list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Van Helsing on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Van_Helsing/226894/default.aspx Title: Van Helsing
Year: 2004
Director: Stephen Sommers
Plot: The greatest monster hunter of them all has his work cut out for him as he tracks down three deadly foes in this action-adventure saga. Gabriel Van Helsing (Hugh Jackman) is a man who has dedicated his life to battling evil forces who exist outside the bounds of nature; Van Helsing's work has not always made him friends, and a false accusation of murder still trails him. But when he's summoned to Transylvania at the behest of Anna Valerious (Kate Beckinsale), whose family has been fighting supernatural beings for generations, Van Helsing wastes no time answering her call. There, Van Helsing discovers that the undying vampire Count Dracula (Richard Roxburgh) has put a misshapen creature named Igor (Kevin J. O'Connor) under his spell, and, in turn, has forged an alliance with a hideous monster (Shuler Hensley) who was created by the misguided Dr. Victor Frankenstein (Samuel West). Adding to Anna's burden is her brother, Velkan (Will Kemp), a lycanthrope who becomes a bloodthirsty wolf under the light of the full moon. Van Helsing also co-stars Elena Anaya, Silvia Colloca, and Josie Maran as Dracula's vampire brides. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 30
Number of Lists: 46
Number of blog posts: 5
Number of discussion threads: 2
SpoutRating: 2
]]>Sat, 15 Aug 2009 21:24:42 GMTVan Helsing2004Stephen SommersThe greatest monster hunter of them all has his work cut out for him as he tracks down three deadly foes in this action-adventure saga. Gabriel Van Helsing (<a href="/players/P___269258/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Hugh Jackman</a>) is a man who has dedicated his life to battling evil forces who exist outside the bounds of nature; Van Helsing's work has not always made him friends, and a false accusation of murder still trails him. But when he's summoned to Transylvania at the behest of Anna Valerious (<a href="/players/P_____4911/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Kate Beckinsale</a>), whose family has been fighting supernatural beings for generations, Van Helsing wastes no time answering her call. There, Van Helsing discovers that the undying vampire Count Dracula (<a href="/players/P___127962/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Richard Roxburgh</a>) has put a misshapen creature named Igor (Kevin J. O'Connor) under his spell, and, in turn, has forged an alliance with a hideous monster (Shuler Hensley) who was created by the misguided Dr. Victor Frankenstein (<a href="/players/P___233149/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Samuel West</a>). Adding to Anna's burden is her brother, Velkan (Will Kemp), a lycanthrope who becomes a bloodthirsty wolf under the light of the full moon. Van Helsing also co-stars <a href="/players/P___214956/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Elena Anaya</a>, Silvia Colloca, and <a href="/players/P___372147/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Josie Maran</a> as Dracula's vampire brides. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide30Tag Target (>10)46522http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t79498mbbge.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Van_Helsing/226894/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_mow/archive/2009/4/29/41866.aspx Post By: The_MOW
Post To: The_MOW Blog
Post Date: 4/29/2009 10:44:37 AM
Body: "Van Helsing" is a retelling of the famed vampire hunter of the Bram Stoker novel "Dracula". However, it is more an action-adventure than a horror movie. Hugh Jackman plays the title character, who works for the Catholic church in this story, and is very impressive in the role. In fact, the entire cast is impressive -- some more than others however. Kate Beckinsale does another impressive performance which stands out in the movie, and is a great confidant to Jackman's "Van Helsing." Other actors do a very good performance of their roles, however they are not well defined -- a weakness of this movie. One strong point in this film is the CGI. If you know what to look for, you will be able to pick up what is computer-generated and what isn't. The CGI aids in the scenery, which probably worked better on the movie screen than it did on cable television. Two points that weaken this movie is the pacing of some sceenes, and character development. Many of the sceenes lag and lag, which slows the pace down during the wrong parts of the movie. The movie also relies of the known histories of "Van Helsing," "Dracula," the "Frankenstein Monster" (which is mistaken as "Frankenstein" in this film, which is the most common mistake made on the character) and the "Wolfman." Although not well defined characters in the movie, "Dracula's Brides" were really fun to watch. They were cocky and arrogant, yet sexy and seductive. The last "bride" to be killed in this movie has very expressive eyes that just jump off the screen and help enhanse her performance. "The Monster" (Shuler Hensley) is too human in this movie, and not child-like like the way Boris Koloff portrayed the character decades ago, but is likeable. "Count Dracula" (Richard Roxburgh) is not the cold-blooded blood-sucker as seen in previous versions of Bram Stoker's most famous creation. The "Wolfmen" are obviously CGI, and are programmed performances. Like I said earlier, the CGI is incredible. And the scenes where human actors perform against CGI characters are edited together quite nicely into the scenes in which they interact. Early in the movie there is a scene in which appears to be right out of a "James Bond" movie. There are other parts of the movie that are just as enjoyable. In my opinion, "Van Helsing" is not perfect -- but it's very close. If you like action-adventure, this would be a pretty good rental. Just do not expect a horror movie, because it seems those behind-the-scenes forgot that point considering who the characters are in the movie. I would recommend you check this out at your local video rental store as a definite second choice if your first choice is not available.
