![Digital Theatre [DTheatre.com]](images/logo.png){kind=logo}
|
Starring on Dtheatre's Stage: Latest Movie News & Trailers, TV News and Productions,
Special Free Guides, Gadgets and Expert Reviews on Varity of Exciting Zones. We actually have a special expert responsible for every post series. Come back soon, you will always find new interesting things! |
By Aaron April 21, 2004 11:52 AM
So in a few weeks the American public will be assaulted by the latest Steven Sommers' blockbuster, Van Helsing. Like the he did with the Mummy, Sommers has created a hip and fresh monster movie. And, like the Mummy I will groan the entire time I watch it. Okay, so maybe the Mummy wasn?t that bad. Sure it was brainless and not the least bit scary but I didn?t feel like I had tossed $8.50 down the drain. And, let me thank the powers that be at this time that I got free passes to The Mummy Returns!
Van Helsing doesn?t look like it?s shaping up to be all that entertaining, even in the mindless way. Case in point: As I say to watch the highly entertaining and fun Hellboy I was privy to the new Van Helsing trailer. A trailer I might add that gives away the ENTIRE FRIGGEN PLOT! I don?t need to see the movie. I know all there is to know now. I promise to not speak of the spoilers given in the trailer, but those who have seen it know exactly what I am talking about. ?But Aaron, what about the awesome effects in the trailer? Surely you want to see those? Maybe, but I just can?t fork over my hard earned cash for some pretty CGI. Got burned by the last two Matrix movies, ain?t gonna? happen again thank you very much!
Granted, I haven?t seen one frame of the final film and so all my ranting may be for nothing?but I kinda? doubt it.
What has any of the above rambling got to do with rubber masks? Plenty my friend, plenty!
Universal in an attempt to garner interest in Van Helsing has re-issued the classic monster movies onto DVD. Bela as Dracula, Boris as Frankenstein?s Monster, and Lon as the Wolf-Man! For this long time horror movie fan it doesn?t get any better then this. ?I know they?ve been released before, but never in this pretty of a set. For less then $100 we get nine, count them, nine movies and some really sweet busts of my favorite monsters! Gonna? look great next to my Monster Squad poster! Come April 27th I will be at my favorite movie retailer, copy in hand.
The classic monster movies had a heart that is sorely lacking in the current crop of monster films, the few which get made. Note that I don?t lump your Leatherface?s and Freddy?s in the listing of monster movies. They are a completely separate genre and it isn?t fair to compare them. I don?t care what happens to Leatherface or Freddy, but I sure as hell care about the fates of Dracula, The Creature, or the pitiful Wolf-Man. These are living (kinda?), breathing (sorta?) people that are deserving of my interest. Even the actors hearken back to a day when melodrama wasn?t clich? and mocked. Open your mind and let you imagination wander as Bela?s hands sweep across the face of his beautiful victim; your heart will quicken. Feel Boris? loneliness when he realizes that no one can or will be his friend. Allow yourself to tear up when Lon asks his own brother to put him down, choosing death over a fate he never wanted nor deserved. The Universal Monsters are tragedies in the most classic of sense. True, the monsters do evil acts and must be punished, but it is always with an air of sorrow.
If you can?t afford the box set, the DVDs will be made available as single titles. If you can?t bring yourself to purchase them, at least drop the $2.50 for a rental. The little child inside you that still hides under the covers will thank you?
| comments: 65
Want more... 
reply
Posted by Aaron (hoser_prime@yahoo.com) on April 21, 2004 11:59 AM
Now, if I could get me The Mummy and The Creature From the Black Lagoon... I could die happy!
Van Helsing reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on April 21, 2004 1:24 PM
You don't know what you are talking about!!!!
Van Helsing reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on April 21, 2004 1:26 PM
Aaron is a loser!!!
Van Helsing reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on April 21, 2004 1:28 PM
Find a new job because you stink!!!!
Van Helsing reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on April 21, 2004 1:30 PM
Loser, Loser....!!!!!
