# Van Helsing - poll, etc.



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jul 6, 2004)

Personally I quite enjoyed this one. I checked in my brains at the foyer, picked up a huge helping of popcorn and pretty much totally enjoyed myself barring the last-minute Gladiator-syndrome ending. Sure the plot was dumb, the characters were flat and so on, but doesn't that just place this movie in the grand tradition of purveyors of abysmal but fun horror fare, such as Ed Wood and the likes, just with better effects? 

What did you think?


----------



## Sirathiel (Jul 6, 2004)

My boyfriend wanted us to go into this film. I was like "What's it about?", i.e. totally clueless. After having read a few synopses, I had an idea what it was about, but the exciting "Wanna-see-it" thrill wasn't there.

In the end, we went in another film and he saw Van Helsing a week later with his best friend. He enjoyed it, but admitted that once was enough. He wouldn't spend money to go see it a second time. So, he had fun. And I know that I didn't miss out on something great.


----------



## ravenus (Jul 6, 2004)

Well, I was thoroughly disgusted with the movie. Even with the better B-horrors, you at least have a distinctive camp value. This one just had a lot of generic explosions, people with annoying unfunny bad accents, leaping about and the most abysmal and masturbatory use of CGI. If only someone had written even a half-baked script for this, we could have had something really cool. Whst's the use of having all those monsters if they're going to be so nondescript in execution and just tacks to hang stupid for-FX-sake FX on?


----------



## littlemissattitude (Jul 6, 2004)

Avoided it.  Then again, I've been avoiding all films in the theatre lately, due to lack of funds to go to them.  Still, I think "Van Helsing" is one of those films I'd just rather see on video rather than pay the higher price to see it in the theatre.


----------



## The Master™ (Jul 6, 2004)

When I last went to the cinema... It was a toss-up between that, Harry Potter and Day After Tomorrow... I CHOSE WRONG!!!  I went to see Harry Potter - BOOHOO!!!

Should have gone to see Day After Tomorrow!!!

Gonna wait for Van Helsing to come out on Sky!!!


----------



## Hypes (Jul 6, 2004)

Personally, I greatly enjoyed the new Harry Potter movie (have only seen bits and pieces of the other two, and I haven't touched the books). Thought the new director did a marvellous job making a good film, even more so than the previous ones.

Day After Tomorrow looks like a cheesy popcorn flick, though not as bad as the tripe which is Van Helsing.

All I have to say about that trainwreck is that I pity the horse that shat it out.


----------



## nemogbr (Jul 6, 2004)

What was not to like?

I'd like the automatic crossbow
Kate Beckinsale
The three wives of Dracula.

enough said.


----------



## Ivo (Jul 8, 2004)

I avoided it but only because I wanted to see it on DVD instead.  It looked like there was a little too much CGI for my tastes and in those cases I prefer it on DVD.

It looks like it will be some good, mindless fun...


----------



## LadyFel (Aug 11, 2004)

I had fun watching it...The plot's silly, but I like the way they put the different stories together...I think they should probably have spent more time on his amnesia and the 'right hand of God' stuff, but it was fun wathicng the 19th Century version of Bond's Q...

Anyone else notice the light bomb from Blade2? Nice touch...And I have to say, David Wenham is much more suited to the role of a bumbling friar inventor than Faramir i LOTR...I almost didn't recognise him 

Then again, Hugh Jackman is one of my fave actors, so 
regardless of the gaping holes and predictability of the story, it was a feast for my eyes


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Aug 12, 2004)

I find it highly odd that people pan this movie for its utterly silly plot - often the same people who make a point of admiring Ed Wood movies and the like since these are _classic _crap movies and so have some cachet.  Odd, the shapes intellectual snobery takes...


----------



## ravenus (Aug 12, 2004)

It's all a question of feel. Sometimes a movie can be hilarious and good in its silliness, when you can laugh at the stupidity/brazenness of the people that made it.