]]>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:44:37 GMTThe_MOWThe_MOW Blog4/29/2009 10:44:37 AM"Van Helsing" is a retelling of the famed vampire hunter of the Bram Stoker novel "Dracula". However, it is more an action-adventure than a horror movie. Hugh Jackman plays the title character, who works for the Catholic church in this story, and is very impressive in the role. In fact, the entire cast is impressive -- some more than others however. Kate Beckinsale does another impressive performance which stands out in the movie, and is a great confidant to Jackman's "Van Helsing." Other actors do a very good performance of their roles, however they are not well defined -- a weakness of this movie. One strong point in this film is the CGI. If you know what to look for, you will be able to pick up what is computer-generated and what isn't. The CGI aids in the scenery, which probably worked better on the movie screen than it did on cable television. Two points that weaken this movie is the pacing of some sceenes, and character development. Many of the sceenes lag and lag, which slows the pace down during the wrong parts of the movie. The movie also relies of the known histories of "Van Helsing," "Dracula," the "Frankenstein Monster" (which is mistaken as "Frankenstein" in this film, which is the most common mistake made on the character) and the "Wolfman." Although not well defined characters in the movie, "Dracula's Brides" were really fun to watch. They were cocky and arrogant, yet sexy and seductive. The last "bride" to be killed in this movie has very expressive eyes that just jump off the screen and help enhanse her performance. "The Monster" (Shuler Hensley) is too human in this movie, and not child-like like the way Boris Koloff portrayed the character decades ago, but is likeable. "Count Dracula" (Richard Roxburgh) is not the cold-blooded blood-sucker as seen in previous versions of Bram Stoker's most famous creation. The "Wolfmen" are obviously CGI, and are programmed performances. Like I said earlier, the CGI is incredible. And the scenes where human actors perform against CGI characters are edited together quite nicely into the scenes in which they interact. Early in the movie there is a scene in which appears to be right out of a "James Bond" movie. There are other parts of the movie that are just as enjoyable. In my opinion, "Van Helsing" is not perfect -- but it's very close. If you like action-adventure, this would be a pretty good rental. Just do not expect a horror movie, because it seems those behind-the-scenes forgot that point considering who the characters are in the movie. I would recommend you check this out at your local video rental store as a definite second choice if your first choice is not available. http://www.spout.com/blogs/yinali/archive/2009/1/30/40109.aspx Post By: Yinali
Post To: Yinali Blog
Post Date: 1/30/2009 7:12:23 PM
Body: Van Helsing may be a low budget movie, but it's entertaining. And just watching Hugh Jackman turn into a warewolf is just as sexy as the wolverine.