RE: Van Helsing reply
Posted by Aaron (hoser_prime@yahoo.com) on April 21, 2004 2:16 PM
Bah! You're just jealous cause you're an obvious Castlevania by way of Vampire Hunter D rip off! NOW who's the loser!?! Dr. Pretorious' dead rotting corpse could whup on ya!
Aaron is a loser!!! reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on April 22, 2004 5:54 AM
LOSER!!! How dare you attempt to have an opinion!
RE: Aaron is a loser!!! reply
Posted by popsie (popsie@dtt.com) on April 29, 2004 3:01 AM
look lets talk about the film not some 19 century remake. and to be frank i don't give two fucks who stinks lets just talk about how good the film has done in the cinema thank you.
Van Shmellsing reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on April 29, 2004 6:04 AM
How good has it done?
The fist guys a big freak reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on April 29, 2004 7:37 AM
Hellboys trailer looked pointless so you can't use that as a reason for saying VanHelsing will be shit.
The trailer gave away the plot, I don't think there is going to ba an intricate mystery to the film you big freakin loser its a popcorn film you just watch it for the action the thrills and yes even the CGI
um reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 1, 2004 10:20 AM
yeah it would be helpful not to judge the film so quickly
Weapons reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 1, 2004 4:39 PM
One thing that I thought did look a bit dodgy was the wierd gadgets and weapons in the trailer. Plain old flintlock pistols and swords would be fine if you ask me. Any way I'm still going to see the film cos it looks quality (Hellboy my arse)
Can't wait to see it reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 3, 2004 12:07 AM
Quite honestly, the movie looks to be really good. With a monster movie that includes the classic monsters OF COURSE you know what the plot is going to be. It's not like there is much doubt that Van Helsing (or Van Sexy as I like to call him) is going to kill the monsters. The special effects are great and Hugh Jackman is a phenominal actor. I've been excited since I first heard it was coming out late fall.
RE: The fist guys a big freak reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 3, 2004 12:09 AM
Not to mention the fact that Hellboy was a horrible, god awful movie.
RE: Can't wait to see it reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 3, 2004 12:11 AM
Though I still can't decide whether I'm more excited for Troy, Van Helsing, or Spider Man 2....
RE: Can't wait to see it reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 4, 2004 6:29 AM
Troy personally, beacuse I had to study that kind of thing for my my A levels. But the questions pretty acedemic as I'm going to see all three of them.
I do agree with that other guy though..why all the James bond style weapons in Van Helsing..
Hell yea! reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 4, 2004 7:50 AM
Spider-man 2 is what I'm waiting for, I mean he can do whatever a spider can for Christ's sake!
RE: Hell yea! reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 5, 2004 5:21 AM
Each to his own, but Achillies routing an entire army single hanedly will be impressive to see
RE: Troy reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 5, 2004 8:56 AM
True, but I can't help but feel a little Epic Battled out what with ROTK released not so long ago.
RE: Troy reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 6, 2004 5:49 AM
Good point well made. Spiderman2 will be quality cos Dr Octopus has to be the coolest villian in the Spider comics.
If they did a sequel to Van Helsing (sequels all ready it hasn't come out yet!!) who do you reckon the baddies could be. The director has already done the mummy right?. Who's left?
Also I was reading Dr Jeckell and Mr Hyde a couple of weeks ago and was suprised to find that Mr Hyde is actually a short dude not the Hulking Monstrosity Van Helsing and Leauge of Extrodinary Gentlemen make him out to be.
RE: The fist guys a big freak reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 7, 2004 8:25 AM
Yeah I just saw it on video. It truly is crap it really was disjointed.
Van Helsing Pants reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 8, 2004 7:06 PM
This is probably the worst movie I have ever seen.
RE: Van Helsing Pants reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 8, 2004 7:10 PM
I quite agree. No plot, no characterisation, sheer mind-numbing boredom within the first twenty minutes and nothing to change that for the rest of the film. I lost count of how many times I found myself checking the time... Do not under any circumstances waste your money on this appalling drivel.