This one just stinks bad...everything seems calculated to provide the next CGI dominated scene, and it all blends into one loud, indifferent mess...They could have done something good given the distinctive personalities of the creatures they selected for the film, but most of the film looks like your typical Roland Emmerich bullcrap. The wiseass vigilante persona for Helsing and his leather-tights girlfriend is far too derivative of a million contemporary superhero flicks. The CGI looks too much like CGI, they could have probably done better with rubber suits and makeup. It's sorta like what I felt about the Matrix sequels, where the CGI action scenes go on for so long they grate on my nerves. It may be a personal view but I thought Dracula and his wives were campy in a very migraine-inducing way. And this movie is TOO OFTEN WAY TOO LOUD.

This movie has too much of a dumb audience exploitation feel and I think it's BORING.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Aug 12, 2004)

The last ten minutes were certainly exploitative in a cheap tug-at-the-heartstrings way - know what I mean? 


Still, I walked into this movie expecting nothing more than anevening of blatantly mindless fun. I got what I paid for.


----------



## Princess Ivy (Aug 23, 2004)

Anyone who is around me for more than a day or two will realise that two things are constant. I love:
1)Hugh Jackman in leather/spandex
2)Brendan Frasier in his butflap.
For reason number one and because I love rollicking adventure action flicks, i loved this one, the ending was a bit of a disapointment though!

Anyone else noticed that Jackman seems to be being typecast as the amnesiac tough guy? first wolverine, now van helsing?


----------



## angrybuddhist (Sep 4, 2004)

The movie was a noisy waste of time.  I normally enjoy action movies, but this one could have used some character development to break up the cgi and noise.


----------



## The Master™ (Oct 19, 2004)

Went and bought it for the wife this week... JEEZUZ H!!! What a lousy film...

Lots of CGI, and a storyline that is very shaky!!! And did they pinch Mr Hyde from LXG or what???

I was very disappointed - it was about on the same level as the remake of Planet of the Apes...


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 19, 2004)

I bought this last week - not seen it yet.

 To be truthful, I couldn't care pants for the story - I'm buying it as a clothing guide.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Oct 20, 2004)

Princess Ivy said:
			
		

> I love:
> 1)Hugh Jackman in leather/spandex


Only in leather/spandex, Ivy?  I have to say, I rather fancy Hugh Jackman in just about anything. 

That being said, I still haven't seen "Van Helsing".  Then again, I haven't seen anything lately that hasn't been on TV, either broadcast or cable.


----------



## The Master™ (Oct 20, 2004)

I said:
			
		

> To be truthful, I couldn't care pants for the story - I'm buying it as a clothing guide.


Will you be dressing up like Van Helsing, Dracula or Anna Valerious???


----------



## Devillishgirl (Oct 20, 2004)

I won't go so far as to say I WANT MY TWO HOURS BACK! Having said that, it was bad! The only saving graces were two yummy pieces of eye candy(Hugh Jackman and Kate Beckingsdale) in leather.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 20, 2004)

The Master™ said:
			
		

> Will you be dressing up like Van Helsing, Dracula or Anna Valerious???


 I'll tell you _after_ I've seen it.


----------



## Devillishgirl (Oct 20, 2004)

For you Brian, my vote would be dressing as Van Helsing......I'm not sure Anna's boots would be comfortable.


----------



## Princess Ivy (Oct 21, 2004)

I loved the hat! and the gowns worn by the brides. that cool corsety thing that kate wore, not quite as good as the leather cat suit in underworld, but very cool.
Post us a piccy Brian, we'd love to see


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 21, 2004)

I've got a goth wedding to go to next week - I'll probably lay off the make-up though - but I'll still bring back pics.


----------



## Princess Ivy (Oct 21, 2004)

don't forget the winklepickers!


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 21, 2004)

I've got rock boots instead - up to my knees, and all buckles and zips.


----------



## Blue Mythril (Oct 21, 2004)

> And did they pinch Mr Hyde from LXG or what???


