I must have missed the fun part. And I like crappy movies like Plan 9 or Godzilla, VH had none of this so called fun.Originally Posted by wolfie
Punkin's Chew Toy
I must have missed the fun part. And I like crappy movies like Plan 9 or Godzilla, VH had none of this so called fun.
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
-John Wayne
Van Helsing is one of my 8 years old daughters favorite movies. i liked it but agree it was not what it should have been and the Dracula was a total miss.
i like Tom Cruise though, just not sure he is right to play Van Helsing
^Same here. The early part with Hyde is okay, although the CGI Hyde is way over-the-top. I think that's my problem with this movie: it's like my 10 year old was allowed access to the Universal monsters and made a film. Everything is over-amped and over-wrought.
On second thought, my son would have made a better, more traditional movie, because he loves the Universal monsters.
Chris
Too obsessed to turn back
Van Helsing is the very definition of cheap eye candy. I liked the look of the Van Helsing character, but Hugh Jackman had nothing to work with in the script. The CGI was cartoonish at best and there were entirely too many monsters. They should have worked on a comprehensive back story and focused on ONE creature to evolve that tale from. It was bad enough to limit future projects from it's once celebrated director Stephen Sommers.
It's not how hard you hit, but how hard you can be hit and still move forward.
I was in love with the concept, too bad the "King of Cartoons" directed it. I think his one good movie was a fluke.
Yeah, he was no longer allowed to screw up Flash Gordon but they did let him make GI Joe into whatever that was.
I thought "The Mummy" was ok but ever since then, his movies have been poor IMO.
Rack Toys: Cheap, Crazed Playthings book now available!
Persistent Member
So just me and the 8 year old's then.
I couldn't tell if the Bond/Q thing was a send up or if that was just lazy. If it was all a romp then what was the deal with the crazy melodrama? To me the ending seemed to be trying very hard to be dramatic and heavy hitting for a light wacky ride.
I honestly can't tell if Stephen Sommers has an idea of how crazy his movies are - or if he's really just crazy - but I'm leaning towards "he's crazy".
For me is that the charm of a great B-movie is when they're trying to knock your socks off with very few resources. With this it didn't seem like anyone was trying that hard. I don't really care about the money so much - and I have no problem with stupid - but stupid and boring is a horrible combo.
Again, I can't tell if things like the exploding carriage was a hilarious gag or if some coked out producer just decided that they needed an explosion in that scene. I don't truthfully care which it was - because either way it was entertaining, but there were surprisingly few moments like that for such an insane movie.
Last edited by Brazoo; Jun 11, '12 at 11:03 AM.
A friend of mine told me that in Stephen Sommers' commentary for GI Joe he said something like...
"Usually a script goes through more drafts than this one, but we had to rush the script because the writers strike was coming up - which I think worked out great, sometimes an earlier draft works just as well."
That's not the direct quote, but apparently he says something like that, which totally strengthens the argument that he's not 'in' on how bonkers his movies are - he's just bonkers.
Invincible Ironing Man
Yes, that's how I feel. It's just too much.
Well-put!
.
.
.
"Everything has an end.
Except sausages, which have two..."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