RE: Van Helsing Pants reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 8, 2004 7:12 PM
Oh yes, and a complete lack of acting from any of the bored-looking cast.
Comments reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 8, 2004 8:17 PM
I find that the only reason I watch these movies at all is to capture the essence of what it might be like to exist in a universe where the supernatural, mystical, and eccentric science were actually commonplace. I dont watch it for any other reason that to dream of what could be, versus the boring, mundane, and complacently stagant modern world we call "civilization", where corruption, greed, and capitalism reign.
Van Helsing wasn't that bad reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 9, 2004 3:41 AM
Don't talk nonsense. Van Helsing was just a popcorn flik you were expcting a whodunnit prehaps a period drama? Its like watching the Mummy and saying thats not what the 1920's were all about!
Come on it was a 12A thus it was aimed at that kind of age range in terms of story acting etc it was just about the action which I thought was pretty good if somewhat cliched
Actually I thought the numerous cliches ("It lives it lives") took it past chessy into the area of tribute a bit like kill bill (yes I do think kill bill was a lot better).
As for characterisation well fair enough Van Helsing himself seemed pretty eratic (I'm sure his accent kept changing) but the other characters didn't seem to bad. Also the ending, I don't mean the dodgy faces In the sky which was quite poor but the random deaths of characters was a change from the old happy ending routine.
Like most films you just have to know what your watching before you spend your money i.e genre, certificate and actors Van Helsing was as I expected it.
Now Hell Boy, Hell Boy was the biggest pile of Wank I have ever seen. The film changed from atmospheric occult film (thats cool) to action (thats cool though a bit odd to change the pace of the film) with a bit of romance in the middle that made little sense not to mention the random sub plots which were in fact complete bull shit (I have a terminal illness but don't worry that won't kill me or Rasputins love intrest who actually did nothing in the film except hit things with hammers. Not to mention the way that any non essential FBI agent was clearly doomed from the start.
I could go on all day why Hell Boy was bull shit compared to Van Helsing but anyway.
A waste of a perfectly good movie ticket. reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 9, 2004 5:18 PM
What a horrible movie that was. The previews looked pretty good (maybe because I was only half paying attention), but the actual full-length film was completely awful. It's a blatent ripoff of Vampire Hunter D, except they tossed in a couple other random monsters, destroyed any notion of a plot, threw in some painful attempt at a script, and made the main character an Archangel. Or something. I don't even know what he is, because they never explained it.
The worst part was probably the "Vampire Brides." Every other second of the movie they would be rolling their heads around, hissing at each other, and lolling their tounges like idiots. Not to mention their costumes. My eyes still hurt.
I have to say, though, "Van Helsing" would have been a GREAT comedy if it stopped taking itself so seriously.
van helsing reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 10, 2004 12:25 AM
no everyone is wrong that's fighting this - this was the worst movie I've ever seen. I want my money back.
Van Helsing reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 10, 2004 1:59 AM
At least other critics do look for and give credit to the good points in a movie.
I agree with the previous posts, Aaron you suck! You have displayed nothing but single minded ignorance about a style/genre of movies that millions around the world love.
Van Helsing is an excellently produced movie, just like the Mummy and the Mummy returns. They weren't supposed to be horrors to make u scared at night they were thrillers to keep you in suspense and anticipation of the next turn of the plot even if you know what it is. The beauty and appreciation is within the story and visual presentation of the the story, the vampire brides, the transformation of dracula and the werewolves etc.
If you don't know what you're talking about then simply shut up.
RE: Van Helsing reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 10, 2004 6:08 AM
I completly agree with you. And who was that random guy implying the film took itself seriously. The film is an action film. And The Vampire Brides are meant to be like that, complete psycopaths thats why they taunt there victims for so long instead of just finishing them off.
