Mr. Woot Posted May 21, 2004 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 0 Share this post Link to post
S1lent Posted May 21, 2004 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. 0 Share this post Link to post
Amaster Posted May 21, 2004 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. 0 Share this post Link to post
Naked Snake Posted May 21, 2004 I haven't seen it, but IMO, Van Helsing (the character) looks like a rip-off of Caleb from Blood. 0 Share this post Link to post
Arckra Posted May 21, 2004 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. 0 Share this post Link to post
NiGHTMARE Posted May 21, 2004 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?!?!? 0 Share this post Link to post
Ralphis Posted May 21, 2004 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. 0 Share this post Link to post
Scabbed Angel Posted May 21, 2004 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? 0 Share this post Link to post
The Ultimate DooMer Posted May 21, 2004 I liked it - plenty of action with some great locations to boot. 0 Share this post Link to post
NiGHTMARE Posted May 21, 2004 Scabbed Angel said:Did she play a vampire.No. Well, not in this movie anyway :P. 0 Share this post Link to post
Coopersville Posted May 21, 2004 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. 0 Share this post Link to post
BlueSonnet Posted May 21, 2004 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. 0 Share this post Link to post
Ralphis Posted May 21, 2004 I don't like too much blood personally. You pretty much contradict yourself. "No Blood?!" "All action!". But if it was action with blood? 0 Share this post Link to post
BlueSonnet Posted May 21, 2004 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. 0 Share this post Link to post
Lord FlatHead Posted May 21, 2004 7/10. 2/10 without the snazzy special effects. 0 Share this post Link to post