From: hellpopehuey@subgenius.com (HellPopeHuey)
Date: Mon, May 10, 2004 2:22 PM
The thumbnail sketch reasons: its a visual rollercoaster
ride and a
HALF, hoo BOY, is it!; a pretty damned good homage to
all of the old
Universal monster films with a few fun Tim Burton-esque
touches; and
it DOES expand on who and what the character of Van
Helsing was
"about" in an original manner, so it has as
much story to it as any of
the subsequent post-"Dracula" flicks such
as "House of Frankenstein"
or the Hammer stable. The opening segment is in black
and white, heh
and the Universal emblem is woven right into it in a
classic, classy
manner. Don't miss the CLOSING credits, either; they're
eerily
animated and a component worth staying for. There are
some funny lines
to it and a few oddball "extras," such as
a brief sequence with Mr.
Hyde, of all things. The section where a twitchy monk
shows Van
Helsing a new array of weapons is a hoot and not a
small tip towards
the James Bond device. (There's a line emitted briefly
in the
background during that scene which had me laughing for
20 minutes and
I couldn't explain it if I WAS prone to give it away,
because it
hinges so fully on a physical action taken by the monk.)
Its operatic
in its tragedy and its hokey elements would have done
Bela proud. It
is a good melding of all the old cliches, ON STEROIDS.
That sainted bastard Blackout dissed it up front, yet
has not SEEN
it. The critics on Yahoo give it a C, most viewers a
B; I think that
speaks fairly well of it, although I always decide for
myself. I fully
agree that a wad of FX with no story is a waste of time,
but the
wholesale tendency to trash most current fantasy films
is rather
bogus. "Titan A.E." was no intellectual weight-lifting
contest, but it
had a base rationale and classic sci-fi/Errol Flynn-type
swashbuckling
going for it and was thus worth my time. In the case
of most such
films, the same could be said. Until you reach the realm
of "The Lathe
of Heaven" or "2001: A Space Odyssey,"
that's what these particular
movies are FOR. Even the best Harryhausen offering was
about "Look
out! There's a MONSTER in town!," yet there's scarcely
a dog in the
lot.
It seems to me that many view these flicks with some
high standard or
preconceived demands and that's a shame. I use one general
mindset for
campy fantasy, another for Kurosawa, yet another for
the recent, very
enjoyable "Hidalgo" and a fourth for straight
character plays such as
"To Kill A Mockingbird," "The Pawnbroker,"
the quirky, violent "Things
To Do In Denver When You're Dead," Anthony Hopkins'
sobering "Remains
Of The Day" or the gradually more dark performance
of Andy Griffith,
of all people, in "A Face In The Crowd." You'd
probably not stop to
watch this last film and that would be a mistake; its
Griffith's best
careeer work as a bumpkin radio star who gradually turns
into a
megalomanaical monster. You'd never think of his hick
sheriff role the
same way again. It also stars Patricia Neal in a similarly
uncharacteristic role as his horrified promoter and
gives you a slice
of Pink Americana that will be especially chilling to
SubGeeners. We
know our enemy!
Its disingenuous to act all snooty and jaded when you
should KNOW
"Spider-Man 2" isn't going to rival "Cleopatra."
If you go to Burger
King and bitch because there is no tempura, get fisted!
A movie is
perhaps the greatest art form because it generally weaves
so many of
all the OTHERS into itself at once. Any 12 musicians
will give you 12
variations on even a traditional song, much less what
they might emit
if asked to write something entirely their own. (BTW,
Alan Silvestri's
soundtrack for "Van Helsing" is huge, excellent
and a meaningful
component; its a real step up from his work for "Back
To The Future"
and the like.)
A Critic tells you whether or not its Art; a Reviewer
tells you
whether or not its any FUN. "Van Helsing"
is FUN and well worth at
least one good, solid viewing. Hey, it even has VAMPIRE
titties, whoo
hoo! Its seemingly being judged prematurely, on the
wrong terms and
that's a shame, as its a very fine work of its TYPE.
