Van Helsing is one of those movies that really opened up what could have been a fantastic universe to play in (and I'd still kill to write the sequel, but Sommers would have to be banned from the set), but failed miserably in the execution. Richard Roxburgh is, without fail, the worst screen Dracula in history, and a villain with absolutely no charisma did nothing to help the movie.
That, and Sommers managed to get the worst possible performance out of Beckinsale. I read the script after seeing the movie, and it wasn't nearly as bad as you'd think if you only watched the movie. *sigh* It was a decent script, IMO, the directing shot it to hell, though. Hence my "I'd love to write the sequel, just keep Sommers as far away as possible." stance. For the man who came up with the concept, Sommers pretty much failed in executing it.
Go into the movie expecting nothing resembling Stoker, Shelley, or anything you've seen before. (Although I understand that Frankenstein's monster more closely resembles Shelley's version than anything in recent film history.) From what I've seen so far, just about everyone panning the movie complains that they don't like that Gabriel Van Helsing doesn't resemble anything Stoker did with Abraham Van Helsing. Now, to me, their first clue that this was going to happen should have been Dracula, the Wolf Man and Frankenstein all existing in the same universe, but hey, what do I know? *cue rolleyes*
And I say that as someone who still found ways to like the movie. Okay, first off, David Wenham is just too adorable for words, and the idea of a mid-1800's-era version of James Bond's "Q" is just delicious. Second, even though Beckinsale's performance sucked--pardon the expression--there was a considerable amount of equal-opportunity eye candy. I mean, Hugh Jackman in a loincloth is going to get my attention, that's for sure.
It wasn't the best movie it could have been. I will certainly agree on that, though.
no subject
That, and Sommers managed to get the worst possible performance out of Beckinsale. I read the script after seeing the movie, and it wasn't nearly as bad as you'd think if you only watched the movie. *sigh* It was a decent script, IMO, the directing shot it to hell, though. Hence my "I'd love to write the sequel, just keep Sommers as far away as possible." stance. For the man who came up with the concept, Sommers pretty much failed in executing it.
Go into the movie expecting nothing resembling Stoker, Shelley, or anything you've seen before. (Although I understand that Frankenstein's monster more closely resembles Shelley's version than anything in recent film history.) From what I've seen so far, just about everyone panning the movie complains that they don't like that Gabriel Van Helsing doesn't resemble anything Stoker did with Abraham Van Helsing. Now, to me, their first clue that this was going to happen should have been Dracula, the Wolf Man and Frankenstein all existing in the same universe, but hey, what do I know? *cue rolleyes*
And I say that as someone who still found ways to like the movie. Okay, first off, David Wenham is just too adorable for words, and the idea of a mid-1800's-era version of James Bond's "Q" is just delicious. Second, even though Beckinsale's performance sucked--pardon the expression--there was a considerable amount of equal-opportunity eye candy. I mean, Hugh Jackman in a loincloth is going to get my attention, that's for sure.
It wasn't the best movie it could have been. I will certainly agree on that, though.