It wasnt nearly as bad as you would think. its definately worth seeing in theater. I liked it alot, I think. maybe. yes. I think I did. go see it
Does it feel more like Bram Stoker’s or more Castlevania [by which I mean made up]?
its nothing like bram stoker. totally castlevania though. kinda. itsa little cheesy, but in a good way. werewolves in this are so friggin awsome. i love em.
they leave alot of parts out. but later, they go back and show all those parts. kinda mementoish. its weird, but awsome.
Seems rather interesting, but then again I don’t even watch TV…
Fiona saw it 2 days ago at a pre-showing in Vancouver and told me it was pretty awesome. I’m gonna go see it today, because it kicks ass.
I’m gonna see it soon, and I can’t wait. 
Yeah, all the reviewers are saying it’s horrible…but I’ll go see it anyway. I mean, if there are people who like it it can’t be all bad.
Sounds awesome.
I’ve been wanting to see this since I first saw the previews. Mainly because of the Werewolf!
Yeah. I saw the movie yesterday.
It really rocked!
Especially the werewolf transformations. O_o
And I got a very Castevania-ish feeling about it when he entered the clocktower. (And I mean it in a good way.)
Same thing when I saw the castle.
It looked sort of like the castle from SotN. XD
It looks really awesome, my sister went to see it today and I’ll probably go see it next weekend with some friends.
It looks great, my mom wants to go see it with me. :yipee:
I guess it’s just impossible to follow a book exactly without boring the audience to death.
Still, Castlevania esqe is pretty good.
It’s impossible to read Bram Stoker’s dracula without being bored to death.
I’d like to see it…I’m always up for a horror flick. ^^
Is that the original one? Because if so, I heartily disagree. I thought it was exciting, and pretty fucking risque.
I’ve read the book too. I thought it was decent, but personally the best part was Harker’s diary at the start.
Well, I think I like the premise of the film, and I wanna like Hugh Jackman in the leading role…
…HOWEVER…
the previews/commercials I’ve seen make me wary. They suggest fairly heavily that this film is going to embody all of the conventions of modern major-studio film production that I despise.
I call it the “Sensory Overload” approach. You know… CG graphics overload, using THX technology as an excuse to make sound effects as FUCKING LOUD as possible. And speaking of loud as possible, of course, there is the heavy dose of modern industrial/techno/nu-metal musical soundtrack (often anachronistic with the period of the film’s narrative, and it is the case here, as we’re dealing with a late 19th century hero here in Mr. van Hellsing).
And of course, heavy promotional tie in with a fast food chain. (although I’ll confess I really do like Carl’s Jr.)
All done to create a disposable “experience” rather than a good movie (film as fleeting roller coaster ride rather than storytelling) and, in fact, often the use of the sensory overload approach and “wow” graphics/effects is to distract the viewer from the lack of plot and/or acting skill. (you know, like that shitty vampires vs. werewolves film from last summer…what was it called even? Underworld or something silly like that?)
So, while I want to like this Van Helsing film, I strongly suspect I won’t. At least, not until it comes out on video and I can watch it at MY volume of choice.
I dunno Charle, it just doesn’t look all that good to me. Maybe if one of my friends really wants to see it and needs a wingman.
Well to be honest the movie’s a turkey, but as far as turkeys go at least the stuffing was nice.
The basic plot was more original than most cheesy vampire movies I’ve seen in the last few years. Considering they took monsters from several different sources mixed them all together and made a story out of them, I have to give credits to the writers; the simple fact that the story holds somewhat together is impressive.
The special effects are very impressive, but in some scenes they go for a great deal of detail and add tons of little touches for realism (if you can call it that) such as at the end in the castle when the creatures die, and during other scenes the effects make no sense, horses jumping over fallen bridges, lightning striking where ever the plot requires it. It feels a little inconsistent to me.
The audio is decent, I liked the music for most of the movie; it had a nice rural eastern feel to it, which worked very well with the movie, but the sound effects where too loud (or maybe by theater just had the audio set too high).
Definitely the funniest character in the movie is Van Helsing’s sidekick. I think most people got the obvious reference to James Bond in the scene at the Vatican, and could easily figure out that the friar was supposed to be Q. He added some nice commentary at key moments in the plot and almost always got a laugh out of me.
The low point of the movie was definitively the ending, it seemed obvious that the writers had their ending in mind long before they actually got around to writing, and when it didn’t really fit with the plot anymore they just made it fit. It was sappy and cheap, a low end to an otherwise average movie.
So what does this mean? Well Van Helsing is a turkey, but at least it a nice looking turkey with some meat on it, not much mind you, but some. If you really want to see it or if you want to go see a movie this week then check it out, but otherwise wait for the rental. Oh and if you really want to get maximum enjoyment out of it then I suggest you rent a crappy vampire movie before going to see it, it’ll make it seem much better by comparison. Suggestions include: Dracula 2000, Embrace of the Vampire, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (the movie, not the show).