]]>Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:12:23 GMTYinaliYinali Blog1/30/2009 7:12:23 PMVan Helsing may be a low budget movie, but it's entertaining. And just watching Hugh Jackman turn into a warewolf is just as sexy as the wolverine. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/23/38761.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/23/2008 12:00:52 PM
Body: Should special effects only be used to service a film’s story, or is it perfectly fine for movies to feature extraneous spectacle? That’s a debate that comes up often among cineastes, but ultimately there’s room for both functions. Sometimes, in cases like Jurassic Park and The Matrix, both categories of effects may even faultlessly coexist in the same film. Yet there is one kind of effects employment that’s intolerable to all film-loving parties: the gratuitous exploitation for the sole purpose of brazen gimmickry. It’s this kind of effects work that goes beyond spectacle. It’s not so much a show as a show off. For one example of this cinematic sin check out Karina’s review of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, in which she references a scene featuring an inessential and irrelevant rocket launch in the background of an otherwise intimate moment between two lovers on a sailboat. Actually, that’s apparently only a minor citation in a “a film about the feat of its own whiz-bang, Frankensteinian digital imagery, drunk on its own accomplishment to an extent that feels quasi-ethical.” Hardly the first movie to commit such a crime, sure, but Benjamin Button seems to be the most thoroughly guilty exploiter since Forrest Gump (both films, incidentally, were scripted by Eric Roth). So, in (dis)honor of Roth’s repeat offense, let’s take a short look at the worst exploitations of special effects in the last 15 years: Forrest Gump (1994): digital erasure of Gary Sinise’s legs Only a year earlier, we had marveled at Jurassic Park’s showcase of computer effects as the ultimate in movie magic. Then, Robert Zemeckis crushed our imaginations by turning CG into a means for mere tricks. The composites were cool enough, but Zemeckis had to go one step further and flaunt Lt. Dan’s lack of legs, just because he could. Was the effect neat? Yeah, for a minute, but it was also completely unnecessary. Star Wars prequels (1999-2005): computer-generated Yoda Some people believe George Lucas’ greatest effects foul to be Jar-Jar Binks. Others cite his awful CG Jabba in the 1997 special edition of A New Hope. Both were cheap exploitations, no doubt about it, but Lucas’ worst employment of CG was turning Yoda into a digitally rendered character. This isn’t just another excuse for us to defend and celebrate Muppets, either. Rather, it’s a defense and celebration of The Empire Strikes Back, which is a perfect film and is such despite its inclusion of a puppet version of Yoda. Why didn’t Lucas go the extra yard and turn the droids and Wookies into CG characters? Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004): computer-generated werewolf One of the most hated uses of CG, particularly to horror fans, is for werewolf effects. After all, the greatest-looking werewolf of all time, from An American Werewolf in London, was achieved with makeup rather than a computer. Yet just because computer effects exist, filmmakers seemingly attempt to better Rick Baker’s Oscar-winning technique with CG werewolves in movies like Van Helsing, Cursed and this, the third installment in the Harry Potter franchise. Or, is it that computer effects are just cheaper than makeup? Because they do indeed look cheap. Prisoner of Azkaban may have been nominated for a Visual Effects Oscar, but it probably lost because of Professor Lupin’s cartoonish transformation into a werewolf. Even if you believe Azkaban to be the best film in the franchise, you have to admit it could have been all the more exceptional had Alfonso Cuaron only put David Thewlis in the makeup chair and not into the hard drive. The Day After Tomorrow (2004): computer-generated wolves If there’s one thing even lamer than using CG for werewolves, it’s using CG for wolves. The former is at least an imaginary creature that requires some kind of effects to fabricate its existence. The latter can be found at a zoo, in the wild, or through an animal wrangler. It’s not even like the three wolves in The Day After Tomorrow, which appear in one minor sequence, had to seem preternatural like the dogs in Hulk. Apparently there were actually real wolves initially used, but they weren’t acceptable to Roland Emmerich, and so digital wolves were added later in post production. But did they have to be entirely substituted for? Or was Emmerich on a computer-generated power trip? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008): computer-generated monkeys You’re probably not shocked to see another George Lucas production here. There’s some disagreement over which was the worst part of this latest Indiana Jones film, the “nuke the fridge” sequence or the moment when Shia LaBeouf swings through the jungle with a bunch of CG monkeys. The former scene (pictured, since the internet seems to be pretending the monkey scene doesn’t exist) was certainly the downturn of the franchise, but the latter was its greatest offense. Had it not been in the film — and it truly could have been avoided — a lot of people might have forgiven Lucas and Steven Spielberg for the movie’s other faults. But as South Park bluntly put it, those guys raped their character. And they also raped and exploited the whole visual effects industry while they were at it. