Van Helsing (2004)

[Highlander II]

from http://www.vanhelsingmovie.com:

Gabriel van Helsing is a man cursed with a past he cannot recall and driven by a mission he cannot deny. Charged by a secret organization to seek out and defeat evil the world over, his efforts rid the world of nightmarish creatures have been rewarded with a title that follows him -- murderer...

Van Helsing opened on Friday - 7 May -


saw it yesterday w/ sis --- it was really good! Liked it a lot. I like vampire / monster movies...

[ray gower]

I was looking forward to this, the trailers have looked good, but there are a lot of comments that it doesn't match what the trailers are offering (Well there's new isn'it).

The critics are claiming lack of plot, merely an updating of excerpts from Hammer and a few others. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...lm/3686705.stm

Think I might well wait for the video.

But it is certainly doing well. The Box Office takings for the weekend have hit £60million ($107million).

[Highlander II]

Well, to offer a tiny piece of advice --

if you go to the theatre to see this movie - leave behind EVERYTHING you know, or think you know, about vampire, werewolf, Frankenstein and other monster lore. Because, if you don't, you'll be really disappointed that they don't 'do things' the way you think they should. It's not Joss Whedon's world, it's not Bram Stoker's world - it's a different world with different mythology about vampires and werewolves and such. A lot of the basics are there - stakes, holy water, silver bullets, etc - but there's other stuff too (which might be rehash, but since I don't know everything about everything scifi/vampire/monster, it didn't seem rehash to me - this is where critics get really annoying - they've been working on stuff for so long, they know all the 'what came before' and do lots of comparisons, so I never listen to critics).

I went to see a movie - didn't bring Joss Whedon, or even Spike along... left 'em all behind - I just wanted to watch Hugh Jackman kick some ass -- that's what he did.

I liked the movie, I liked what they were doing with it - and there was a plot - of sorts. It wasn't intricate and detailed like a novel, or series of novels would be. It was simple - Go kill Dracula <-- covered in case someone really doesn't wanna know.

Then there was some 'back plot' - like build up for something more - which, if I've read right, there is more -they're planning a second movie.

Back plot -
Van Helsing works for the Catholic church and is charged with 'destroying evil' - he wanders the world getting rid of 'soulless'/evil creatures. And he has no memory of his past - or, of his distant past, he remembers the recent past - like since he's been out killing evil, but nothing before that. So, his sub-mission is looking for his past or solve whatever big problem he's got to solve to get his memory back.

There's more to the story than just Van Helsing fighting monsters, but mostly - it's just kind of an action movie - kill the monsters. It's really not that different from Indiana Jones - go rescue the girl, retrieve the holy relic, whatever and fight the baddies in the way as you go...

Or - that's my take on it anyway.

Bottom line - I liked it. The movie did what it was supposed to do - entertained me. I'm satisfied.

[ray gower]

Originally posted by Highlander II
if you go to the theatre to see this movie - leave behind EVERYTHING you know, or think you know, about vampire, werewolf, Frankenstein and other monster lore. Because, if you don't, you'll be really disappointed that they don't 'do things' the way you think they should. It's not Joss Whedon's world, it's not Bram Stoker's world - it's a different world with different mythology about vampires and werewolves and such.

I think here lies the crux.

The film has been heavily pushed as the definitive story of Van Helsing. It may well be that one must forget everything one ever knew about Dracula to get the best from the film, but the ads are saying one shouldn't!

If one enters the theatre expecting to see a genuine vampire flick and finds all one gets is a set of re-enacted Hammer set pieces without the bite, then one is going to leave just a tad disappointed.

Still, you enjoyed it and that is all that matters

[Highlander II]

Another thing to note - it's not the Van Helsing from Bram Stoker's Dracula - not exactly - he has a different first name - and he's a bit younger and he's got a little more to do than Stoker's.

I think I probably had an advantage b/c I read a few articles / interviews about Hugh Jackman and such for the movie before I went to see it. No spoilers in the articles, just generic questions and some 'clarification' answers --

Mostly - I just went to see Hugh Jackman (think I mentioned this... ) --

I'm gonna see it again this weekend w/ the friend I was supposed to go with this past weekend - and I'll let you know if I find any major things that bug me...

[ray gower]

Originally posted by Highlander II
Mostly - I just went to see Hugh Jackman (think I mentioned this... ) --

This you did.
Unfortunately Ms Beckinsale, pretty as she most certainly is, does not possess quite the same level of ooh-arr way-hey :lol:

[Highlander II]

The movie really is good.

And, there's also an animated piece - I think it's about an hour long - that is something of a 'prequel' to the film itself. The animated 'episode' is "Van Helsing: The London Assignment" - it's quite good also.

Am I gonna talk you into going to see it if you don't want to? Probably not - I just really liked it - and had fun watching it - Hugh Jackman aside - there's a lot going on and it's a fun movie.

Better than Pirates of the Carribean.... if that helps.

[Highlander II]

Was peeking around at http://www.jackmanslanding.com and found this:

http://www.sideshowtoy.com/cgi-bin/c..._fan&item=7105

That's the one that's a tad on the expensive side -- it's an 18" figure and runs at $250.00US -- just a bit much...


