Topic: Van Helsing

[crisis]

His mannerisms, the actor (don't even know or care for his name)didn't look the part, the performance was more silly than frightening.. it just turned me off. He's probably one of the worst to portray Dracula, other than Gerard Butler (Dracula 2000) and a few other unknowns.


On the flipside there are many great actors that have done the character justice, such as Gary Oldman!
Now that guy can act.

Bram Stoker's dracula rehearsal clip

lol

[TheouAegis]

Damn lines!

In Gary's defense, I'd forget my lines too if I was looking into Winona's eyes, holding her cheeks, touching her soft, clammy, chain-smoker skin...

*grabs a sock and runs to the bathroom*

[Flame]

I found Van Hellsing's Dracula's hamminess and mannerisms to be part of th charm. he acts like a Dracula out of a B movie. complete with overdone accent. I didnt mind his looks either.

[TheouAegis]

Like I said before in reply to some other post on this forum about Van Helsing, too many people take it seriously, I think. It's a satire. It's comic book fun. If you look at it as just some actors and a director and a couple screenwriters just having themselves a jolly good time, then it's actually a very entertaining movie. I LOL'ed so many times during Van Helsing. I usually can't stand Hollywood humor but I found the movie's jokes, of which there were indeed quite many, surprisingly enjoyable.

[A-Yty]

If it was satire, they weren't clear enough about it. Had it been an indie movie, things might be different. But it was done with dollar signs in their eyes and the B-movienes seemed completely unintentional.

[thernz]

Seemed pretty clear to me that it was. Still didn't like it.

[A-Yty]

How was it clear?

[thernz]

Action movies generally have a B-movie vibe, and I thought the way the subject matter (old Hollywood monsters) was portrayed by way of CG, acting, and etc all alluded to an intentional hamminess.

[crisis]

stop making excuses for their terrible performances and lame-to-average cgi, thank God Van Helsing 2 wasn't made

Hugh Jackman stick to Wolverine rawr

[A-Yty]

Action movies generally have a B-movie vibe, and I thought the way the subject matter (old Hollywood monsters) was portrayed by way of CG, acting, and etc all alluded to an intentional hamminess.

Well, that's kind of like saying Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were satire too. A billionaire dresses up like a bat to beat up criminals.

Point is, I don't think subject matter alone gives you pass to say: "Hey! It was meant to be bad.". Pissing away millions of dollars to make something that doesn't take itself seriously but does a half-ass job to use that attitude to the max is not worth it, IMO. Sommers couldn't do it in the funny, enjoyable way he did in the Mummy.

[TheouAegis]

Well Brendan Frasier would have been a crappy Van Helsing, let's face it. Personally I thought Frasier made Mummy what it was. But that's just me.

[A-Yty]

Well Brendan Frasier would have been a crappy Van Helsing, let's face it. Personally I thought Frasier made Mummy what it was. But that's just me.

It's not just you. He was great in that role. Wonder what happened to that guy.

And it's not Wolverine's fault Van Helsing sucked ass. I trust he did his best with the turd of a script that was handed to him.

[Flame]

Its a movie about Dracula hiring Frankenstein to make a monster so he can learn to give life.

Whats not B-Movie about that idea?

You've got Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, and the Wolfman. You cant possibly ever put them all together like that and take it TOO seriously.

It was a seriously toned movie, but had a more comic book vibe to the action and dialogue. Improbable action scenes, cliche characters, and a somewhat cheezy plot.

Sounds like a parody B-movie monster mash to me. Note: Parody does not mean strictly "making fun of"

think of it this way, its a homage to cheezy monster movies.

But each to his own. I liked Van Hellsing, loved the atmosphere and look specifically, but others didnt. oh well.

By the way.

Hugh Jackman for Trevor Belmont. WHO'S WITH ME ON THIS.

[thernz]

I wasn't saying that the B-movie direction gave it a free pass to be terrible either lol. Terrible movies are still terrible.

Well, that's kind of like saying Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were satire too. A billionaire dresses up like a bat to beat up criminals.

Well yeah, but I'd argue that Batman Begins' premise was diluted by the fact that a billionaire dresses up like a bat to beat up criminals. A minor dissonance, but still one nevertheless. Van Helsing was basically an attempt to emulate the successful camp of The Mummy and it miserably failed.

[Inccubus]

To each his own, but saying that he's wrong because he's annoying is kind of silly.

I never said his review was wrong because he was annoying, I said his review was wrong AND annoying.
If I thought he was right I wouldn't have minded as much.


Edit:

he wasnt saying that. he was saying how annoying it is that his criticizm was if it was anything similar to league of Extraordinary Gentlemen, then it was automatically bad.

Also, am I the only one who enjoyed Van Helsing's Dracula?

He was SO amusing! Honestly, without him to ham it up, the movie would have lost half it's charm.

Man what a delightful large ham!

That'll teach not to skip reading the whole thread. Thanks, Flame.
Also, I did actually enjoy that rendition of Dracula greatly.