|
Post by japfles on May 8, 2004 5:58:11 GMT -5
From the creepy black and white opening to the final showdown 2 hours later, this is an all-action corker. Hugh Jackman was a very good choice for the lead role (camping it up to the max along with the rest of the cast) although I DID wonder what accent he was trying to do! There are some really stunning sets and lots...and I mean LOTS of vampires, bats, wolves and other creatures for Van Helsing to fight. It's a very CGI-heavy film as you might expect but doesn't suffer because of it. Almost all of the special effects are first-rate and you would expect it with a big budget film like this one. It should be a massive hit at the box office. (that's my fourth visit to the cinema in 5 days....I think I might rest now )
|
|
|
Post by Alamo on May 8, 2004 7:47:12 GMT -5
mmm, i downloaded this film and i really don't like it. i like the good old and real films and not this new crap where just some nerds are masturbating with their mouse. the only example where a CGI heavy film worked was lord of the rings (eventhough i am not much into it), but i think that is the merit of peter jackson , cause he also cared about the characters and their development during the film. and in van helsing i couldn't see any good characters. it is true that hugh hackman played his part very well, he was definitley a good choice, but all the other "actors" are talent free. and to the female vampires: where are their nipples?? ?? ??
|
|
|
Post by japfles on May 8, 2004 10:53:20 GMT -5
Let me guess....you're a LOTR geek? Every LOTR ring fan I have spoken to has criticised Van Helsing and no doubt they will have similar disdain for Troy and the King Arthur movie when they are released soon. Peter Jackson may well have "cared about the characters and their development" but you could also say he stretched things way too far and sent many of us to sleep. Stephen Sommers (director of Van Helsing) unashamedly went for a non-stop rollercoaster ride and deliberately got his cast to ham things up to a ludicrous extent. But hey, thanks for your unbiased views.
|
|
|
Post by Alamo on May 8, 2004 11:00:17 GMT -5
nah, i am totally a NOT lord of the rings fan. the film is just too big for me. BUT i also recognize that the film is very well made. btw. yesterday i saw dawn of the death athome. omg, that's the worst film i have seen for ages
|
|
|
Post by Saar°berry on May 9, 2004 6:53:53 GMT -5
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO I SO WANNA SEE THIS MOVIE!!! I know, Teppic would like to see it too! I just hope it will still be in the cinema's when I go over in July... but prolly won't.
|
|
|
Post by japfles on May 9, 2004 7:21:12 GMT -5
I suppose there's a chance that somewhere will still be showing it in July.
It's rare for films to get more than a 5 or 6 week run in the UK.
|
|
|
Post by Saar°berry on May 9, 2004 7:22:35 GMT -5
Yeh I know... None of my friends would want to go to this movie here in Belgium tho... ah well, I'm sure Teppic will get it on dvd anyhow. So I will end up seeing it in the end!
|
|
Mulberry
Strange Fruit
I'm the girl of a thousand faces, a different point of view in every speech i make...
Posts: 119
|
Post by Mulberry on May 13, 2004 10:12:23 GMT -5
well, to me there were too many clichées and too much happening all the time. but i really didn't have that high expectations when seeing it, so that's ok... and it was so beatiful to look at! the scenes when they showed the whole... um... 'landscapes' (dunno the right word...), wooow...
|
|
|
Post by zerogirl on May 13, 2004 10:21:44 GMT -5
I want to see this movie, but I don't really have high expectations. I have to admit that I'm a nerd about this sort of thing, and I'm a stickler for accurancy. I just hope it follows the rules and history of the subject matter.
|
|
|
Post by japfles on May 16, 2004 5:13:11 GMT -5
I just hope it follows the rules and history of the subject matter. I'm no expert but I don't think it did...not totally anyway. Most of it was done with tongue very much in cheek.
|
|