 My impression was that all of these characters have been taken from "classic" tales... Like Dracula, or the portrait of Dorian Grey etc
 *shrugs* I'm often wrong anyways.
 I'm interested in seeing this, still havn't gotten around to it yet. I must say, i'm not normally phased by 'mindless' actions, especially if they arn't the standard [size=-1]Sylvester Stallone type actions. Hey, I really enjoyed Tomb Raider 

 Besides, I second both Ivy and Little Miss: Hugh Jackman is fantastic.
 Lol, I did chuckle at that post Ivy, gotta love Fraser's buttflap 
 [/size]


----------



## Princess Ivy (Oct 22, 2004)

Blue Mythril said:
			
		

> My impression was that all of these characters have been taken from "classic" tales... Like Dracula, or the portrait of Dorian Grey etc
> [size=-1][/size]


Alan Quatermain was a creation of  h Ryder Haggard and appeared in King Solomons mines, Dorian Grey, of course from a portrait of Dorian Grey by Oscar Wilde. Mina Harker (not dracula) from the novel Dracula by Bram Stoker, Dr Jekel and Mr Hyde from the Rober Louis Stevenson novel of the same title, the invisible man from the HG Wells classic tale. Captain Nemo from the jules Verne Classic 20000leagues under the sea. Tom Sawyer was thrown in as a sort of what happened after they were famous and the Villian, Moriarty, from the sherlock holmes series.

However, in van helsing, they used the original characters from the bramstoker novel, ie dracula and Van Helsing and jazzed them up a bit. gave them cool costumes and pretty girls and let it rip, making van helsing, rather than an ageing professor, a dashing hunter of all monsters, to illustrate this point they brought in Dr Jekel and a few werewolves.



			
				I said:
			
		

> I've got rock boots instead - up to my knees, and all buckles and zips.


so does my daughter, although i think the style may be a little different


----------



## LadyFel (Oct 22, 2004)

The whole thing with the characters they use in this movie and LXG is that they've all become public domain - you no longer need to buy the rights to write about them and be published.

*SPOILER POSSIBLE*

This movie's Van Helsing was supposedly described as 'The real VH's little brother' , but they ended up changing this in the script, so he turns out to be an amnesiac who's earliest memory is fighting at Masada in 73 A.D... And his name's Gabriel...


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 23, 2004)

Masada?! Why the heck would anyone claim association with that place?? Rabid Jewish revolutionaries slaughtering themselves?? Ah, well - I'll probably be watching the film tonight so I'll see for myself. Already sounds like I'll detest the script, but hopefully I can come away with some clothing tips.


----------



## Foxbat (Oct 23, 2004)

I have to admit to enjoying this film. Sure it’s utter nonsense with a format that is a linear progression of CGI set-pieces. The characters are one dimensional and there’s a serious case of over acting in this movie. It does, however, have a nice comedic quality and doesn’t take itself too seriously.  Van Helsing himself comes across as the Han Solo of Horror (or perhaps the James Bond of Bedlam if you take into account his Q-like sidekick).

But the sound and visuals are superb. I think this film would be better entitled *Van Helsing: A Demonstration in Audio Visual Clarity.*

So, if you want to spend a Saturday afternoon nursing a hangover and watching a film that doesn’t force you to think too much then this is the one.




> I find it highly odd that people pan this movie for its utterly silly plot - often the same people who make a point of admiring Ed Wood movies and the like since these are classic crap movies and so have some cachet. Odd, the shapes intellectual snobery takes...




A very good question. IMO the difference lies in the fact that Ed Wood’s stuff is naïve, badly directed and used talentless actors. This gave it a very loveable quality, which is hard to explain - and yet the number of people who enjoy these movies is testament to the truth of the fact. 

Van Helsing, on the other hand uses world famous names with a huge budget and cutting edge CGI (no silver painted paper plates and fishing line for Mr Sommers). This causes Van Helsing to fall into the paradox of using big budget to emulate the low budget gems of yesteryear. It just doesn’t work.


----------



## Lucifer (Nov 5, 2004)

Princess Ivy said:
			
		

> Anyone who is around me for more than a day or two will realise that two things are constant. I love:
> 1)Hugh Jackman in leather/spandex
> 2)Brendan Frasier in his butflap.


