If you bear in mind that Stephen Sommers who directed this film also wrote and directed the The Mummy (http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0120616/combined), The Mummy Returns (http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0209163/combined) as well as writing The Scorpion King (http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0277296/combined) spin off, the you'll begin to see what sort of film Van Helsing is panning out to be.
A big action movie. No suprises there then :)
To be any good an action film needs three successful elements - Great action sequences, a coherent plot that neatly binds the action sequences together and engaging characters that make you care whats actually happening on screen.
Pitch Black (http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0134847/combined) in my opinion is a classic example of the perfect action film. There are obviously some excellent action set pieces including the open crash scene, the tunnels sequence and the flight for the shuttle at the end. There is a plot that makes sense and is easy to follow, And finally some characters we care about. Not just Riddick but Fry, Johns, Imam, Jackie etc. all engage us and we feel for them as they struggle through their ordeal.
So three bits to an action film and sadly Van Helsing falls over on two of them making it a bit rubbish.
As far as action sequences goes Van Helsing is a hit. Sommers can obvioulsy do wild action well, as shown in the Mummy and it's dodgy sequel. Without giving too much away we meet several other classic horror characters in some wild CGI set pieces that set Van Helsing up as the obligatory big brave hero. While some of the cgi is pretty rubbish it all works fairly well. So cool action set pieces, a big belting final confrontation scene and all is well on the thrills and spills front.
As for plot this is where many films fall over and no one really cares. It's the only element of an action film that can be substandard as long as the other two elements (action and characterisation) are strong. Plots can be simple or even non existant and the film can still work. I don't think a Bond movie has had a decently explained plot since From Russia with Love (http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0057076/combined) and most of them worked out OK. Van Helsing makes the monumental mistake of trying to have a complex plot. This doesn't work as there isn't enough time to deal with it in a two hour action movie. So we are subjected to characters babbling on about anceint curses and secret societies and get completely lost. The problem is the plot discussions make us think we are supposed to know what's going on. Because we can't keep up then we're missing something. A fine example of this is the Tomb Raider (http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0146316/combined) movie. The plot is irrelevent, we just want to see Angelina Jolie getting sweaty. Theplot just got in the way of the action and took more away from the film than it added. Likewise Van Helsing comes from the same School of Pretentious Plots.
Finally there is characterisation. This can make up for the plot failings. Again Bond films succeed when they have a strong lead, a good baddie and a sexy leading lady. Using the Bond example again Die Another Day (http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0246460/combined) worked (or wasn't as crap as it might have been) due to Brosnan, Berry and Toby Stevens. Can anyone actually remember what the film was about? And does anyone care? Sadly Van Helsing doesn't use it's characters at all. They are all one dimensional and don't really engage us. Jackman is OK but not as good as he is in X-Men (http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0120903/combined), Richard Roxburgh is close to the worst Dracula ever. I think George Hamilton did a better job in Love at First Bite (http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0079489/combined). If you're doing Dracula remember you will always be judged against Gary Oldman's effort! Kate bekinsale is OK (did I mention I once met her at a party? Oh I did :( ) and easy on the eye, although her Rumanian accent is a joke. Also easy on the eye were the three Brides of Dracula. Being on screen for as long as they were really requires actresses to play their roles. Sadly the film makers went for professional models and we have to endure the resulting disaster.
So Van Helsing - great action sequences, dodgy CGI, a plot not worth trying to keep up with and a lot of flat characters who ultimately we don't give a monkeys about. Better than The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0311429/combined) but not as good as The Mummy.
Out this Friday but you should definately wait for the DVD or have a few beers before you go ;)
QuoteOriginally posted by smilodon@May 5 2004, 01:29 AM
Better than The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0311429/combined) but not as good as The Mummy.
Anything is better than the League. That movie sucked ... but lady vampire was hot.
Why have Dracula, Frankenstein, and Wolfman? The one thing that annoys me about Hollywood is that ever since the god-awful Batman Returns they seem to think that as long as you keep throwing in the baddies for these summer "Super Hero" action blockbusters then it makes up for lack of plot and acting:
Batman Returns (why have both Catwoman and Penguin?!?)
Batman Forever (Not enough room for TLJ and Carrey)
Batman and Robin (Argghhhhhhh)
Daredevil (No No No)
Only xmen pulled it off, and that's largely cause you're talking about an ensemble movie to begin with.
Spiderman - brilliant. Great story, Defoe largely kept in background till needed. And Spidey 2 looks like a smashing film as well (genius casting of great actor like Alfred Molina) because it has some depth to it, but only one bad guy.