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:00:52 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/23/2008 12:00:52 PMShould special effects only be used to service a film’s story, or is it perfectly fine for movies to feature extraneous spectacle? That’s a debate that comes up often among cineastes, but ultimately there’s room for both functions. Sometimes, in cases like Jurassic Park and The Matrix, both categories of effects may even faultlessly coexist in the same film. Yet there is one kind of effects employment that’s intolerable to all film-loving parties: the gratuitous exploitation for the sole purpose of brazen gimmickry. It’s this kind of effects work that goes beyond spectacle. It’s not so much a show as a show off. For one example of this cinematic sin check out Karina’s review of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, in which she references a scene featuring an inessential and irrelevant rocket launch in the background of an otherwise intimate moment between two lovers on a sailboat. Actually, that’s apparently only a minor citation in a “a film about the feat of its own whiz-bang, Frankensteinian digital imagery, drunk on its own accomplishment to an extent that feels quasi-ethical.” Hardly the first movie to commit such a crime, sure, but Benjamin Button seems to be the most thoroughly guilty exploiter since Forrest Gump (both films, incidentally, were scripted by Eric Roth). So, in (dis)honor of Roth’s repeat offense, let’s take a short look at the worst exploitations of special effects in the last 15 years: Forrest Gump (1994): digital erasure of Gary Sinise’s legs Only a year earlier, we had marveled at Jurassic Park’s showcase of computer effects as the ultimate in movie magic. Then, Robert Zemeckis crushed our imaginations by turning CG into a means for mere tricks. The composites were cool enough, but Zemeckis had to go one step further and flaunt Lt. Dan’s lack of legs, just because he could. Was the effect neat? Yeah, for a minute, but it was also completely unnecessary. Star Wars prequels (1999-2005): computer-generated Yoda Some people believe George Lucas’ greatest effects foul to be Jar-Jar Binks. Others cite his awful CG Jabba in the 1997 special edition of A New Hope. Both were cheap exploitations, no doubt about it, but Lucas’ worst employment of CG was turning Yoda into a digitally rendered character. This isn’t just another excuse for us to defend and celebrate Muppets, either. Rather, it’s a defense and celebration of The Empire Strikes Back, which is a perfect film and is such despite its inclusion of a puppet version of Yoda. Why didn’t Lucas go the extra yard and turn the droids and Wookies into CG characters? Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004): computer-generated werewolf One of the most hated uses of CG, particularly to horror fans, is for werewolf effects. After all, the greatest-looking werewolf of all time, from An American Werewolf in London, was achieved with makeup rather than a computer. Yet just because computer effects exist, filmmakers seemingly attempt to better Rick Baker’s Oscar-winning technique with CG werewolves in movies like Van Helsing, Cursed and this, the third installment in the Harry Potter franchise. Or, is it that computer effects are just cheaper than makeup? Because they do indeed look cheap. Prisoner of Azkaban may have been nominated for a Visual Effects Oscar, but it probably lost because of Professor Lupin’s cartoonish transformation into a werewolf. Even if you believe Azkaban to be the best film in the franchise, you have to admit it could have been all the more exceptional had Alfonso Cuaron only put David Thewlis in the makeup chair and not into the hard drive. The Day After Tomorrow (2004): computer-generated wolves If there’s one thing even lamer than using CG for werewolves, it’s using CG for wolves. The former is at least an imaginary creature that requires some kind of effects to fabricate its existence. The latter can be found at a zoo, in the wild, or through an animal wrangler. It’s not even like the three wolves in The Day After Tomorrow, which appear in one minor sequence, had to seem preternatural like the dogs in Hulk. Apparently there were actually real wolves initially used, but they weren’t acceptable to Roland Emmerich, and so digital wolves were added later in post production. But did they have to be entirely substituted for? Or was Emmerich on a computer-generated power trip? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008): computer-generated monkeys You’re probably not shocked to see another George Lucas production here. There’s some disagreement over which was the worst part of this latest Indiana Jones film, the “nuke the fridge” sequence or the moment when Shia LaBeouf swings through the jungle with a bunch of CG monkeys. The former scene (pictured, since the internet seems to be pretending the monkey scene doesn’t exist) was certainly the downturn of the franchise, but the latter was its greatest offense. Had it not been in the film — and it truly could have been avoided — a lot of people might have forgiven Lucas and Steven Spielberg for the movie’s other faults. But as South Park bluntly put it, those guys raped their character. And they also raped and exploited the whole visual effects industry while they were at it. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/sci_fi/Re_Sci_Fi_Recommendations/4/38228/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: seely
Post To: sci-fi
Post Date: 12/11/2008 9:37:58 AM
Body: Boy, a bunch come to mind right away for me. Wild, Wild West Van Helsing Back to the Future Part III (1990) ...and, if we can include animated features (which I see no reason we can't), I feel like a lot of Anime features could fit into this category, especially: Howl's Moving Castle (2004) Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind (1984) I never realized it, but I love steampunk films, since I had no idea "Steampunk" was even a genre until recently. I'm not sure why exactly. Maybe its the whimsical element, combined with historical elements? I'm not really sure, but I somehow really connect with these films.