*shriek!*  Someone else likes Brendon!  And, oh my, George of the Jungle.  Yes indeed.  I've loved him since Encino Man, I love the Mummy movies (because unlike Indiana Jones, he can maintain the same women through two filsm without her inexplicably disappearing like a Bond girl).  I hate Elizabeth Hurley and I still sat through Bedazzled.  Monkeybone was awful and I loved every minute of it.  I can't stand Ricky Lake, and I still watched Mrs. Winterborn.  Actor addiction is a sad, sad thing.  And really, in my opinion, there's no point, because Brendan really can act - he just gets typecast into nightmares.

I am watching Van Helsing tonight.  I will report back when I'm through.

Lucifer.


----------



## erickad71 (Nov 5, 2004)

Mmmmm...Brendan Fraser is so nice to look at in the movies.  George of the Jungle and the Mummy movies being personal favorites.

Just thought I would let you two know you weren't alone...


----------



## Princess Ivy (Nov 5, 2004)

i'm so glad i'm not alone, i hear hes up for superman. yummy!


----------



## littlemissattitude (Nov 5, 2004)

erickad71 said:
			
		

> Mmmmm...Brendan Fraser is so nice to look at in the movies.  George of the Jungle and the Mummy movies being personal favorites.
> 
> Just thought I would let you two know you weren't alone...


Yes, Brendan Fraser does look quite nice in the mummy films, but I do have to confess that I watch them (over and over again) primarily to look at Oded Fehr, who plays Ardeth Bey (the guy with the silly tattoos on his cheeks).  Good looking man.  _Very_ good looking man.


----------



## LadyFel (Nov 5, 2004)

littlemissattitude said:
			
		

> I watch them (over and over again) primarily to look at Oded Fehr, who plays Ardeth Bey (the guy with the silly tattoos on his cheeks). Good looking man. _Very_ good looking man.


mmmmmmmmmmmm...Yeeeeesssssss *licks lips meaningfully*...I have this great friend who looks so much like him it's uncanny...unfortunately he went and got a haircut...not so nice... 

Still can't beat Johnny Depp for me though


----------



## erickad71 (Nov 6, 2004)

littlemissattitude said:
			
		

> Yes, Brendan Fraser does look quite nice in the mummy films, but I do have to confess that I watch them (over and over again) primarily to look at Oded Fehr, who plays Ardeth Bey (the guy with the silly tattoos on his cheeks). Good looking man. _Very_ good looking man.


I won't argue with that one...


----------



## The Master™ (Nov 7, 2004)

I don't know... You women treat men like pieces of meat... hehehe 

Nobody looking for a bad boy then??? What about Adewale Akinnouye-Agbage as _Lock-Nah_??? Now there is a man any parent can identify with - that kid was sooooooo annoying!!!


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 7, 2004)

I finally watched Van Helsin last night - it wasn't so bad for a while, but it quickly became a series of seemnigly pointless CGI action sequences. Everything in Dracula's castle seemed pretty pointless, really. 

The final ending was certainly a surprise - the Kate Beckinsale character element at the end seemed rushed and rather pointless. 

Still, I'm sure if I were a young teen I would have thought the film brilliant. It would have been nice to have a slow slow-moving atmospheric camera shots, rather than everything filmed as a dramatic pace. though.


----------



## mzarynn (Nov 7, 2004)

I also watched the movie last night and was expecting a predictable, undeveloped plot with cheesy emotional pulls.  That's what I got!  But because I wasn't surprised, I did enjoy the movie.  I felt the same way about Hell Boy and LXG, but they were all it least amusing.  I just have one question...

******SPOILER*******



Where did Frankenstein think he was going on that rink-a-dink raft at the end of the movie?


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 7, 2004)

A sequel, I think.


----------



## Lucifer (Nov 7, 2004)

Hoo, that was bad.

I rented "The London Experiment" by mistake, and spent about 20 minutes wondering why no one here griped about the endless animation sequence that opened the movie.  Then I found out that it was a seperate thing, and after being annoyed I felt rather stupid.  I will say, however, that in my defense, I almost never go to the movies and I don't watch television.  When I do rent, I have almost no idea of what anything is, so there are lots of potentials for surprises - most of them bad.

