Castlevania Dungeon Forums
Off Topic => Off Topic => Topic started by: Super Waffle on October 22, 2011, 05:33:46 PM
-
I'm totally okay with this movie. Why do so many people hate it?
-
I liked it. It's the most Castlevania-ish movie IMO.
-
I'll just link to a movie review...
http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/teamt/fbv/bmbe/32711-van-helsing (http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/teamt/fbv/bmbe/32711-van-helsing)
sums up all my thoughts...
-
I like it. It was obviously inspired by cv and kinda went about making a movie the same way Konami's team made cv1.
Also, the guy doing the review comes off sounding and looking like film-school-know-it-all-asshole #2371 within the first 45 seconds.
-
I'll just link to a movie review...
http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/teamt/fbv/bmbe/32711-van-helsing (http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/teamt/fbv/bmbe/32711-van-helsing)
sums up all my thoughts...
Funny you should mention that, because
Film Brain's review of Van Helsing convinced me to watch Van Helsing.
And I liked it. I wonder how he feels about that.
Also, repeatedly saying "This is just like League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and you guys know how that one turned out!" doesn't really work on someone who likes League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
-
It was a decent movie but I felt it relied heavily on cheap CGI most of the time, but it was a good popcorn flick so whatevs
and to add, I guess I would've prefered another actor to portray Van Helsing other than Wolverine Jackman for a change. I hate how Hollywood loves to recycle all the A-Listers in hero roles (Chris Evans as Johnny Storm/CapAm, Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool/Green Lantern, Halle Berry as Storm/Catwoman, etc. I'm sure there are a hell of a lot more worthy actors that can portray Wolverine other than Jackman all the time, but i digress..)
I also hated how Dracula was portrayed. ugh.
-
Only thing I didn't like about the plot was the whole thing where it takes a werewolf to kill Dracula. But I actually thought his portrayal was pretty well done and consistent. Anyway, were-Jackman should have gotten his ass whooped more before he pwned Drac. That fight was a bit of a let down. Still, it wasn't bad for a Hollywood Castlevania movie.
-
The review pretty much nails it. Cartoony overused CGI, uninterested actors and a silly Dracula.
-
Not nearly as silly as the Dracula who's head comes flying off right before transforming into demonic cookie monster.
Incidentally, I fail to see how the CG was "cartoony". Compared to what?
Additionally, I have a pronounced disdain for people that presume to tell others whether an artistic work is good or bad simply because they were told by someone else, they paid to tell them, what they should properly consider good or bad.
-
My only problem with the movie was the lame Dracula portrayal.
They really should have cast someone who could make dracula look sinister yet really cool and badass.
Other than that I pretty much liked the movie.
-
I really really hated this movie... Its the first movie Ive actually come close to gettin up and walkin out of the theatre. As soon as they showed the actors face over the real pic of Vlad I was like 'Im done Im out' That was THE worst dracula Ive ever seen in anythin ever. He was horrible. Now years later I can watch it and not totally wanna kill mself but the scenes with him in it still get me
I really like the werewolves tho they looked good other than they didnt have tails. Best movie werewolves Ive seen next to Dog Soldiers. And you can never go wrong with Kate Beckinsale =D
-
Not nearly as silly as the Dracula who's head comes flying off right before transforming into demonic cookie monster.
That's more badass than silly
Incidentally, I fail to see how the CG was "cartoony". Compared to what?
I wouldn't call it cartoony but i'd say it's overused at literally every opportunity and even at times when it's not necessary (one scene comes to mind when werewolf-Gabriel reverts back to human at the end, and he's screaming NOOOO. It just looked retarded) It's more like "lets see how many toys we can sell by adding as much scifi shit as possible, which can't be done any other way unless we use CGI throughout the majority of the movie." I just think they could've handled it better, and I'm a sucker for quality puppetry & costumes (Pan's Labyrinth is a good example)than Van Helsing's computer grafix.