]]>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:37:58 GMTseelysci-fi12/11/2008 9:37:58 AMBoy, a bunch come to mind right away for me. Wild, Wild West Van Helsing Back to the Future Part III (1990) ...and, if we can include animated features (which I see no reason we can't), I feel like a lot of Anime features could fit into this category, especially: Howl's Moving Castle (2004) Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind (1984) I never realized it, but I love steampunk films, since I had no idea "Steampunk" was even a genre until recently. I'm not sure why exactly. Maybe its the whimsical element, combined with historical elements? I'm not really sure, but I somehow really connect with these films. http://www.spout.com/blogs/owtkast/archive/2008/10/2/35806.aspx Post By: owtkast
Post To: owtkast Blog
Post Date: 10/2/2008 2:41:36 AM
Body: The problem most people seem to have with this movie is a failure to realize that it's a comedy. If you go into it expecting an action or horror flick, you're bound to be disappointed. If, however, you're willing to take the obviously comedic scenes as they were intended, you'll love it. The movie is fast-paced, has plenty of action and special effects, and has enough tongue-in-cheek humor to keep you grinning the whole way through.
]]>Thu, 02 Oct 2008 06:41:36 GMTowtkastowtkast Blog10/2/2008 2:41:36 AMThe problem most people seem to have with this movie is a failure to realize that it's a comedy. If you go into it expecting an action or horror flick, you're bound to be disappointed. If, however, you're willing to take the obviously comedic scenes as they were intended, you'll love it. The movie is fast-paced, has plenty of action and special effects, and has enough tongue-in-cheek humor to keep you grinning the whole way through. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_July_14_The_Angry_Mob/625/32512/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: indieabby88
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 7/14/2008 12:19:02 AM
Body: I just finished watching The Mist, a movie which I think would qualify as having an angry mob. I don't want to put in any spoilers, but there is one particular scene that puts that "pissed-off masses screaming for blood" feeling right out there. If you've seen the film, you'll know what I'm talking about. Let me just say that I don't think I've yelled at characters onscreen so much in any other movie I've ever seen. The Mist is a movie that begs for knee-jerk reaction in just about every single frame. I wanted to throttle Marcia Gay Harden by the end of that thing. Then, of course, we've got the lovely musical sequence in Disney's Beauty and the Beast (I've never seen a more melodic mob) and movies like Frankenstein and the odious Van Helsing (which it inspired) These are examples (though, albeit, not all good ones--it's late, throw me a bone!) of the panicked mob acting ridiculously out of fear, some rational, some irrational. But there's the second kind of angry mob movie, too, the Braveheart-style mobs, the ones that rise up and rebel, and usually end up getting slaughtered and climbing down from their barricades with their tails between their legs. This might be kind of a stretch, but I'm going to go ahead and put Les Miserables in this category, too.
]]>Mon, 14 Jul 2008 04:19:02 GMTindieabby88Weekly Theme7/14/2008 12:19:02 AMI just finished watching The Mist, a movie which I think would qualify as having an angry mob. I don't want to put in any spoilers, but there is one particular scene that puts that "pissed-off masses screaming for blood" feeling right out there. If you've seen the film, you'll know what I'm talking about. Let me just say that I don't think I've yelled at characters onscreen so much in any other movie I've ever seen. The Mist is a movie that begs for knee-jerk reaction in just about every single frame. I wanted to throttle Marcia Gay Harden by the end of that thing. Then, of course, we've got the lovely musical sequence in Disney's Beauty and the Beast (I've never seen a more melodic mob) and movies like Frankenstein and the odious Van Helsing (which it inspired) These are examples (though, albeit, not all good ones--it's late, throw me a bone!) of the panicked mob acting ridiculously out of fear, some rational, some irrational. But there's the second kind of angry mob movie, too, the Braveheart-style mobs, the ones that rise up and rebel, and usually end up getting slaughtered and climbing down from their barricades with their tails between their legs. This might be kind of a stretch, but I'm going to go ahead and put Les Miserables in this category, too. http://www.spout.com/blogs/moviebabe/archive/2007/7/5/13193.aspx Post By: MovieBabe
Post To: MovieBabe Blog
Post Date: 7/5/2007 5:41:00 PM