I did manage to secure the correct Van Helsing for this afternoon.  I apperantly need to stop reading feminist magazines/being so rational, because I spent the entire movie annoyed by Anna.  

a) what the hell was that accent supposed to be?
b) for one expecting to spent a lot of time in combat, why didn't she ever pull back her hair?
c) how is she fighting in a waist cincher without passing out?  She's awfully flexible to be wearing that thing, too.  Must not have steel boning.
d) isn't she cold, seeing as how it's winter and she's wearing skin tight pants, a waist cincher, and a blouse?
e) if you wear high heels, at least use them to kick someone at some point in time.

The Brides made me mad too, with all the shrieking and cackling.

So if it weren't for the female characters, the movie would have been a lot more fun.  And the "tearjerker" ending?  Pathetic.  

Poor Frankenstein's Monster came off as an Anne Rice character: ANGST!  

I am ashamed to admit that I like Underworld better than this, and I though that Underworld was my most loathed film ever.  Well . . . then again, I passionately hated Underworld, whereas with Van Helsing I just didn't care very much.  

The werewolves also seemed to have very tiny, very pointy ears in my opinion.  I wondered if this was to give them an Anubis-like look and therefore forshadow their involvement in the denoument, but then I realized such subtlties might be beyond the grasp of the film.  Besides, everybody knows that Anubis has great big pointy ears, not dinky pointy ears.  Even "The Mummy" got that right.

Oh, and for all the ladies . . . never let it be said that Lucifer does not deliver:




 
 

Lucifer


----------



## littlemissattitude (Nov 8, 2004)

Lucifer said:
			
		

> Lucifer


Well. Um-hum.........

Now that I've recovered by powers of communication, might I just say a big THANK YOU to you, Lucifer. That made my day.


----------



## Princess Ivy (Nov 8, 2004)

i knew there were more reasons than my beloved brendan to love that film.
humnahumanahumna


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Nov 8, 2004)

Is ist just me or was the costume designer for this movie channeling Solomon Kane?


----------



## polymorphikos (Nov 8, 2004)

Now that you mention it, the similarities are notable on several fronts.


----------



## erickad71 (Nov 9, 2004)

Thank you Lucifer!!! Seeing that picture...all I can say is...WOW


----------



## leaflyn (Nov 9, 2004)

*sigh* I heard that this movie was going to be really good and the commercials even looked enjoyable, but I was sooo disappointed honestly.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 9, 2004)

Who is that picture of? Looks like my strange friend, Lackey. 

Back to the film quickly - Dracula acted well and really got into the role - but he never _looked_ the part. He came across as like a Croatian rock star, rather than a truly powerful vampire.


----------



## LadyFel (Nov 9, 2004)

I said:
			
		

> He came across as like a Croatian rock star, rather than a truly powerful vampire.


You actually know of some or did you just pick a random country to bitch about?  

Actually, I'm sad to say that if any Croatian rock stars actually came across that way they'd probably be over the moon  Trust me on this one...


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 9, 2004)

I tried to think of a country that had neither done great in Eurovision, nor had anything popular in the UK charts. 

Maybe I should have said Bulgarian. instead.


----------



## LadyFel (Nov 10, 2004)

But we won the Eurovision in '89...

Terrible...HOW could you forget??


----------



## Lucifer (Nov 12, 2004)

I said:
			
		

> Who is that picture of? Looks like my strange friend, Lackey.
> 
> Back to the film quickly - Dracula acted well and really got into the role - but he never _looked_ the part. He came across as like a Croatian rock star, rather than a truly powerful vampire.


The picture is of the actor Oded Fehr, who played the crazy mystic turban'ed tattooed guy in "The Mummy" movies.  His job in the filsm is to deliver information at random when needed, always survive, glower mysteriously, and provide eye candy for the so-inclined among us.  