And then you have Batman - wonderfully understated dark knight versus the man who was born The Joker :devil:
and wot about the hulk chimp?
i thought it was very under rated...not a classic but better than some of the batman films........
the fantastic 4 will be next....hope fully.
iam sure i heard someone is making wackey races............
squonk and smite could play the part of the slack brothers...the 2 cave men type peeps :lol:
Ah see the Hulk had two of my three action needs.
Great action scenes littered the film. I loved the Hulk v The Dogs scene especially.
Some strong central characters. Eric Banna, Jennifer Connely, Sam Elliot and Nick Nolte are all top actors that bring lots of qualities to the roles.
But a rubbish plot and a confused ending were it's downers. The pacing was all wrong with far too much poncing about at the beginning before Bruce Banner goes green.
But as I said, good action and strong characterisation can make up for a ropey plot and so The Hulk wasn't a hlf bad movie.
Spiderman of course had all three qualities and is a winner. On a down note the film makers really wasted the chance to make Spiderman a really great film. Peter Parkers transition from geek to Spiderman could have been much better handled. One minute he's a weedo the next a superhero and hardly seems suprised by the transition. There was so much potential in the idea of a man learning to defy gravity and come to terms with his new skills. Had the cgi sequences actually suggested that a flesh and blood person is climbing walls or leaping great distances the film would have been better for it. Bladerunner is a great example of how to show a person with huge strength but keep them rooted in a real physical world. Spiderman was way too comic book.
Still, it was teh rock
QuoteOriginally posted by smilodon@May 5 2004, 12:29 AM
To be any good an action film needs three successful elements - Great action sequences, a coherent plot that neatly binds the action sequences together and engaging characters that make you care whats actually happening on screen.
Well I for one would disagree with
having to have
all three..............films such as Sense and Sensibility, Meet Joe Black and Erin Brokovich are equally good films as any you have mentioned and yet they do not have "great action sequences" but meet, nay surpass, coherent plots and engaging characters to deliver a fine finished package
retract or amend the statement you cad or it's pistols at dawn :blink:
Cough, may i refer the learned gentleman to Smil's original saying "all ACTION film"
As far as I am aware, the films you have outlined do not qualify as such
Well I did kind of enjoy the shark attack scene in Sense and Sensibility ;)
And I like the joke about Meet Joe Black being a good film. That was very funny :D
..........and to think I once thought you were a "sensitive" human being!! :bitch: :devil:
Back to Van Helsing
If I can just sum up
It was crap
QuoteOriginally posted by Vincentvega@May 5 2004, 04:48 PM
and wot about the hulk chimp?
i thought it was very under rated...not a classic but better than some of the batman films........
the fantastic 4 will be next....hope fully
I could never make my mind up about the Hulk - I like Bana and Nolte, but somehow the film didn't sit right. I don't think Ang Lee was right for it, and would have been more suitably handled in the hands of another.
The ending was awful (what was Nolte?!?) and that mile-high leaping of the Hulk was just ridiculous. And the CGI simply wasn't up to scratch - Bring back Lou Ferrigno ;)
Don't agree with you about Spidey though Smilo - I think the high school fight and his slow emergence as spidey worked well. And the scenes of him zipping around in Manhattan were fantastic escapism. From what I've seen of the second film it deals far more with characterisation and him struggling with the "super hero" tag, which is refreshing as this is where all other comic book sequels (x2 excluded) have fallen down.
Comparing Blade Runner to Spidey?!? Surely Blade Runner was supposed to be gritty and real, whilst Spider Man was supposed to look "comic book" (and Raimi does do this so well), as you put it? Does this mean that x-men doesn't work cause Ian Mckellan dons that ridiculous purple suit, or Michael Keaton's Batman wears body-moulded rubber and drives a stupid-looking car? For shame ;)
Dingo :huh: Meet Joe Black :o Please stop and slowly step away from the bottle of Teachers......
No Spiderman didn't work as a CGI exercise as well as it might have done. Fourty years ago audiences would have accepted the cartoonish way Spidey leapt about in the same way it accepted what was then the revolutionary work of Harry Harrihausen. Today when we see '1 Million Years BC' we just laugh.
Todays audiences need more realism. We understand the basics of physics and chemestry and films need to explain the science that backs them up. Look at the modern versions of The Hulk, Spiderman, Jurassic Park, Hollow Man, Frankenstein, Aliens etc. etc. In order for us to buy into their fiction we have to be seduced by at least some form of scientific explaination.
