van helsing anyone?

i havent been here for a while and i'm too lazy to perform a forum search, so, anyone see van helsing yet? I liked it

I saw it. I would give it a 7/10 and this is why.

1. They over did the digital effects (not really a bad thing)
2. The fact that they would fall from a 3 story building, hit a bunch of tree limbs, and a brick wall, and then just get up slowly, say "ow" and walk away from it like it was nothing was a little cheesy but easy to overlook. I mean, someone would get smashed into a wall and that didn't so much as get a scratch.
3. Some parts (which I won't mention because they're spoilers) were a little cheesy and you'll pick up on them. There's a thing that is obvious simply to keep the movie 2 hours long.

Other than that, It was a good movie and I'd see it again. It reminded me of UnderWorld.

3/10

Pros:
- Special effects and CGI were pretty good.
- Some bits of humor that worked.

Cons:
- Lousy acting. Emotionless characters that you wont give a damn about.
- Dialogue comprised mostly of one-liners.
- Nonsensical story.
- Thoughtless writing. Characters often do things that make no sense.
- Retarded plot twist made worse by its lack of emphasis. They just kind of glaze over it. Probably designed to facilitate a sequel.
- Questionable editing choices.

I also found the female vampires aggravating.

I haven't seen it, but IMO, Van Helsing (the character) looks like a rip-off of Caleb from Blood.

I'm afraid to see the movie. Not because it is scary, or remotely near it. I -love- movies with vampires in it. But then, if it has any chance as coming out as retarded as John Carptenter's Vampires, then I don't want to see it.

Assmaster said:

3/10

Pros:
- Special effects and CGI were pretty good.
- Some bits of humor that worked.

Cons:
- Lousy acting. Emotionless characters that you wont give a damn about.
- Dialogue comprised mostly of one-liners.
- Nonsensical story.
- Thoughtless writing. Characters often do things that make no sense.
- Retarded plot twist made worse by its lack of emphasis. They just kind of glaze over it. Probably designed to facilitate a sequel.
- Questionable editing choices.

I also found the female vampires aggravating.

Why the heck isn't Kate Beckinsale in your pros?!?!?

Being a lover of cheesy B-type movies, I can honestly say that I would see this again. The only disapointment was the ending

Edit: And I really felt bad for Frankenstein's monster.

Ever see Mary Shelly's Frankenstein, with Robert Deniro?

Assmaster said:

I also found the female vampires aggravating.

NiGHTMARE said:

Why the heck isn't Kate Beckinsale in your pros?!?!?

Did she play a vampire. I refuse to see this, I hate over stylized movies with too much computer fx. Did we learn anything from Spawn?

I liked it - plenty of action with some great locations to boot.

Scabbed Angel said:

Did she play a vampire.

No. Well, not in this movie anyway :P.

I was fixin' to see Van Helsing, but a friend's friend talked me into seeing Man on Fire. It was a piece of shit.

Haven't seen it yet but too things disappoint me about it.

1. It's a 12a. You can't have a undead hunting movie without blood and guts dude!
2. It's the same director of the mummy and mummy returns. Bah! All action and no story.

I don't like too much blood personally. You pretty much contradict yourself. "No Blood?!" "All action!". But if it was action with blood?

Ralphis said:

I don't like too much blood personally. You pretty much contradict yourself. "No Blood?!" "All action!". But if it was action with blood?

Touche i suppose. I was refering more to the genre of horror films and the general typicality of the director. I wasn't quite trying to link the two points together in that sense.

7/10. 2/10 without the snazzy special effects.