Joe Karlosi wrote:
theuglyinsect wrote:
I'll regret posting this, but I actually enjoyed Van Helsing.

Another thing about Van Helsing that never seems to be fairly recognized is that the cinematography is genuinely beautiful and the art direction is spot on in terms of the beautiful gothic sets...be they digital or otherwise. That's one aspect of the film Sommers absolutely nailed.

In regards to Sommer's first Mummy film- I though it was great. It was a big, fun b-movie and I really think Sommer's breathed new life into a franchise that was pretty stagnant.

The ['40s Kharis] sequels, which I actually enjoy quite a bit, from a critical standpoint probably represent the lowest point of Universal horror films. So this was a franchise that was in need of re-inventing and I think Sommer's did a great job with the first film- it was equal parts adventure, action & horror with just a slight bit of levity and humor to balance everyting out.
Whoa! Are you the same uglyinsect who ripped apart the new WOLF MAN and was so puzzled that many CHFBers liked it? Well, now at least I can better understand why!  
  
I knew this was coming.   The thing is, I expected better from the Wolf Man remake, EVERYONE involved in that film with the exception of director Joe Johnston were A-List people from the main cast, to the first screenwriter Andrew Kevin Walker to the set designer, to Danny Elfman and of course Rick Baker.  This film had all the ingredients to be an absolute masterpiece.  What we ended up getting in theaters was a mess of a film that was probably a combination of a mediocre director in Johnston and Universal studios lacking faith in the material then continued to interfere with the production right from the outset.  In it's current state- it's a bad film, and the reviews from critics and non-classic horror fans reflect this.  Van Helsing is garbage and I said that right at the beginning of my post, but being familar with Stephen Sommers and in particular his Mummy films, I went in with a good idea of what to expect.  Additionally regardless of how much you and I love the "House of..." they were hokey and just as stupid as VH was.  Again it's not like Sommer's was updating Citizen Kane here.   So with all that said, lowered expectations I suppose allowed me to enjoy that film, even though I can still acknowledge that it is a poorly made film- something quite a bit of you can't do with the new Wolfman.  

I think there is something inheriently sad about giving a pass to bad filmmaking just because the film has some of the superficial elements we all enjoy in these kind of movies.  At the same time there is a handful  (kingkongkessler comes to mind) that criticize PJ's kong because it had character development and made an attempt to add a little depth to a genre that has been pretty one-dimensional since it's inception, you know because after all that kind of stuff shouldn't belong in a "monster movie".  It's almost like for some the only way a horror/monster movie can be "good" is if it's a bad film that regurgitates the same stereotypical genre conventions that we've been dealing with since the 30's and 40's.  That's what kind of baffles me in regards to all the love the new Wolfman is getting from you guys.  I'll still wait for the extended cut DVD and see if and how that fixes any of the problems I had with the theatrical cut.