I hope it makes a
fair profit, because the craft, the hard work involved
and the
affection for Universal monster history are all quite
evident. How can
I not give a respectful nod when Frankenstein's monster
is presented
as SHELLY'S version, a thinking, moral being? Its a
minor aspect, but
hey, they Did Right and the small touches are always
oh so important.
If you don't "like" such fare, you won't like
it; if you do, its hard
to imagine you wouldn't grin real big like the girlfriend
and I did
afterwards and say "What a rush!"
--
HellPope Huey,
First Church of the SubGenius, Deformed
Damned if you do,
damned if you throw hamsters at passing cars
"The future of music is in this room...
... and there's no one there."
- Owner of The Jam Box,
a practice-warehouse for Seattle
bands
"Nothing is a complete load."
- "Futurama"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ollie T" <nospam@nospam.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack,alt.movies
Date: Mon, May 10, 2004 4:22 PM
The only reason I should think of somebody needing to
see Van Helsing, is to
show them how not to make a comic horror flick. The
audience I saw it with
laughed the entire way through. I don't think it was
supposed to be that
funny. Some parts dragged a bit and some were just
plain silly. Sure the
monsters, effects and fights were pretty cool, but that's
it. If you want
to eat some popcorn have some laughs and just watch
a fun mindless comic
book flick then by all means, go see it. If you are
looking for a horror
movie that goes into the histories of legendary monsters
Dracula, Wolfman
and Frankenstein then forget it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why you SHOULD see "Van Helsing"
From: "Dunter Powries" <fech.redcaps@spedlin>
Newsgroups: alt.slack,alt.movies
Date: Mon, May 10, 2004 4:46 PM
Message-ID: <5TRnc.29448$L8.20487@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>
Ollie T <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:QvRnc.83024$hR1.70677@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> ...If you want
> to eat some popcorn have some laughs and just watch
a fun mindless comic
> book flick...
Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why you SHOULD see "Van Helsing"
From: Joe Cosby <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl>
>The only reason I should think of somebody needing
to see Van Helsing, is to
>show them how not to make a comic horror flick.
"Needing" to see Van Helsing?
So there are movies that you DO "need" to see?
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.com/
I was kicking back with an eelwurst on rye and
a glass of calimari blanc, when a thought crossed
my mind.
- nu-monet v6.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why you SHOULD see "Van Helsing"
From: "nu-monet v6.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>
Well, if you want to get your ration book stamped
for next month, you'd better. Can't have any
citizens falling behind in their cultural
indoctrination, can we?
Think of how nervous and uncomfortable you would
feel, walking down the street, people staring at
you, knowing that you didn't see THE movie. And
soon, their stares would turn into angry glares,
and then they would start to look for and pick up
rocks and bricks and boards to beat you to death
with, because YOU ARE NO LONGER OF THE BODY.
And Llandru says that we must purge all who are
not OF THE BODY. Who have not SEEN THE MOVIE.
--
"A stupid movie WILL NOT make you turn
down a blowjob. Simple as that."
-- nu-monet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why you SHOULD see "Van Helsing"
From: Joe Cosby <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl>
At least this time I'd know why they were doing it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hellpopehuey@subgenius.com (HellPopeHuey)
"Ollie T" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<QvRnc.83024$hR1.70677@fe2.texas.rr.com>...
> The only reason I should think of somebody needing
to see Van Helsing, is to
> show them how not to make a comic horror flick.
Um, so how DO you make one on purpose? Aside from crap
like "Scary
Movie" or the amusing "The Fearless Vampire
Killers," horror is
usually either GOOD or BAD. Where's the line, or can
one be defined
without falling into bankrupt fanboy debate? Nah.
> The audience I saw it with
> laughed the entire way through. I don't think
it was supposed to be that
> funny. Some parts dragged a bit and some were
just plain silly.
I think it WAS by design that people laughed. It was
a bit of balance
to the pounding action and seriousness of people being
gored and
eaten, ouch. Yes, there was a bit of drag/silly, but
I have no
complaint there; no film is perfect in that respect.
Most any of us
who LOOK carefully would probably add to or trim certain
flicks. The
camp element is part of its appeal, to me.
> Sure the
> monsters, effects and fights were pretty cool,
but that's it.
