the screening did...
Stephen Sommers- What can i say? He can't write for shit and he's a fairly poor director as well.
The Runtime- It should've ended about 30 minutes before it actually did.
Overall, this movie was maybe like a 4/10. Go see it if you must, but if you're not sure, don't. Just remember when these characters were actually in classic movies...
If you post this, i am Kashavarniscus!!!!
Ouch... and let's see how that first screening went....
Dear Ainitcool,
I went to an advanced screening last night of Universal's Van Helsing.The advanced screening was at the Sony Lincoln Square theatre in NYC, Stephen Sommers introduced the picture and said it was the first time an audience was watching a finished print of the film. I admit, amongst my group of three other friends I was the odd man out. I was the only one who thought this was a truly terrible movie.
I won't bore you with a synopsis and I won't ruin any plot points with spoilers. The movie starts off with promise; we get a black and white tribute to the old horror films of old.
Van Helsing starts off pretty badass. I was a little surprised at the sight of blood in his first battle. It's a neat surprise who you see him fight FIRST, so I won't ruin it. I'll just say it's not one of the films main movie monsters. But after that, he seemed to put away his cool spinning blades and becomes really tame. And this is where everything falls apart.
The performances are where this movie really begins to fall into itself. Jackman was good, no complaints from him. Dracula, played by Richard Roxburgh, was a truly terrible casting decision. I suppose maybe they were trying to go for the campy Dracula of old but every time he tried to be funny or over the top it came out terribly. Even worse than him are his three vampire brides. They seemed to live for far too long in this movie, and every ounce of screen time they take up caused me physical pain. You don't just cringe at their Transylvanian accents you want to get up in there and kill them yourself. Going with models instead of actors with these parts really killed the feel of the film. It went from campy-fun to campy-embarrassing. And the beautiful Kate Beckinsale, what does she bring to this film? The same deadpan poor excuse for acting that she gave us in Underworld. Her accent being the worst of the bunch. Again, terrible choice for this film. With all these terrible performances it was hard to focus on the pretty neat action scenes or the always-cool Hugh Jackman.
The special effects are not very good. And I'm the kind of person that never complains about FX shots in films. I understand not everything can look very real all the time, but that stupid mouth stretch all the vampires do is just another aspect of the film that I felt looked more ridiculous than menacing or cool. And for those who remember the CGI monster fight at the end of Mortal Kombat Annihilation and prayed this would never be attempted again, well it's back and yes two giant CGI monsters fighting each other is still boring and as unbelievable as ever. I couldn't shake off the feeling that none of this is meant to be as funny as it is. Plot devices were in full effect, and you could predict what things they are setting up for later in the film. The ending I must say, isn't as cookie cutter as the rest of the film, but an off-beat ending can't make up for this awful awful film. Where do I place most of the blame? Cast and Acting. Everything else was up to par with a Stephen Sommers adventure action flick. Whatever that means. I enjoyed the Mummy films as much as anyone else, but this I just can’t bring myself to give a recommendation.
The movie at times seemed to be going for intentional campiness such as with Igor, Dr. Frankenstein’s sidekick. Another comic relief character was Carl played by David Wenman. It was sad to see the man who gave us Farramir, reduced to this sidekick one note character. The Wolfman is used mostly for action scenes and is given really little meaning in the film. The Frankenstein Monster has the only depth you'll find, and if you feel for ANYONE in this movie, he's the one I'd bet my money on. And as I said with Dracula and his brides, since they take up most of this film, they completely ruin whatever chance this film had at being fun. Instead it's a compilation of terrible acting and clichéd set pieces.
I was very disappointed. You were warned.
Ouch again... From those very first test screenings in Colorado up until this point, we haven't received a single positive review for this movie. Everyone hates Dracula in the film. Everyone seemed to dislike the CG overkill. And everyone has thought the film was ridiculously awful, but... BUT... I hear that the studio testing for this film is actually quite high, and that aside from the cynical few, that most had a great time... Well, why haven't they written in? Well here's the first of that other side of the coin, the folks that loved it. Here ya go...
Hi,
I had the chance to catch Van Helsing yesterday in NYC for an advance screening.
Stephen Sommers introduced the movie, saying to us that we were the first audience to see the movie fully completed, in its definitive version (i'm a lucky motherfucker ;). I liked the fact that he didn't say : "I'm the director of that movie". I think it's humble from him. My roommate, with who I was, didn't know he was the director until I told him after the movie.
By the way, excuse my poor english, cause I'm french.
That movie fucking rocks !
Forget bad reviews you've read, if you're in the mood for a big summer blockbuster movie, Van Helsing has definitely all you can expect from that and more.
Usually, I would never send a review from an advance screening, because I don't want to be a part of that big Hollywood marketing crap. But that movie totally blew me away, and I feel it needs support, because that's what Hollywood movies should always be like.
I'm currently doing an internship at Troma (that 30 year old independent movie studio that brought you movies like The Toxic Avenger, Tromeo & Juliet, or Sgt. Kabukiman NYPD), so needless to say that I usually hate those big blockbuster Hollywood movies that don't care at all for their audience but only for money.
But I totally felt Van Helsing was a big Troma movie (what a Troma movie would be with millions and millions of dollars): non-stop action, real love for movie-making from the director and crew and care for audience. Plus a lot of humor and a little horror (only sex is missing from Troma movies).
Definitely, The Lord of the Rings already shows its influence in newer movies, and you can say that Stephen Sommers must be a huge fan of that movie, because all the references. There's also plenty of references to other movies (good movies, like Blade II), all in good taste, and not bad rip-off.
I don't want to enter into the plot, you'll discover it in theatres. It's not very complex, but it's not that kind of movie. It's just pure entertainment, without cynicism at all.
I can understand the complaints about little character development, but there's enough for that kind of movie. It's not Lord of the Rings, nor Hellboy. It's not meant to be a deep movie, but to just give audience pure pleasure without thinking to much, but not taking them for stupid dumb-asses.
Stephen Sommers really love movies, and manage to share that love with the audience. He's not a pretentious asshole, and he really cares about his movies.
I see him as part of that bunch of new Hollywood directors that really love movies and care for their audiences, like Peter Jackson, Sam Raimi, Guillermo Del Toro... They are the future of Hollywood, and I hope they take over that whole actual Hollywood crap and continue to bring us movies with intelligence and heart, and in the process make people think different about movies.
I realize that I didn't really speak about Van Helsing, but you just have to see it for yourself. I can't wait for Spiderman 2, and with Van Helsing and Hellboy, I think we have a pretty good year in terms of Hollywood blockbusters.
But, I feel like Hellboy is going to age way better than Van Helsing, because of its depth, what Van Helsing lacks.
fAtquick
Ok - so fAtquick believes that VAN HELSING is a $200 Million Dollar TROMA film minus the sex! For some reason that has me laughing so hard. The idea of walking into the theater thinking... this is a $200 Million Dollar TROMA film tickles me to death. And somehow, I think that will be the single most accurate perception of VAN HELSING anywhere. I've only read the script and seen the trailers... but I think that statement is going to be incredibly accurate. And I can't wait!
| 
