Post by taleweaver on Mar 28, 2009 8:11:32 GMT -5
Rating: 3 out of 5 classic Universal Monsters.
‘Van Helsing’ is a classic old-fashioned movie in the style they used to call ‘matinee’; wonderful production values, excellent special effects, but let down just a little in the plot.
The movie opens with a stunning black-and-white prologue, dealing with Dracula and his role in the creation of Frankenstein’s monster, and moves on to a confrontation between Mr Jekyll and The Hero, Gabriel Van Helsing, in an episode that perfectly illustrates why Van Helsing is such an asset – and a PR nightmare – for what seems to be a Black Ops division of the Vatican (actually, between the Borgias and the Inquisition, I’d believe it).
After that, we get into the main plot, and things become a little less cohesive. There’s a nice habit of little things that get dropped in early becoming important later, but there’s also far too many dangling plot threads, and while Dracula’s ball is one of my favourite parts of the movie, visually speaking, I don’t quite see the point of it. Where did he get all those... particular guests, anyway, on such short notice? Also, while I realise the importance of leaving Van Helsing’s past open for a sequel, a tad more clarification on his previous confrontation with Dracula would be nice. How long ago was it, for crying out loud – and if it’s as long ago as Drac implies, how could Van Helsing live that long? (my personal theory is that he’s Wolverine, before the Weapon X program got hold of him. * G * )
As for the acting portion of the program; Hugh Jackman does his best troubled action hero and does a very nice job, (especially during the Frankenstein’s monster subplot) as does David Wenham’s comic relief and techno-wiz Friar Carl. Richard Roxburgh is fairly creepy with occasional seductiveness as the Count, although the accent’s a bit hard to understand. I’m of two minds about Kate Beckinsale’s performance; I can’t decide whether it’s actually competent or merely decent, but then I feel that way about nearly all her roles. (But what’s with her thing for corsets? The way I understand it, they’re bloody uncomfortable.) I don’t know how authentic her accent is, but at least she’s consistent with it all the way through – Hugh Jackman slips at one point early on. The Brides are mostly interchangeable, with the possible exception of Illyria, who I’d swear has some sort of backstory with Anna that is never explained. Their collective passive-aggressive wimp act made me want to slap the lot of them silly.
I also appreciated Steven Sommer’s restraint in the matter of romantic subplot; there isn’t time for more than is already present, and what’s here works well for the purpose – although I was on the verge of telling Van Helsing ‘this is where you kiss her’ at several points.
Some might complain about including Igor as too cliché, but I beg to differ – he’s one of my favourite parts of the movie, and Kevin O’Connor shows off both his comic timing, and ability to convincingly perform in lots of makeup (for those who can’t work out why he’s familiar, he played the rat-like offsider Beni in the first Mummy movie).
As for the CGI, it’s mostly of very high standard – watching the Brides turn from Harpy to woman and back is really quite beautiful in a technical sense, as is Dracula’s various transformations. Special attention should be given to the animation on the hidden painting Carl finds. However, the Harpies themselves seem off, and something about the Wolfman transformation bugs me, although the Wolfman himself is fine. If I haven’t made it clear before, much praise should go to the production team and set designers; the production on this movie really is just wonderful. Most of this movie scores highly on the eyecandy factor (and I don't just mean Jackman, either!).
Van Helsing won’t be up for any Oscars, but it’s a fun romp that’s worth the admission price - if you have a discount card.
Intermission:
According to an interview with Hugh Jackman, he filmed his first bare-butt scene for this movie, but when he saw the premiere he discovered they’d added a pair of digital underpants. (thus losing several million at the box office)
One of Richard Roxburgh’s previous brides on film was LOTR’s Cate Blanchett, in ‘Thank God he met Lizzie’.
{spoiler ahead} according to an earlier version of the script, the reason Anna’s family made that extreme vow about none of them making it to heaven until Dracula is dead, is that Dracula was actually one of them – the son of the man who made the vow in the first place. Who, apparently, still couldn’t bring himself to kill Dracula personally. Why it takes a werewolf’s bite to kill him, and how he became a vampire in the first place, are never actually explained.
Did you notice?
• This is the second time Jackman has played an amnesiac hero whose mysterious past can only be explained in a sequel.
• The small but significant differences between what a monk and a friar are allowed to do!
• Another example of David Wenham’s (Carl) interesting ability to go from Hot Guy to average and back again, based on his haircut.
• Kate Beckinsale putting her acrobatic and stunt training from Underworld to good use.
• The near-waste of a perfectly good Hot Guy in Will Kemp, who only gets a few scenes as a human.
• The Darwin Awards – like stupidity of said Hot Guy; besides, traditionally speaking, aren’t the beautiful damsels supposed to be bait?
• The little references to The Mummy movies (also directed by Stephen Sommer); Van Helsing’s watch-chain of Holy symbols harks back to Beni’s various necklaces, and Dracula’s jaw grows and unhinges much the same way as the soldier-mummies.