As for Dracula . . . well, I love him, I have a tattoo of the Gary Oldman version, but he is always such a drama queen.  And his taste in women in Van Helsing - bah!  Actually, the actor did all right with the role (though it was definately the rock n' roll vampire look as popularized by Damn Anne Rice as opposed to the ratty-stinky-chilly Nosferatu look).  Personally, I thought the Dracula in "Dracula 2000" was a pretty great rock n' roll vampire, as was the televised, historical Vlad Dracul that came on a while back.  He seems to get hotter and hotter, Dracula does, while losing charisma by leaps and bounds.  Also, let's just admit the fact that while Stewart Townsend made a sexy-as-hell vampire (despite "Queen of the Damned" sucking big time), he certainly wasn't playing Anne's Lestat - with the dark hair and the smouldering, he was definately Rock n' Roll Vampire version 2.0.  

"But Lucifer!  Doesn't Gary Oldman as Dracula have long dark hair and smolder?"

Yes, but he is a Victorian pre rock n' roll vampire, and therefore predates the other Dracs by nearly a century.

Caped, psycho-glare Dracula, a la Bela Lugosi, has fallen by the wayside.  Nosferatu Dracula was never all that popular, though "Shadow of the Vampire" has John Malkovich in it and is well worth watching.

Finally, the Van Helsing rock n' roll vampire had far too much gel in his hair to be remotely convincing - no one's hair goes back like that before cascading.

Lucifer.

In conclusion, Blade - as techno vampire - could probably wipe them all out . . . except the victorian vampire, because a girl has to be loyal sometimes.


----------



## LadyFel (Nov 12, 2004)

Lucifer said:
			
		

> Finally, the Van Helsing rock n' roll vampire had far too much gel in his hair to be remotely convincing - no one's hair goes back like that before cascading.


But Lucifer, that's a pony tail, the hair doesn't cascade...


----------



## Lucifer (Nov 12, 2004)

LadyFel said:
			
		

> But Lucifer, that's a pony tail, the hair doesn't cascade...


(Lucifer is dumbfounded)

Oh ho?  Shows how much attention I paid to the film.  I guess that all I noticed was that it was slicky at the front and droppy down the back.  My bad . . .

Except . . . what the hell is Dracula doing with a _ponytail?_  Dracula doesn't wear a _ponytail!_  What's menacing about a _ponytail?_

What kept it back?  Carpathian rubber bands of doom? 

******* Wanna-Be-La, I hate you now! 

Lucifer.


----------



## polymorphikos (Nov 13, 2004)

And yet through her entire rant she not once mentions Christopher Lee.


----------



## LadyFel (Nov 13, 2004)

Lucifer said:
			
		

> Except . . . what the hell is Dracula doing with a _ponytail?_ Dracula doesn't wear a _ponytail!_ What's menacing about a _ponytail?_
> 
> What kept it back? Carpathian rubber bands of doom?


Some sort of wood od leather clip thing which actually looked quite cool once you notice it, but true, a vampire with a ponytail doesn't really work for me...

BTW Brian...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Look familiar??


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 13, 2004)

Croatian rock star?


----------



## LadyFel (Nov 13, 2004)

Yup...named Aki...singer of THE best Cro band ever, at least in my opinion...and a lot of other people's since they've been around and doing great since before I was born...But I dug up the picture today and the similarity just sort of hit me...


----------



## Lucifer (Nov 14, 2004)

polymorphikos said:
			
		

> And yet through her entire rant she not once mentions Christopher Lee.


"Lucifer, you ignorant slut!"

Did he have a ponytail as Dracula?  Maybe I just missed out on a whole Dracula fashion trend.  

Forget it.  Let's just embrace Nosferatu as the OTD (One True Dracula [TM]) and be done with it.  Ratty-toothed baldy, but hey - he was scary.

Lucifer.

I am pissy because someone saw my Dracula tattoo this evening and said, "Hey, is that a Quaker?"

His friend said, "No stupid, that's Johnny Depp."

Mmmmrrrrrffffff!


----------



## dwndrgn (Nov 20, 2004)

Goodness.  Now that I've recovered from the photo of Oded (oh my!) and the thought of Johnny Depp as Dracula (yummy), I'll post my two cents about the movie as I finally saw it the other night.