Spiderman was actually a great film that perfectly cast Toby Maguire as the Geek come Superhero. It pushed all the right buttons and was a worthy testament to the spirit of the original comic book character. It also gave us enough of a scientific explaination of Paker's transformation for us to buy into the concept and enjoy the film.
But I still say it let itself down by the way Spiderman moved about the skyscrapers. He didn't so much defy gravity as simply ignore it. Inertia also seemed to be a force that didn't apply to him. Bladerunner was just an example of how greater than normal strength can be done convincingly, but if you want a better analogy then try Batman. Batman had no real super-human powers but was able to move around the rooftops in a basically similar, if slower, way to Spiderman. He used 'bat-ropes' etc to give the appearance of flight without actually flying. When he landed on the ground there was a resounding thump and a puff of dust as his feet hit the floor. You really thought a 200lb man had landed and not a weightless pixilated computer sprite.
Another example was The Matrix. The scene where Neo learns to jump shows how extraordinary feats can be grounded in reality. When Morpheus leaps from one skyscraper to another he hits the ground with enough force to crack the paving slab. And so he would if he had just leapt that far and achieved sufficient momentum to reach the other building. As he said 'he bent the laws of physics, he didn't break them'.
Modern audiences expect a certain level of realism. We don't watch films of cartoons. They're called cartoons as well. We watch films based on cartoons and that's something else entirely.
Spiderman was strong, agile and could make web goo. He couldn't fly, fall hundreds of feat without killing himself or ignore the fact he had mass and therefore inertia.
And in the same way The Hulk couldn't possibly have leapt as far as he did in his film neither should Spiderman been able to ignore phsics and zoom about the sky like a arachnid Peter Pan.
I'm sorry but spiderman's ending was predictable and the actor looks so gay ane weak. I don't hate tspiderman but it was too childish although a comic its plot was so basic it was on par with batman and robin-crap. Vanhelsing should be a good movie and hellboy as i thought after seeing it was worth a look! But to some up Bond films will always be my favourite film with Brosnan who plays the bst bond instead of tht prat Connery who can't even shave properly! I love action films but no way is Spiderman a good film the ending was almost obvious due to poor camera angles which the director should have seen!
QuoteOriginally posted by GhostMjr@May 6 2004, 04:26 PM
I'm sorry but spiderman's ending was predictable and the actor looks so gay ane weak
But that's the entire point of Spiderman, Ghostey - Stan Lee wanted someone who wasn't like a DC comic book hero (Batman - cultured millionaire, Superman - chiselled all-american) and Parker is supposed to be a kid that other kids can relate to. That's why Maguire is perfect in the role.
QuoteOriginally posted by smilodon@May 6 2004, 03:31 PM
We don't watch films of cartoons. They're called cartoons as well. We watch films based on cartoons and that's something else entirely.
Better tell Michael Eisner ;)
He's got a lot more to worry about than what I think of him... like if he'll still have a job in a month!
In my opinion they could have chosen someone else :) instead of the actor with a lipse
seems to bee a verry nice movie
Just been to see this in the cinema, my thoughts...
The CG totally blew me away. The monsters were utterly convincing (in my opinion anyway, especially the werewolf transformations), awesome stuff.
Acting wasn't terrible given the nature of the film. Over-the-top in places (I found Dracula's brides to be quite annoying, all that screaming!), but bearable :)
The plot was rubbish (surprise!) and didn't seem to be very clearly explained in places. Quite ropey, really.
All in all not a bad movie, it'll make a shitload of money for sure, but its worth seeing for the effects and the action scenes :)
Kate Beckingsale's in it SWEET. Hopefully meet her one day being that my dad is friends with the family :D .
Saw Van Helsing on Sunday - great fun. A true "popcorn and cola" movie. Tune in for two hours, disengage your brain, and have a blast. Its nothing more and nothing less.
The CGI is fine, action is good, Beckinsale and Jackman live up to expectations, and the story is passable in the way that "if I don't think about it too much and just have fun it's fine" (i.e. every Steven Sommers movie).
True Hollywood summer fare - check it out for a couple hours of escapism
:thumb:
QuoteOriginally posted by DarkAngel@May 9 2004, 05:06 PM
Kate Beckingsale's in it SWEET. Hopefully meet her one day being that my dad is friends with the family :D .
Er did I say that I met her once at a party? Oh I did. I'll be quiet then :(