As for rip offs like I said the whole film is a bit of a tribute to other sources and legends. I don't get whats not to like? The film was just a bit of a super natural action film. You can't fault the CGI or the action and frankly I'm just glad the Frankiinstiens Monster and the Werewolf weren't just hench men for Dracula. You say thrown in but actually they had specific roles to play in the film so really your just talking crap.
shit. reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 10, 2004 8:36 AM
The movie was shit and the CGI was some of the worst I've ever seen.
u all suck reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 10, 2004 7:09 PM
hellboy was a good movie van helsing was awsome before you dis a movie you should see it
good day you stupid losers
RE: u all suck reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 10, 2004 7:18 PM
Yeah I saw both loser. And once again Hellboy was Wank, Van Helsing was fine.
In what possible way was Hellboy a good film?
RE: shit. reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 10, 2004 7:21 PM
hmm constructive, good of you to give a reason. The CGI was crap my arse, only something like lotr had better CGI and even then I don't know the difference in both time and budget it had. Frankly your judging the film in the wrong way, unless you don't like action films, fair enough but why go see the film in the first place.
RE: Van Helsing reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 11, 2004 8:08 AM
The CGI in Van Helsing was as bad as The Mummy Returns, it was so bad it hurt my eyes.
RE: Van Helsing reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 11, 2004 8:24 AM
Nothing could be that bad, but seriously what, what was as bad as the Mummy returns, You can not say any bits of CGI in Van Helsing were as bad as the Scorpian king in the Mummy Returns.
RE: Van Helsing reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 12, 2004 7:42 AM
Maybe not the Scorpian King (That was pure playstation) but it was still pretty poor. Put it this way, I've seen better, ALOT better.
a random shemp? reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 12, 2004 5:12 PM
yes, it wasn't very good, but still enjoyable....Has Kate Beckinsale had some "work". I bet it cost a lot to look that cheap
RE: a random shemp? reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 12, 2004 5:27 PM
Personally I think if people were to think about this rationally they would meet half way,
The acting and script were a bit dodgy the plot was o.k. the ending (as in the faces in the clouds) was shameful, However the action was good, the CGI was fairly good for the budget and what was required (or to put it another way I have not sceen a single film where you could say that is definitly 100% realistic well maybe the Hobbits..) plus it wasn't completly predictable(mostly predictable) and the monsters did have certain roles to play rather than just being henchmenwhich has to be a plus for any film that is going to include 2 Vampire hunters, a werewolf, Dracula, the Brides of Dracula, Igor, Frankenstiens Monster and Dr Jeckell and Mr Hyde.
Overall a 6 out of 10 or even a 7 out of 10 can't be unreasonable.
RE: Van Helsing reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 13, 2004 7:46 AM
The greenscreen stuff in LOTR to make the hobbits look smaller than everyone else was probably the worst FX in the entire series.
RE: Van Helsing reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 13, 2004 4:23 PM
Bollocks. When you see the first shots of Frodo with Gandelf it looked really good.
Van Helsing was still a good film.
RE: LOTR reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 17, 2004 8:57 AM
come on, what about the bit at the end of ROTK when everyone bowed down to the hobbits, it looked so blatently composited.
Van Helsing reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 19, 2004 6:55 AM
The thing about CGI is you've got to get the balance right. I think LOTR pretty much got it right and the CGI was only really used for the things that there was no way they could do for real. You could argue that this was also the case with Van Helsing but in my opinion, when it got to the end it was basically just one huge mass of CGI and you might as well have been watching a cartoon.
RE: Van Helsing reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 20, 2004 11:08 AM
Its all about the suspension of disbelief. I knew that the werewolves vampires etc weren't going to be real or probably even costumes so I could accept that they were going to use CGI and on that basis I thought the CGI was good. Prehaps there were things in the story which they could have changes to cut out the CGI, baby vampires but heck I didn't care that much CGI never really looks 100% real anyway.
As for LOTR sure the you could tell the hobbits were fake in SOME shots but they looked better than the flying Nazguls or the troll. The orcs were the best by far cos they didn't use CGI.
The more I think about it the more I reckon people use CGI for the sake of it, take Yoda in Star wars attack of the clones. He didn't look nearly as good as the puppet Yoda.
RE: Van Shmelsing reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 24, 2004 6:09 AM
Which puppet? Because the puppet in Episode I was utter CRAP. Just so you know, there's loads of films that have CGI that looks 100% realistic, you just never know it's CGI.