So do you think the old Universal B&W films were
all that much more
complex? There's a lot to be said for stage-y and melodramatic
offerings. Perhaps the CGI and general jaded view of
FX supplanting
story depth pits a lot against it, but it had a perfectly
good
structure and pacing. The crowd we saw it with was responding
very
positively, which I see as a good sign. Similar deal
with
"Poltergeist," not exactly in the running
for Brain-Strainer of Time &
Space.
> If you want
> to eat some popcorn have some laughs and just watch
a fun mindless comic
> book flick then by all means, go see it.
Exactly. I don't think its really mindless as much
as not cerebral.
Different thing.
If you are looking for a horror
> movie that goes into the histories of legendary
monsters Dracula, Wolfman
> and Frankenstein then forget it.
I think part of VH's charm is that we already KNOW
their histories
and it builds on them a bit rather than reinventing
the crucifix. The
BASICS are all in place and that's always a key requirement
for a
decent film. Besides, the vampires walk on the ceiling
and their HAIR
hangs down, that's SO DAMNED COOL!
--
HellPope Huey,
First Church of the SubGenius, Deformed
My mission is to steal the other patients'
pills,
make THEM go ballistic and
look better by comparison
"In the name of Allah, what is WRONG with
you?"
- "Van Helsing"
"I'll just sit here and pray to God
spiders don't nest in my crevices."
- "The Oblongs"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: nenslo <nenslo@yahoox.com>
HellPopeHuey wrote:
>
> its a visual rollercoaster ride and a
> HALF, hoo BOY, is it!;
But that's the reason why I WON'T. I can do that on
my bicycle and not
be insulted by lame dialogue or scrawny chicks in their
underwear that
are supposed ot be "sexy" but actually to
me just look like silly
teenagers posturing absurdly. I saw The Scorpion King
the other day and
thought it was going to be like The Lion King only with
scorpions. Boy
was I disappointed. On the other hand I watched the
more recent version
of The Glass Menagerie yesterday, Joanne Woodward, Karen
Allen and John
Malkovich, now THERE is a slam bam action thriller for
you and you don't
need a magic ticket to get sucked into that world -
YOU'RE ALREADY IN
IT. I can hardly wait to see the explosions and chase
scenes and
beeping red digital countdown in The Roman Spring of
Mrs. Stone. I
don't expect the mind blowing special effects extravaganza
of BOOM! or
Suddenly Last Summer, but if it rocks at least as totally
as The Rose
Tattoo I'll be satisfied.
>
> It seems to me that many view these flicks with
some high standard or
> preconceived demands and that's a shame. I use
one general mindset for
> campy fantasy, another for Kurosawa, yet another
for the recent, very
> enjoyable "Hidalgo" and a fourth for
straight character plays such as
> "To Kill A Mockingbird," "The Pawnbroker,"
the quirky, violent "Things
> To Do In Denver When You're Dead," Anthony
Hopkins' sobering "Remains
> Of The Day" or the gradually more dark performance
of Andy Griffith,
> of all people, in "A Face In The Crowd."
I used my "just sit it out and look at the pretty
colors" mindset, the
one I use for Tarkovsky and Godard films, while watching
Planet of
Blood, aka Queen of Blood, and it still pert near put
me to sleep. Now
that's filmmaking. Beast With a Million Eyes it ain't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Blackout" <blackout@gruntgruntgruntsubgenius.com>
find True West with Malkovich and Sinise and put that
$5 you owe me for
telling you about it on my tab for later. zero effects
and well worth it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Rev. Magdalen" <magdalen@subgenius.com>
HellPopeHuey wrote:
> The thumbnail sketch reasons: its a visual rollercoaster
ride and a
> HALF, hoo BOY, is it!;
I agree with this post!
The whole Christ family loved it!
Plus you forgot to mention there's a little something
for mom in this
movie, as Hugh Jackman DOES take his shirt off!!
Original file name: Why you SHOULD see "Van #1AD9F5 - converted on Saturday, 25 September 2004, 02:05
This page was created using TextToHTML. TextToHTML is a free software for Macintosh and is (c) 1995,1996 by Kris Coppieters