Van Helsing - Reboot

[thunderbolt]

Most of you seem to be missing something about this film and that is that it was made to be fun, you are supposed to laugh and find it funny. The send up of the Bond movies in the vatican is priceless.

Draculas brides are really well done and Kate Beckinsale looks great.

I would suggest you watch it again but do so with a totally diffrent outlook and i think you will enjoy it.

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.

[Nostalgiabuff]

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

[Earth 2 Chris]

^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

[MIB41]

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.

[FoneBone]

I was in love with the concept, too bad the "King of Cartoons" directed it. I think his one good movie was a fluke.

[palitoy]

It was bad enough to limit future projects from it's once celebrated director Stephen Sommers.

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.

[wolfie]

Van Helsing is one of my 8 years old daughters favorite movies.

So just me and the 8 year old's then.

[Brazoo]

Most of you seem to be missing something about this film and that is that it was made to be fun, you are supposed to laugh and find it funny. The send up of the Bond movies in the vatican is priceless.

Draculas brides are really well done and Kate Beckinsale looks great.

I would suggest you watch it again but do so with a totally diffrent outlook and i think you will enjoy it.

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".

I think you hit on the deeper problem. If this flick had come out straight to video in the 80's, with 1/100th the budget and featuring NOBODY you'd ever heard of folks would have considered it a diverting oddity. But because it had so many names and so much money attached to it, folks get expectations.

Van Helsing is a perfectly passable B-movie. Right up there with "The Creeping Terror" or "The Beast of Yucca Flats." And entertaining for the same reasons: a touch of weird monsters, overwrought dialogue, TONS of typicalness to fast forward through, and a lot of stuff to laugh at. (WHAT was in that exploding carriage?!?!?) But it's easy to laugh when the film was made in a weekend for $100; much more so when you realize the thing cost more than you'll make in your entire life.

Don C.

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.

[Brazoo]

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.

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.

[Gorn Captain]

^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.

Yes, that's how I feel. It's just too much.
Well-put!

[danadoll]

Van Helsing wasn't too bad starting out, but it really went downhill fast...Too much CGI, a ridiculously stupid plot (Spoilers: vampire baby eggs, Van Helsing is the archangel Gabriel...Are you freaking kidding me with this excrement?!)...I enjoyed Mr Hyde, the brides and the werewolf design, I also liked some of the action scenes, but I didn't like Dracula's portrayal and the Frankenstein Monster's new look.

I violently dislike Tom Cruise and have never really seen any of his movies (at least, not in their entirety), I have no desire to see a remake starring his self-important, weirdo butt.

Dana

[MIB41]

I checked on recent articles and apparently this thing is a go with Tom Cruise leading the way. Ew... I heard they were going to use the "Dark Knight" approach... ... Uh, right. ONE DAY people will realize Dark Knight is it's own brand and not something that applies to every character put to film. Does this mean Star Wars will get the Dark Knight treatment too? Scary that no one can think outside the scope of one picture. I just don't see this reboot doing anything. It can't resemble ANYTHING remotely looking like the Hugh Jackman film or it will be...crucified?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.entertainmentwise.com%2Fnews%2F90838%2FTom-Cruise-To-Star-In-Van-Helsing-Reboot-With-Kristen-Stewarts-Ex-Lover-At-The-Helm&ei=l0GWUOvTOYWC8QSZt4DYDQ&usg=AFQjCNF6SKTqE1zIl7S4SNnT-Aqu2GdVyw&cad=rja