ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Feb 7 10 4:41 PM
Feb 7 10 5:02 PM
Feb 7 10 9:11 PM
Feb 7 10 9:23 PM
Feb 7 10 9:41 PM
Feb 7 10 10:08 PM
oldmanster wrote: He has wrought a terrible mess that really gave our Universal monsters a very bad black eye. Not to mention quite a bit of damage to their legacy. Great BIG (and of course respectful) DISAGREEMENT with you, Herr Sknaggs. Whatever else the Sommers film was (and I think it was pretty darn good), not once did I think it to be a variant of the Karloff. It was a completely different film -- and whether or not it worked for you is a much different conversation.Of course, many of us here on the board have gone through this argument/discussion many, many times. So I won't belabor the point again, and let the newer members chew it up.... Reed
Feb 8 10 12:36 PM
Feb 8 10 3:03 PM
A perfect Monster has no end...
Feb 8 10 10:34 PM
Feb 14 10 2:05 AM
Feb 17 10 9:57 AM
Feb 17 10 11:50 AM
Feb 17 10 12:35 PM
Feb 17 10 3:21 PM
Feb 17 10 4:59 PM
Feb 17 10 5:30 PM
Feb 21 10 5:09 PM
theuglyinsect wrote:I'll regret posting this, but I actually enjoyed Van Helsing. I can't help it, I'm semi-ashamed of it, but all the attrocious acting, abysmal writing, sub par CGI, video game like action sequences couldn't dampen my enjoyment of seeing a crap load of monsters duking it out on screen for 2 hours. Van Helsing is a very bad movie, I know this- I agree with almost every negative review and personal opinion i've heard or read about this film. It deserves the hate it gets, but I can't help it I enjoy the film. Richard Roxburgh's Dracula is the single worst Dracula ever put to film (although the guy in Blade Trinity gives him a run for his money) and I did not like the characterization given to Frankenstein's monster. Also much like Sommer's two Mummy films (which I also enjoyed-despite their flaws) there is absolutely nothing "iconic" about the monster design in these films. My only issue with the criticisms of Van Helsing is that some classic horror fans act like the guy was remaking Casablanca or Citizen Kane here. I will always maintain that the original source material that inspired Sommer's Van Helsing (namely the mash-up films ie: House of Frankenstein/Dracula) were not any better then the final product Sommer's put out. Where is the vehement hatred towards those films? They were every bit as ill conceived, poorly written, poorly acted as Van Helsing was. I suspect much like myself, many of you saw those films as kids- and as kids all that mattered was that it had a crap load of monsters in them. I still enjoy those monster mash films, but I can also recognize that from a critical standpoint, with the exception of some nice make up work and beautiful art direction (a hallmark of all the Uni films) those are poor films as well. So I think one of my reasons for enjoying Van Helsing is that the critical portion of my brain shuts off, like it does with say the House films and I just kinda revert back to being a kid for 2 hours. 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 original 32' Mummy has a great story, some great Jack Pierce make up work, and Karloff is fantastic, but it probably drags a little by today's standards in terms of pacing and it's lack of action. The 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. I enjoyed The Mummy Returns as well, although you can see Sommer's beginning to overindulge in regards to all his bad habits, the humor in the first film blew up to full on camp and kinda forshadowed the mess Van Helsing would become. The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor is just pure crap, all around, unimaginative bad sequel.
Feb 21 10 6:10 PM
Feb 21 10 6:54 PM
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.
Feb 21 10 7:05 PM
oldmanster wrote: He has wrought a terrible mess that really gave our Universal monsters a very bad black eye. Not to mention quite a bit of damage to their legacy. Great BIG (and of course respectful) DISAGREEMENT with you, Herr Sknaggs. Whatever else the Sommers film was (and I think it was pretty darn good), not once did I think it to be a variant of the Karloff. It was a completely different film -- and whether or not it worked for you is a much different conversation.... Reed
Share This