Van Helsing
May. 21st, 2004 02:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
annuinWe saw Van Helsing last Sunday when we went down to Joisey to hang out with Cherie and Brian.
No it wasn't the best film I've seen, but the "worst movie EVER" comments I saw slung about by one person were grossly exaggerated. I mean, if Van Helsing is the worst movie you've ever seen, then you've led a pretty sheltered movie viewing life, there's worse stuff played on the Sci-Fi channel on a daily basis, and racks full of crappier movies at your local video store.
It had flaws, some gaping ones, but I still thought it was funny and entertaining overall. David Wenham (Faramir) as the friar had all the best lines and provided the comic relief. Hugh Jackman, eyecandy that he is, seemed a bit strained with his lines.
I think the movie suffered from what the second Mummy movie especially suffered from, Sommers trying to cram in way too much story when it wasn't strictly necessary. Having some of the extraneous crap cut out and having other bits expanded or changed might have served it better. Still, it was entertaining in that 'switch your mind off and don't think too deeply about it' way, and I enjoyed it more than I thought I would.
I liked the end credits too. Yeah, I'm dorky that way. I enjoyed the end credits to the first Mummy movie too, the effects and the fonts and such. VH had interesting graphic effects in the credits. It's the webdesign geek in me.
No it wasn't the best film I've seen, but the "worst movie EVER" comments I saw slung about by one person were grossly exaggerated. I mean, if Van Helsing is the worst movie you've ever seen, then you've led a pretty sheltered movie viewing life, there's worse stuff played on the Sci-Fi channel on a daily basis, and racks full of crappier movies at your local video store.
It had flaws, some gaping ones, but I still thought it was funny and entertaining overall. David Wenham (Faramir) as the friar had all the best lines and provided the comic relief. Hugh Jackman, eyecandy that he is, seemed a bit strained with his lines.
I think the movie suffered from what the second Mummy movie especially suffered from, Sommers trying to cram in way too much story when it wasn't strictly necessary. Having some of the extraneous crap cut out and having other bits expanded or changed might have served it better. Still, it was entertaining in that 'switch your mind off and don't think too deeply about it' way, and I enjoyed it more than I thought I would.
I liked the end credits too. Yeah, I'm dorky that way. I enjoyed the end credits to the first Mummy movie too, the effects and the fonts and such. VH had interesting graphic effects in the credits. It's the webdesign geek in me.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-05-21 12:11 pm (UTC)i thought it was fun ;-)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-05-21 02:24 pm (UTC)I know Roger Ebert also didn't dislike it that much, he gave it 3 stars.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-vanhelsing07f.html
His reviews are always a pleasure to read, even when the film is decimated ;)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-05-21 02:54 pm (UTC)David Wenham was brilliant though and very "Diver Dan-ish" which I really enjoyed.
The music score was brilliant and so were the costumes... the story and the acting just annoyed the crap out of me LOL!
It was worse than a b grade movie on tv one on sundays... however, I cannot say that it was the "worst movie ever" LOL! It was ok.. but far from fantastic!
(no subject)
Date: 2004-05-21 05:05 pm (UTC)It did its purpose for me, which is entertain. Do you get Sci-Fi channel on Aussie cable? If not, then you have not yet witnessed truly awful tv. THis is the channel that cancelled Farscape in favour of things like the horrific Tremors: The Series.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-05-24 09:34 am (UTC)I wasn't expecting great character depth, plot or anything, just good fun, and that's exactly what it was about.