‘Van Helsing’ is a classic old-fashioned movie in the style they used to call ‘matinee’; wonderful production values, excellent special effects, but let down just a little in the plot.
The movie opens with a stunning black-and-white prologue, dealing with Dracula and his role in the creation of Frankenstein’s monster, and moves on to a confrontation between Mr Jekyll and The Hero, Gabriel Van Helsing, in an episode that perfectly illustrates why Van Helsing is such an asset – and a PR nightmare – for what seems to be a Black Ops division of the Vatican (actually, between the Borgias and the Inquisition, I’d believe it).
After that, we get into the main plot, and things become a little less cohesive. There’s a nice habit of little things that get dropped in early becoming important later, but there’s also far too many dangling plot threads, and while Dracula’s ball is one of my favourite parts of the movie, visually speaking, I don’t quite see the point of it. Where did he get all those... particular guests, anyway, on such short notice? Also, while I realise the importance of leaving Van Helsing’s past open for a sequel, a tad more clarification on his previous confrontation with Dracula would be nice. How long ago was it, for crying out loud – and if it’s as long ago as Drac implies, how could Van Helsing live that long? (my personal theory is that he’s Wolverine, before the Weapon X program got hold of him. * G * )
As for the acting portion of the program; Hugh Jackman does his best troubled action hero and does a very nice job, (especially during the Frankenstein’s monster subplot) as does David Wenham’s comic relief and techno-wiz Friar Carl. Richard Roxburgh is fairly creepy with occasional seductiveness as the Count, although the accent’s a bit hard to understand. I’m of two minds about Kate Beckinsale’s performance; I can’t decide whether it’s actually competent or merely decent, but then I feel that way about nearly all her roles. (But what’s with her thing for corsets? The way I understand it, they’re bloody uncomfortable.) I don’t know how authentic her accent is, but at least she’s consistent with it all the way through – Hugh Jackman slips at one point early on. The Brides are mostly interchangeable, with the possible exception of Illyria, who I’d swear has some sort of backstory with Anna that is never explained. Their collective passive-aggressive wimp act made me want to slap the lot of them silly.
I also appreciated Steven Sommer’s restraint in the matter of romantic subplot; there isn’t time for more than is already present, and what’s here works well for the purpose – although I was on the verge of telling Van Helsing ‘this is where you kiss her’ at several points.
Some might complain about including Igor as too cliché, but I beg to differ – he’s one of my favourite parts of the movie, and Kevin O’Connor shows off both his comic timing, and ability to convincingly perform in lots of makeup (for those who can’t work out why he’s familiar, he played the rat-like offsider Beni in the first Mummy movie).
As for the CGI, it’s mostly of very high standard – watching the Brides turn from Harpy to woman and back is really quite beautiful in a technical sense, as is Dracula’s various transformations. Special attention should be given to the animation on the hidden painting Carl finds. However, the Harpies themselves seem off, and something about the Wolfman transformation bugs me, although the Wolfman himself is fine. If I haven’t made it clear before, much praise should go to the production team and set designers; the production on this movie really is just wonderful. Most of this movie scores highly on the eyecandy factor (and I don't just mean Jackman, either!).
Van Helsing won’t be up for any Oscars, but it’s a fun romp that’s worth the admission price - if you have a discount card.
Intermission:
According to an interview with Hugh Jackman, he filmed his first bare-butt scene for this movie, but when he saw the premiere he discovered they’d added a pair of digital underpants. (thus losing several million at the box office)
One of Richard Roxburgh’s previous brides on film was LOTR’s Cate Blanchett, in ‘Thank God he met Lizzie’.
{spoiler ahead} according to an earlier version of the script, the reason Anna’s family made that extreme vow about none of them making it to heaven until Dracula is dead, is that Dracula was actually one of them – the son of the man who made the vow in the first place. Who, apparently, still couldn’t bring himself to kill Dracula personally. Why it takes a werewolf’s bite to kill him, and how he became a vampire in the first place, are never actually explained.
Did you notice?
• This is the second time Jackman has played an amnesiac hero whose mysterious past can only be explained in a sequel.
• The small but significant differences between what a monk and a friar are allowed to do!
• Another example of David Wenham’s (Carl) interesting ability to go from Hot Guy to average and back again, based on his haircut.
• Kate Beckinsale putting her acrobatic and stunt training from Underworld to good use.
• The near-waste of a perfectly good Hot Guy in Will Kemp, who only gets a few scenes as a human.
• The Darwin Awards – like stupidity of said Hot Guy; besides, traditionally speaking, aren’t the beautiful damsels supposed to be bait?
• The little references to The Mummy movies (also directed by Stephen Sommer); Van Helsing’s watch-chain of Holy symbols harks back to Beni’s various necklaces, and Dracula’s jaw grows and unhinges much the same way as the soldier-mummies.