I guess I'm still spoiled over Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula. I'd watch that movie over Van Helsing any day.
-
I'd watch both, but for different reasons.
When I watch Van Helsing, I enjoy it as a popcorn flick and in my mind I'm saying to myself "Castlevania 1 has all of these nonsensical monsters from different time periods for no reason but the game is awesome. This movie has nonsensical monsters from different time periods for no reason but the movie's awesome." FrenchFries for the brain.
Bram Stoker's Dracula I watch because the cinematography is topnotch, the acting is pretty great, and I have always liked the plot and progression.
But I watch "Dracula: Dead and Loving It" for completely different reasons. :P :P :P
-
The movie was fun to watch. I'd have to agree it was as close to a CV movie as it ever got.
About the Dracula movies, I don't remember in which one it was... Maybe in Coppola's, maybe in Dead and Loving it, maybe both, they cut some characters and made major plot changes, which annoyed me.
I hate when they do it in movies. They make a book-to-film adaptation, then change stuff. Cutting out insignificant parts of the plot is reasonable, since they don't always have time to show all the events in the book. But sometimes, especially in older movies, they remove entire characters from the plot to save $$ on actors.
I remember that when I watched Troy I was incredibly annoyed by how they minimized the role of Odysseus so he wouldn't overshadow Achilles (Brad Pitt). Now that's blasphemy! Odysseus was the big hero in the story. After all, he's credited for creating the Trojan Horse.
-
I immensely dislike Film Brain. He's so pretentious and snobby. And half the movies he reviews as bad are movies I found good.
I see no problem with Van Hellsing.
-
Not nearly as silly as the Dracula who's head comes flying off right before transforming into demonic cookie monster.
I would have to disagree.
Incidentally, I fail to see how the CG was "cartoony". Compared to what?
Compared to impressive, moderately used CGI.
Additionally, I have a pronounced disdain for people that presume to tell others whether an artistic work is good or bad simply because they were told by someone else, they paid to tell them, what they should properly consider good or bad.
So you have a problem with critics. Perhaps that attitude in turn might make someone a slave to the habit of disagreeing with them?
-
I also thought that Van Helsing was an entertaining movie. and that is was close to Castlevania as we were gonna get. in terms of it's insperation I believe there are two sources. 1. Castlevania. and 2. The Monster Squad. The monster squad would've been inspired by Castlevania as it features almost all of the classic CV baddies as it came out a year later (1987).
-
Wow dude yes! Van Helsing and Monster squad were both awesome ass movies without doubt. They both have a very Castlevania esk feel to them. That though had crossed my mind before too! Van Helsing they shoulda made a series of them, like a trilogy out of it, if what's her name didnt' die. The storyline kicked ass for Van Hesing! Granted monster squad was more of a basic story line it seemed cool for the time. A box office bust,but a vhs and dvd winner! Man 2 great monster/vampire-esk flicks!
-
Wow dude yes! Van Helsing and Monster squad were both awesome ass movies without doubt. They both have a very Castlevania esk feel to them. That though had crossed my mind before too! Van Helsing they shoulda made a series of them, like a trilogy out of it, if what's her name didnt' die. The storyline kicked ass for Van Hesing! Granted monster squad was more of a basic story line it seemed cool for the time. A box office bust,but a vhs and dvd winner! Man 2 great monster/vampire-esk flicks!
Check out Van Hellsing: The London Assignment.
It's a prequel animated movie.
-
Van Helsing was Okay, it's one of those movies that you have to shut your brain off to watch....
Although Dracula was horrible, and most of the characters were bland...
the killer of the movie would have to be the last act involving the dumbest climax idea topped with horrible CGI that looks like a PSone cutscene....
Face it though, It's WORLDS better than Paul W.S. Anderson's Castlevania which I hope NEVER sees the light of day....
-
So you have a problem with critics. Perhaps that attitude in turn might make someone a slave to the habit of disagreeing with them?
