Well I am an atheist an as a atheist me and my God are going to get together and punish all you sinners. God and I are sick of all your cults/religions and we have decided we have to smite all you pretenders.
 |
Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, the writing duo behind Paramount's "Transformers" and "Star Trek" franchises, have signed a two-year, first-look production deal with Universal Pictures that includes plans to develop and produce a reimagined "Van Helsing" with Tom Cruise attached to star and produce.I repeat: UGH. I actually have no problem with Van Helsing as a concept, and I was actually excited by the Hugh Jackman Van Helsing at one point in time. I mean, one dude, fighting Dracula, a mummy, a werewolf, and Frankenstein's monster? It's like The Monster Squad with more violence. What's not to like?
Turns out: Quite a fucking lot. Van Helsing was so fucking terrible that just hearing the name "Van Helsing" fills me with a nerd rage, leaving me genuinely angry that someone would ever, ever try to make another Van Helsing movie, even if it's a reboot with all new actors and writers and directors and whatsoever. I'm kind of like Dracula in that regard, except instead of my hated foe being a famed vampire hunter whose family has defeated me throughout the eons, it's a movie that sucks shit.
More links from around the web!
103 comments
Be nicer to bats, they don't deserve this kind of abuse. After all a bat might be a creepy, hairy, tiny, short, annoying, insignificant, stupid, untalented, egocentric, desease ridden arsehole of an animal, but Tom Cruise is much worse. Oh wait a minute I have been descibing Tom Cruise. My bad.
And how is Tom Cruise going to make this better ? Why do Yanks have such a love affair with this looney tune ?
The first Van Helsing movie was great.... for about 5-10 minutes. Then it changed to colour and got really really naff.
Tom Cruise as Van Helsing? That makes it sound worse than what's already on DVD.
They really shouldn't make a sequel to this movie. Honestly, there are so many copies of Van Helsing sitting in the bargain bin of any given Wal-Mart, alongside the first, and awful, Hulk movie by Ang Li, that it actually does make me sad that no one wants to spend five dollars on them. Then I shake myself out of that funk by realizing I wouldn't pay that much for either of them, as well.
I was going to say "I would prefer a Solomon Kane movie," but apparently they already made one.http://www.solomonkanethemovie...According to the reviews it is supposed to be good.
It's a made-up origin story which is largely contradictory to Howard's SK, but purely as a film, it's pretty good, and I'd go so far as to say one of the best Sword-and-Sorcery films out there. Purefoy himself is great when he "becomes" Kane.
Solomon Kane is a good movie and well worth checking out. There is some nicely done dark-fantasy action in it and Purefoy is a great choice as Solomon.Oh, and it has Pete Postlewaithe!
This is a film series with Frankenstein in it, and you see being killed off as a major setback? ;)
She can come back as a blue-eyed swordfighting vampire.
But a scientific one, brought back by Frankenstein experiments. Mixed with werewolf blood.
Also.. I find it funny that everyone is calling this a reboot of a franchise.
Last I checked, Van Hellsing isbpublic domain and anyone could make a movie of him. I know Universal has been milking the Dracula name since it wasn't public domain, but everyone from Hammer Studios in the UK to anime companies in Japan have made their own Van Helsing. They shouldn't act as if they own the character especially since their last attempt was so awful. Which is sad because Jackman can be amazing.
I would say somone should just make a movie based on the manga Hellsing... but I don't trust Hollywood to not screw it up. They couldn't even get Dragon Ball in the ballpark.
Plus we already have that Ultimate Hellsing series of direct to video animated short films.
....I actually really enjoyed Van Helsing. I hated it when I left the theatre, but when I watched it at home and let myself forget about how these iconic characters really should be, it was a good story.
I cannot help but bow in admiration of your courage there. {g} {bow!}
(...but I couldn't forget about how iconic these characters should be. This is from someone who outright loves Sommers' first Mummy movie, mind you.)
The first Mummy movie didn't liberally piss away the very dramatic potential and legacy of the title character. The Mummy was powerful (Ten plagues of Egypt! That doesn't make any sense but it's awesome anyway!), he was tragic, and he was complex for a Hollywood monster movie villain.
Van Helsing managed to make Dracula lame and camp (ruining vampires a good 6 years before Twilight), the Wolfman a non-entity in the plot and it wasted Frankenstein's monster. They even tossed away Mr. Hyde in there. It was as such an unmitigated waste of potential, and for all that it wasn't even halfway entertaining.
Total agreement with every word there.
To which I would add that its fx were much better and its music was VASTLY much better than any related property following it. (Thank you Jerry Goldsmith! I don't recall a single note of Alan Silvestri's score to the sequel. He's an amazingly hit-or-miss composer for someone who wrote the music to the Back to the Future films...)
The oddest part for me was seeing the aerial shots of people on horseback during traveling montages...because, coming off the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I was so used to similar shots of people running everywhere, that for a moment I thought Van Helsing and Faramir were sprinting the whole way from Italy to the Carpathians, in full gear. "But I don't want't to run to Transylvania! Van Helsing...!"