As most of you I agree that there was way too much CGI, especially when it had to do with the brides - did they really need to overdistort their faces to show their teeth?  In one scene you see one bride's teeth grow to the acknowledged norm for vampires but in most other scenes the entire bottom of the face is distorted to twice it's normal size with a set of choppers any wolf would be proud of.  I was also really annoyed with the transformation of the werewolves, why would they be tearing off their own flesh?  Wouldn't it transmute?  It had to since once the transformation was complete there weren't bits and pieces of flesh flung about the room like a teenager's laundry pile.  I just thought it was overdone.

Anna's costume was silly, they could have done a much better job to make her outfit both more comely and more practical.

Frankenstein was just plain goofy.  He looked cool (my roomie was particularly taken by the constant electricity shown in his brain) but then tended to switch between a whining ninny and a beefy bully.

I thought they left way too much of the backstory out, the brides overacted terribly, and come on, Dracula worried about his babies?  What kind of crap is that?  The final scene was over the top, if Frankenstein was really swinging on that wire, poor little Q (I called him that through the entire movie because that was just what he was) would have been no help.  And why would he throw the syringe of the cure to Anna as she's swinging over an abyss when he could still walk the left portion of the bridge as he does later anyway?

All that being said, I sat through the entire thing and was pretty amused and entertained throughout so not a complete waste of time.  I will say that it was very dark and thus hard to see on a home tv even with all lights off.  No, for a complete waste of time rent Garfield.  To laugh your buns off, rent Elf.  We saw that one last night and I'm sore from laughing so much.  Completely silly but hilarious.


----------



## Highlander II (Aug 23, 2006)

First - I love this movie - for all it's cheese and plot holes bigger than Antartica - I love it.  It's cheesey and corny and has Hugh Jackman in tight pants and the coolest hat ever!




			
				I said:
			
		

> Masada?! Why the heck would anyone claim association with that place?? Rabid Jewish revolutionaries slaughtering themselves?? Ah, well - I'll probably be watching the film tonight so I'll see for myself. Already sounds like I'll detest the script, but hopefully I can come away with some clothing tips.




Heee - I actually took ALL of that and created a wicked cool backstory for an alternate universer version of this character to play with.  SO much better than Mr. Sommers who left HUGE holes in the backstory.  So, I filled them in.

(no one is going to believe this, but I actually typed 'huge' correctly twice in this post and didn't misspell it "HUGH" either time and have to retype)







			
				mzarynn said:
			
		

> ******SPOILER*******
> 
> 
> 
> Where did Frankenstein think he was going on that rink-a-dink raft at the end of the movie?




I don't think anyone knows where he was going on that thing.  Unless that was Stephen Sommers' way of 'tying' it back to the book and he was going to the arctic.


Also - for anyone who watched this film, I come bearing a gift - Van Helsing in 15 Minutes by Cleolinda - whether you loved, like, or hated the movie - this is really funny.


----------



## Highlander II (Aug 24, 2006)

Since I didn't vote the last time I posted - I voted this time - 

Movie was fun.  I think I'll always love this flick, no matter how cheesey.

Plus - my vote pushed the 'yay' option to 11 votes! woot!

Oh - another bit of fun, when you watch this movie - watch it in surround sound!  There are a few little noises / sounds that can't be heard when watched normally.  

DUNDUNDUNDUNDUN! 

Roxula, Helsingwolf and the gang all say 'hi'   (( I need sleep in the worst way ))

** this is also post # 10,000


----------



## roddglenn (Aug 30, 2006)

I thought it very poor - massive over-use of CGI, some dire acting - the muppet who played Dracular like he was in a Carry On film was just appauling.  Its only redeeming quality was Hugh Jackman, whom I thought did adequately in the role, if looking somewhat embarrassed some of the time.


----------



## Trey Greyjoy (Aug 30, 2006)

It was fun. My expectations were higher, but that happens a lot nowadays.


----------



## williemeikle (Aug 30, 2006)

For me, its only redeeming quality was having Mr Hyde as a Scotsman... a nice tie in with RLS's original...

Willie


----------