Only if you take it to the same degree that said arrogant critics do in turn which I don't. This critic in particular said absolutely nothing of value simply parroting the sentiment that if anything in Van Helsing was similar to League of Extraordinary Gentleman it was bad by default. That is not a good criticism. That is pompous bullshit. If he actually gave any kind of well thought out arguments then I wouldn't mind his criticisms. A good critic is constructive, precise and elaborates as to why things are bad.
...horrible CGI that looks like a PSone cutscene....
Face it though, It's WORLDS better than Paul W.S. Anderson's Castlevania which I hope NEVER sees the light of day....
Don't exaggerate. The quality of the CG is at least on par with most movies that came out around that time.
However, I agree about the Paul W. S. Anderson turd. It's THE worst script for a vampire movie I've ever read; let alone for a CV movie.
-
I have a tendacy to dislike movies that Use Needless CGI, it makes the movies age so horribly, this is why the first two matrix movies are good and the last looks like poo.
the CGI in Van Helsing wasn't as bad as PSone, but I have seen PS2 cutscenes look better.
-
Face it though, It's WORLDS better than Paul W.S. Anderson's Castlevania which I hope NEVER sees the light of day....
If this is that same movie that featured a Katana-wielding Belmont for the promo art then yeah, I don't want to see it released either.
-
Only if you take it to the same degree that said arrogant critics do in turn which I don't. This critic in particular said absolutely nothing of value simply parroting the sentiment that if anything in Van Helsing was similar to League of Extraordinary Gentleman it was bad by default. That is not a good criticism. That is pompous bullshit. If he actually gave any kind of well thought out arguments then I wouldn't mind his criticisms. A good critic is constructive, precise and elaborates as to why things are bad.
Doesn't matter if the critic is a pompous dickwad. It's the content of the review that matters. To me, his arguments were right on the money. To each his own, but saying that he's wrong because he's annoying is kind of silly.
Judging by that site, his job is probably to be another in the long line of hyperactive young men - like AVGN or The Nostalgia Critic from the same site (can't listen to that guy because of his ear-shattering speaking voice).
-
Doesn't matter if the critic is a pompous dickwad. It's the content of the review that matters. To me, his arguments were right on the money. To each his own, but saying that he's wrong because he's annoying is kind of silly.
Judging by that site, his job is probably to be another in the long line of hyperactive young men - like AVGN or The Nostalgia Critic from the same site (can't listen to that guy because of his ear-shattering speaking voice).
Yes sir, he is a part of NC's site...
If you REALLY wanna see a massive Dickwad who's reviews aren't even valid, I suggest Benzai and IRATE.
Still out of them all, the AVGN (James Rolf)'s Monster madness Reviews are the BEST
-
AVGN/James Rolfe isnt part of That Guy With The Glasses.com
Doesn't matter if the critic is a pompous dickwad. It's the content of the review that matters. To me, his arguments were right on the money. To each his own, but saying that he's wrong because he's annoying is kind of silly.
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!
-
Also, am I the only one who enjoyed Van Helsing's Dracula?
YES
-
AVGN/James Rolfe isnt part of That Guy With The Glasses.com
Nor did I claim so. But he is a hyperactive young man.
-
What's wrong with Dracula being beaten by a werewolf? That happened on the Nintendo 64. Granted, it wasn't ONLY a werewolf that could beat D, but can't say CV64 wasn't an inspiration.
-
What exactly IS wrong with Van Hellsing's Dracula? Is it the actor's looks? Is it the hammy performance?
-
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZbVKFNBYuk#)
lol
-
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*
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Seemed pretty clear to me that it was. Still didn't like it.
-
How was it clear?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
I like Jorge's interpretation too. It really is CV1 as a film minus the Belmont.
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.
