New Van Helsing movie

[MekaGojira3k]

[MekaGojira3k]

[klen7]

[mr.negativity]

Van Helsing is a strong possibility for the 2017 date

[Ernesth100]

I'd love to see a new Van Helsing film. The first was just awesome!

[jellydonut25]

[Henry88]

eh what was wrong with the last one?.

[jellydonut25]

[Ernesth100]

[XvGojira]

[Ernesth100]

[jellydonut25]

Does someone REALLY need to sit here and point out all the horrible, horrible flaws with that movie? Really? Is that a thing that needs to be done?

[Ernesth100]

[jellydonut25]

Now, keep in mind this is from the someone who hasn't seen the movie in YEARS, so if I lack super-specific evidence, then oh well, I'm not going to re-watch this dung heap just for a post.

The opening scene, I rather enjoy, but just about everything we learn about Dracula after that part negates the entire thing. He can't be killed by stake or garlic or silver or sunlight or a crucifix or burning. If that all has no effect, then why not just slaughter all the villagers who were coming after him? I doubt any of them had a werewolf who hadn't yet become a full werewolf handy to fight him. It sucks because the opening sequence is the high point of the movie and on its own is really awesome but in the context of the film it is contradictory, stupid, and illogical.

Then there's the little details, ie, the Friar character who states something stupid like "I'm a friar, not a monk." Contrary to the assertions of the screenwriter and the ever-braindead Stephen Sommers, friars have all the same responsibilities as monks and their only real distinguishing feature is that monks are hermits and friars do their work out in the world. It takes a two-second look at Wikipedia to get that fact...the movie flubs over all kinds of little details like that (machine-gun-crossbow is a physical impossibility). Also, the whole village has been waging war against vampires for hundreds of years but hasn't killed one in 100 years? Why aren't there more than 4 vampires then? How about when they felt the need to make running through the woods a wire stunt? I think it's the Beckinsale who's running through the woods and her hair isn't fluttering in a breeze. Because the movie is lazy and muffs the details.

The number of action movie cliches on display is staggering, with the only one missing being some sort of jumping away from an explosion. But we've got plenty of bridge collapses at inopportune moments, one-hand hanging on a ledge, and of course, rope swinging galore. And of course, horse-drawn carriages EXPLODING. The fudge? UGH.

Lots of sideplots get brought up and never mentioned or paid off, most notably Van Helsing's muddies memories and past. Granted, they MAY have been planning for a sequel, but that's just the kind of nonsense I can't abide in a movie. Tell me a complete story. And if you're going to hold something over for a future film don't feature it so prominently that it's one of the few plot points I remember despite it never receiving a proper end. And also, if you're planning for sequels, then why blow your wad with DRACULA in the first movie? You had Dracula, Hyde, Werewolf and Frankenstein's Monster....what would have been LEFT for a sequel? Poor planning all-around.

And, I can't be the only one who finds it nonsensical that the ONLY thing that can bring a vampire brood to life is the Frankenstein Monster...am I? I'll kinda let this one pass, because it's the driving thrust of the film, but also, they basically turned the monster into a MacGuffin...which kinda sucks. But also, WHAT?!?! If Frankenstein can impart life on things, then why not just have him impart life on your vampire babies? Why does he have to create a man first that you then use to make your babies come to life?

There's also the underwhelming "action" of the action scenes. Van Helsing vs. a whole ballroom filled with vampires (what? Wait? I thought there were only 4, now there's a whole ballroom? Get your story straight movie) should make for some awesome, Blade-level action. Instead the friar makes a bunch of artificial sunlight and they all die. So now the great monster slayer, Van Helsing, is reduced to having slain only like 2 monsters in his own film, unless you count Werewolf vs. Dracula, which is such and intangibly CGI thing as to make me feel I'm watching a cartoon during those parts, and suffers from turning the monsters into mere monsters losing all vestiges of humanity such that there's no character hook to root for during that time...not that there are really CHARACTERS in this movie, there are just props and stunt bodies used for the action scenes (and really, this is probably the bigger problem than the design decisions. We don't know anything or care about Van Helsing, so his life or death is meaningless).

At their core, the Universal monster were always asking fairly big questions: What does it mean to be alive? Can man create life? Can we control the beast raging within us? Does the soul exist? Van Helsing asks: how tight an outfit can Kate Beckinsale squeeze into? Where can we put an explosion? How close can we get to a lesbian sequence?

It's a movie that suffers not from a lack of energy, but rather an over-abundance of it. If everything is punctuated with SHOUTING and EXPLOSIONS and OVER-THE-TOP ACTION then things become monotonous in the same way that reading a wall of CAPITAL TEXT or an over-use of EXCLAMATION POINTS WOULD BE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LIKE THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S DULL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S LOUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT'S STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Take a good premise, based on a horror franchise, bill it as the rebirth of your classic monster movies, turn it into an action movie crib a whole bunch of set pieces, ideas, scenes, plot points, characters, design elements, etc from other, better movies, half-bake the whole thing, and you've got a recipe for Van Helsing.

And let me be honest, the monsters LOOK cool, but something that looks cool can't make up for non-existent characterization, terrible pacing and an awful plot. Van Helsing thinks it does. "Hey look, we've got a hulking beastly Hyde, and a really cool looking werewolf, and Dracula turns into a bat-man crazy monster! Just ignore the lack of any substance, please."

[XvGojira]

[Ernesth100]

Eh, that's probably why I liked the movie all the action really went well with my simplistic mind. Plus Kate Beckinsale was hot.

[jellydonut25]

[Ernesth100]

[klen7]

I don't hate Van Helsing, but i also made my wife agree to let me add "or Kate Beckinsale" between the "until death" and the "do us part" portion of our wedding vows, so i may be a bit blinded to some of the rough edges.

[Ernesth100]

You have a wife?

[klen7]

i have lots of things. i'm old.

[jellydonut25]

[Ernesth100]

[klen7]

[mr.negativity]