RE: Van Shmelsing reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 30, 2004 3:16 AM
Episode I do you mean the Phantom Menace? I'm talking about the Empire strikes back Yoda which looked like a puppet but STILL looked better than the CGI Yoda in attack of the clones.
IF there is CGI that looks 100% real its in very small sections of a film. Or in bits where there are no real people or things to compare it with, such as space ships, Event Horizon possibly.
RE: CGI reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 30, 2004 7:06 AM
The only thing that CGI can't make look realistic is anthing living, like people, animals etc... When it comes to stuff like jet fighters or cars they can be made to look exactly the same as their real life counterparts. Just look at Bad Boys 2, half the cars in the first chase were CG.
RE: CGI reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 31, 2004 4:13 AM
The lamp post in matrix 2 which Neo spins round on looks fake.
The cars in the matrix 2 that chase didn't seem to have people in them.
Space ships in star wars episode 1 and 2 especially the transport ones at the end of episode 2.
In sword fish where the woman explodes and every thing gets trashed it looks cool but you can tell where the CGI is.
Bullets in the matrix.
Falling masonry in Minith Tarith in LOTR was noticably CGI.
Even non living things are noticably different. Though your right it is easier to make them look real.
RE: CGI reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 2, 2004 7:48 AM
Well, the spaceships in Starwars were models, not CG.
RE: CGI reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 2, 2004 2:45 PM
Only in episodes IV to VI surely?
RE: CGI reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 3, 2004 6:12 AM
No, there were loads of model shots in the prequels, especially when you see them explode.
RE: CGI reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 4, 2004 11:24 AM
Oh fair play but there was definitly still more CGI than in the later ones.
You reckon they will do a sequel to Van Helsing or have they used up all the horror characters (creature from ther black lagoon maybe?)
Van smellsing reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 7, 2004 7:17 AM
How about the bride of Frankenstein? If they want to make a sequel I'd say go for it, it couldn't get any worse.
RE: Van smellsing reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 8, 2004 1:51 AM
Ho Ho they should just forget 19th century villians altogether and go for the Blob Vs Van Helsing Vs Godzilla in New Orleans.
yea! reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 8, 2004 7:10 AM
Don't you mean... IN OUTER SPACE!
RE: yea! reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 10, 2004 3:35 AM
No on Nu Orleans ON THE MOON
RE: yea! reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 10, 2004 3:36 AM
Actually if its in outter space the can have a van helsing marvel merge and have glactacus vs the other three
RE: reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 10, 2004 8:05 AM
And right at the end Ming the Merciless turns up and opens a whole can of whoop-ass on everyone.
RE: RE: reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 12, 2004 4:21 AM
"Van Helsing you only have 10 hours to save the world. And stop yourself from becoming a werewolf. And find the one weakness of the blob."
"Shit we really should have had Flash Gorden on this one shouldn't we."
RE: Van Helsing reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 14, 2004 7:46 AM
The sad part is, it's probably conversations just like this that led to Van Helsing being made.
RE: Van Helsing reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on July 1, 2004 4:43 AM
Hmm personally like I said I kinda liked Van Helsing but you know for sure that the inevitable 5 sequels will be attack of the wereants, half man half ant MANT.
RE: Weapons reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 22, 2004 12:07 PM
yeah man hellboyso crap the film van helsing quality
RE: Weapons reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 22, 2004 12:08 PM
fuck off what u talkin about
weapons reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 22, 2004 12:11 PM
loved them their the best they should be in blade then he will also be quality
RE: a random shemp? reply
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on October 14, 2005 7:27 AM
o livro Dr. Jeckell e Mr. Hyde ? uma porcaria........
 CONAN THE BARBARIAN |
 CAPTAIN AMERICA |
 CRAZY, STUPID, LOVE |
 THE SMURF |
 COWBOYS AND ALIENS |
 BAD TEACHER |
 MR. POPPERS PENGUINS |
 GREEN LANTERN |