I swear to GOD I saw an early version of the trailer that had a cross boomerang in place of the razor Frisbee that was in the final cut. What more evidence is need to prove that the movie was not only intended to be campy but was also directly inspired by CV series if not CV1 itself? Hell the video game based on the movie specifically mentions Castlevania and the Belmont clan.
-
(http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/2923/jackmanbelmont.png)
-
If the movie would have slowed down a bit so the Drama area can expand and overall took itself more seriously, the movie would have been super top notch and the Shitty CG would have been overshadowed on how good of a movie it would have been.
Hugh Jackman Looked the part, but the Dracula is just NO.
-
I'm starting to think you have no appreciation for camp. :'(
@Flame: LOL'd. ;D
-
I think people are too uptight these days. Everything is black or white. It's either awesome or it sucks, and there's no room for gray areas anymore.
I blame the interne--**cable modem dies**
-
I once before said Van Helsing sucked, but I realize I never specified why I thought so.
Simply because of Dracula's portrayal, and that the vampire's weakness is a werewolf.
Dracula's portrayal was WAY too cheesy for me to take seriously. And the accent sounded forced rather than legitimate. The whole weakness thing goes against any type of mythology I've ever seen or heard of. Though honestly that part was at least original and actually gave Werewolves importance in something other than just Underworld.
Other than that, the movie was pretty good. I don't really hate on the CGI, though I will admit it could've been done better.
-
Hugh Jackman for Trevor Belmont. WHO'S WITH ME ON THIS.
I would want to see him as Simon for some reason he just fits that role to me for some reason more than Trevor.
-
I just figure he looks more like Trevor.
Or just make an original movie Belmont.
-
I think people are too uptight these days. Everything is black or white. It's either awesome or it sucks, and there's no room for gray areas anymore.
I blame the interne--**cable modem dies**
that seems to be the case, black or white when the truth is many MANY shades of grey....
this is always a Critics Job as I was one and nobody cares unless you give it a thumbs up or Down.
Hell, I dislike a few Oscar winning movies like the Social Network and The King's Speech simply because the movies have nothing but talking where something more interesting could take place...
If I state if we all should get along, I'll be shot in the head by both sides....
I however will contribute that the internet should be a bad place and use words such as HATE.
this is the nature of the interwebs!
-
I thought I would get bored by The King's Speech.
I actually found myself pretty drawn into it. It was well made.
Another movie on the royal family, The Madness of King George, wasn't nearly as engrossing. THAT was actually kinda boring, if only because it felt drawn out. Stretched.
Of course, its apples and oranges really, ones about a King with a somewhat rare condition that makes him mad, while the other is about a King with a speech impediment. the eras are totally different too.
-
Camp can be fun. I'm no fan of a lot of campy movies, like Tokyo Gore Police (the last campy flick I saw), but I love Sukiyaki Western Django. Takashi Miike has some fun campy films and SWDj is one of them. The difference between that and Van Helsing though is SWDj was obvious camp and an obvious homage to spaghetti Westerns. Yet, in defense of the statement that some people just can't handle camp or enjoy camp or whatever, even good movies like SWDj are hated on by most people. Although I did show it to one friend that doesn't care for camp and doesn't like Japanese movies but he said he enjoyed SWDj. But from what I read on Rotten Tomatoes about it, a lot of the criticisms about it were the English language usage and corniness of it [SWDj] (one person even was furious because he thought it was sacrilege for the Japanese to make a Western, which is downright hilarious to read if you know anything about spaghetti Westerns). In other words, the same criticisms are basically used, although in different words, for Van Helsing. People didn't like the hammed-up accents or the corniness because they were probably expecting something serious and when their expectations weren't met, rather than enjoying the film for what it was, they just shut it out completely and didn't bother watching the movie as a form of entertainment from that point on.
-
I agree totally.
-
(http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b238/Psycho_Werekitsune/vanhelsing-ref2.jpg)
We appreciate the plug guys, but both the game & movie still sucked :P