The 12" figure is sold out - in both the special edition and the regular edition -- that's 5500 pieces sold -- that's a whole heapin' heck of a lot of Van Helsing figures ---

[Highlander II]

Think I picked up on another piece of the film that ppl aren't liking - the ending -- (gonna cover this)

Kate Beckinsale's character dies - at the hands of Van Helsing - at the end - it's not a 'happily ever after' tale of 'the guy gets the girl in the end' - it's not supposed to be. I don't think Van Helsing is supposed to get everything in the end. He's been branded a murderer, how is he supposed to be 'happy' with a title like that hanging over his head? Personally, I'm not big on 'happily ever after' - if I wanted every movie to end like a fairy tale, I'd watch Disney. I like internal conflict and things that don't always go the 'hero's' way - otherwise - BORING.


I've read some comments where ppl didn't like the ending - not sure which part of the 'end' they didn't like - the end of the fight, or the end of the movie --


I will say - some of the 'things' the characters were doing - Princess Anna, specifically, were more akin to a vampire slayer than to an average person - she had some 'jump off the roof, slide down a tree' stunt sequences that were very 'yeah right' - but, other than a few of those - the stunts were well done and it was fun...

[Dave]

You've almost convinced me to see this. It's now the top box office film in Britain last weekend.

[Highlander II]

Well, between this and the Dresden Files (which I still think you should read) I'm doing pretty well!


The box office numbers for it dropped here from last weekend, but it's still doing okay. (Better than "New York Minute" - bwahahahahaha!) -- and I think it opened better than "Troy" did - and "Troy" has Brad [I'm too pretty for the screen] Pitt in it --- (don't like BP - urgh) ---

[little smaug]

This film has 3 things going for it - Hugh Jackman, some pretty cool special effects, and Hugh Jackman without a shirt on.

Other than that, I thought the film was kind of a let down.

The entire mythology of vampires was basically re-written just to fit the storyline. I appreciate that the mythology has been adapted through the years. But a vampire not dying from being set on fire?

The supporting cast were lacking - Dracula wasn't sinister enough, Carl was just annoying, and Anna was pumping out enough girl power to make you gag. You think the writers had been watching a little too much Buffy? Cos someone should tell them that normal people cannot do those kind of moves! I know it's mean, but I'm actually glad she died. If her and Van Helsing had got together at the end, there may have been vomit issues. :dead:

And the history between Van Helsing and Dracula was not only very confusing, but also cheesy. I mean, this guy being sent by God to fight the ultimate evil? Boring! :disgust:

So all in all, not very impressed. Sorry H2, but definately not as good as Pirates of the Carribean!

[Highlander II]

The only vampire in the movie who didn't die from being set on fire was Dracula. Even in Buffy he was was 'stronger' than most of the other vampires. His brides died from stakes, fire, etc...

The altering of the vampire mythology is always hard to work with - and Sommers didn't only alter vampire mythology; he altered the whole story behind Dr. Frankenstein and his monster - moved the whole thing to Romania - (it's in the novelization - it's kind of annoying). Vampire mythology can be altered a bit - it has been anyway - sunlight, in the old stories, did not kill vampires - that was added later.

What kind of bugs me is the bit at the end -- When Wolf-Helsing stands up and Anna's dead - er - it's really hard to tell how, exactly, she died.

Actually - that part is buggin' lots of ppl...

I liked this better than PotC b/c - well, Hugh Jackman, for one, and I like the vampire stuff - vampire movies are kind of my thing - well, to a degree...

[little smaug]

I guess you're right about Dracula.
But if they were just gonna have the 1 way of killing him, they should have come up with something better than the werewolf thing (that's what I meant about re-writing mythology to fit the storyline).

The Frankenstein thing did slightly bug me, as it was supposed to have happened in London. But then I got thinking - Frankenstein must have been set in Transylvania since Mary Shelley's original story, or at least somewhere similar, or Igor wouldn't have been added to the mix. And then I'm thinking, where did Igor come from? In most Frankenstein films, cartoons, etc there is always Igor limping around in the background muttering "Yes master". And there is always a castle. Neither of which you are likely to find in the middle of London. So have all the adaptions of Frankenstein been set in Transylvania? (btw, I'm sure I had a point in there somewhere. Feel free to ignore the babble.)

As for the ending...
I didn't particularly notice it at the time, but you're right. Shouldn't she have had her throat ripped out or something? Even if she just had her neck broken by having a large wolf land on top of her, you'd still expect there to be some blood.
I guess if you really want an explanation - Werewolf jumps at Anna. She sticks him with needle. This restores his human mind, hence no swiping claws/teeth. But he cannot stop himself in mid-lunge. He lands on top of Anna, breaking her neck.
*shrug* I didn't say it was a plausible explanation.


I'm not saying it was a bad film. I guess it's better if you don't pay much attention to the plot or the details, and just sit back and enjoy the action.

[Highlander II]

Frankenstein doesn't take place in London - it takes place in Switzerland. And there is no Igor. Mary Shelley had no such hump-backed character. (Read the book - loved it too, btw) Victor Frankenstein is a doctor and decides to try to 'create life' - that's the only part they ever get right. The monster's name isn't "Frankenstein" - that's the doctor's name. The monster never had a name, as best I can recall.


As for vampire mythology:
Stephen Sommers made that werewolf / vampire change so all the characters could fit together. There should have been more backstory to it, rather than a lump of exposition by Carl just before the big battle - then, I think, it would have been much more interesting - but all we got was info-dump. The idea, itself, is appealing, just not the way it was done.