Can we please stop making Van Helsing movies and make more Solomon Kane movies with James Purefoy? I just pretend the first Van Helsing movie with Wolverine is Solomon Kane, anway...
The only way I'd want to see this would be if it stared Ryan Renold and was called "National Lampoon's Van Helsing."
Oh jeez... I do enjoy the original VH movie, in all its campy terrible-ness, for some chuckles now and again. But it does NOT need to be remade or rebooted, especially not with Tom Cruise.
Orci and Kurtzman at it again. Seriously, those two need to be stopped. They turn out absolute drivel, and somehow keep on getting attached to projects that they have no reason to be a part of. First they crap on Transformers, then Trek. Someone needs to stop them, and soon...
As long as he doesn't have to fight a super smart old Geezer bent on starting WW3 Tom Cruise can do it (M:I4 was fun but, him almost getting wasted by that guy was ridicouls).
Considering that TC spent that whole movie looking like he was wearing his old-age mask/makeup from MI1 (but more tanned), I'm going to ask: which super smart old Geezer were you expecting to beat up the other super smart old Geezer?
I don't think this will ever get off the ground. Especially as a reboot. I thought it was a fun movie, especially the frankenstein monster... And the whole Baby-vampires-will-explode-if-they're-not-awakened-correctly gag was hilarious. But I really don't think they'll get enough support or backing for a repeat of the original movie.
For god's sake...how does this warrant a REBOOT, but not a SEQUEL?
I mean, I'm assuming Tom Cruise isn't going to play a 60-something Dutch professor, and they're still just going to have him running around in Vampire Hunter D's old coat and shoot monsters for two hours...is it that much of a reinvention of the premise that the studio has to say "hmmm...you know, there's really no point in just glossing over or ignoring the changes we've made to the new movie, we should just start over entirely in a new continuity. We owe the fans that much"?
Forget about an "age of reboots"...we're in an age of "push the alpha out the door to meet the holiday deadline, and we'll sell the bug patches as DLC, later."
Hated Van Helsing. Almost ruined Kate Beckinsale for me. ALMOST. But my boner survived.
Did it even do well enough in the Box Office to warrant a sequel??? I don't get this sequel craze anymore than I get the 3D obsession...
The sequel craze stems from marketing algorithims which allow for the accurate prediction of revenue levels for remakes and sequels and making it Al Gore's fault while the 3D obsession was started by people with superfluous eyes.
the first one was horrible, but seeing as I never had any expectations for it i kind of sickly enjoyed that horrible corn-fest. I don't need to see another one, and all hopes of it being good in any manner of the word are dashed with Tom Cruise. He is an alright actor and had had a few good roles, but not this...not this!
Remember when American Cinema was full of compelling, original stories? I don't remember anyone saying "Let's relaunch Casablanca!"
Funny you should mention Casablanca: Francois Truffaut was approached to make a remake back in 1974. Also, ever hear of Brazzaville?
Which period in time are you thinking of ? Casablanca may not have been 're-launched', but other movies have been re-made, often multiple times, since the 1920's.
Wait wait wait are you telling me wolverine did the tony awards AND he was a shitty monster hunter?
It was so obvous they were ripping off the look of the Solomon Kane character that when Solomon Kane came out I had friends claim they were ripping off Van Helsing!
J.H.: you could not be more correct. You could try; but you would not succeed.
The film Van Helsing was a massive rip-off of the Solomon Kane books. It's as if Stephen Sommers was reading Robert E. Howard one day, accidentally got his dick stuck in a Nintendo 64 and said "Hey! I've got a great idea for a movie!"
In saying that, anyone waiting for a decent "Van Helsing" movie should just go and check out the Solomon Kane flick instead. The crucifixion scene alone is worth your $$$.
I have never really understood the hate associated with this movie. I thought it was a fun popcorn muncher action film! No, it's not going to win any awards . . . but the guy that plays Van Helsing's little buddy (the guy that played Faramir in LoTR) was really funny!
Q. He played fucking Q. Every goddamned action hero has to have their version of Q or a comic sidekick. Van Helstink combined them into one character.
Why didn't they just hire Rob Schneider?
I've read the entire Bible. I don't recall that verse. Is it from one of the Apocryphal books?
"The first part here roughly translates as; 'I am the walrus. I am the walrus. Paul is dead. Coo-coo-ca-choo.' Although there is no Aramaic word for 'walrus'. So it literally says 'I am the bearded cow-like sea beast'."
There were only three movies I've ever walked out of the theater angry from. One was Van Helsing. For reference, the other two were Contact and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
One of mine was SUNSHINE.
Halfway through I though, "'Nice, serious minded science fiction movie. Not one of those stupid killer on a space ship ones."
Then...ugh...
I didn't walk out of Contact, but, I stood up in the theatre and I said: "No! You can't go into space because the machine already got blown up by Jake cock-a-doody Busey!"