Body: By Tricia Olszewski Despite what Anne Rice may want you to believe, vampires can’t always be sexy. Century after century of artful seduction, sensuous neck-biting, and well-endowed young cohabitants is bound to get old. So it’s only natural that, at a certain age, even the vampiest of vamps turns his thoughts to more meaningful pursuits. Please. Who wants to see a forever-young bloodluster fretting like a middle-aged suburbanite? In Van Helsing, Hugh Jackman’s star turn as Bram Stoker’s monster hunter, the world of immortals is reduced to the stuff of a WebMD message board. The movie’s Dracula (Richard Roxburgh), for instance, is vexed less by Van Helsing’s lame attempts to crucifix him into submission than by a more clinical problem: fertility. Yes, the dark lord is having trouble making babies, and he’s after the life force of Frankenstein’s monster—or something—to prevent his current batch of spawn from ending up stillborn like the rest. Sure, it’s all part of Drac’s evil plan to take over the world, but that doesn’t mean that he and his irritating brides don’t get to coo and embrace at the first sight of their beastly winged treasures. The progeny problem isn’t the only wellness issue among Van Helsing’s plot lines: The brother of Princess Anna (Kate Beckinsale) is bitten by a werewolf, but despite his attempts to kill her, Anna won’t have him destroyed, because she’s heard there’s an antidote. The race-for-a-cure talk soon becomes so prevalent you half-expect the characters to bust out matching T-shirts and start a walk-a-thon. Van Helsing is, essentially, The League of Extraordinary Gentleman: Monster Mash Edition—a Who’s Who of legendary villains also including the Wolf Man, Mr. Hyde, and even Igor—whose gathering, one might suspect, should be effortlessly interesting. As written and directed by The Mummy creator Stephen Sommers, though, Van Helsing is, like LXG, quite effortful indeed. The opening black-and-white homage to Universal’s early monster movies is stylish but a bit confusing, involving Dracula but otherwise essentially separate from the rest of the film. Things quickly deteriorate from there: Sommers uses the handy fact that our hero, Gabriel Van Helsing, can’t remember his past to simply plop him in front of us, sans introduction and ready to fight a bloated and pretty cheesy-looking Mr. Hyde (beneath the CGI, Harry Potter’s Robbie Coltrane) in Paris. Van Helsing then hops to Vatican City for some Bond-inspired weapons-shopping with one Friar Carl (David Wenham), the film’s desperate attempt at comic relief, and then the two are transplanted just as quickly to Transylvania for an assignment to kill Dracula. Here they team up with Anna, whose royal family has been plagued by the supervampire for generations. It’s also the point of no return for Van Helsing: An appearance by Dracula’s brides (Elena Anaya, Silvia Colloca, and Josie Maran) at the snowy, bleak town center is momentarily thrilling, as the white-winged vixens descend ferociously on the villagers in a midday guerrilla attack. But then they open their mouths—revealing cackling witches’ voices dripping with the cartoonish eee-viiilll better befitting Young Frankenstein. Though brooding, forgetful Van Helsing is made of practically the same stuff as Wolverine, Jackman is unable to make his character smolder. (Maybe it’s the hat.) Beckinsale, attempting an awkward Romanian accent, is also less watchable than she was in the thematically similar Underworld. (Maybe it was the cat suits.) At least Sommers seems to understand the stiff actress’s main appeal: He introduces us to her ass before we glimpse her ringlet-framed face. Indeed, the director’s script offers so much mawkishness and ineptitude that it’s tough to know what else to single out. OK, it’s not: Dracula’s constant switching between screaming and acting a pillar of calm. Anna’s out-of-nowhere moment in which she confesses, “I’ve never been to the sea...I bet it’s beautiful!” An ending in which a fallen character’s face appears all Lion King in the sky. And finally, one anachronistic little whoopsie that symbolizes this mess of a movie pretty much perfectly: an airborne carriage that—yes—explodes on impact. The monsters in Young Adam are far lustier than those in Van Helsing, but that doesn’t make them any more compelling. Based on a novel by Scottish Beat writer Alexander Trocchi and directed by fellow Scot David Mackenzie, Young Adam is a slow, sullen affair that mistakes a lack of definition for thoughtful lyricism. On the canals of ’50s Glasgow, Joe (Ewan McGregor) is working on and living in a barge owned by Les (Peter Mullan) and Ella (Tilda Swinton). One day, he and Les come across a body floating in the water. There’s no sign of foul play on the slipcovered young woman’s corpse, and the mystery of her death becomes the talk of the town. Joe at first seems an upstanding sort, a quiet hard worker whose puppy-dog expressions make him appear sympathetic even as he’s rubbing legs with Ella underneath the dinner table. A brief bedroom scene in which Les can’t get it up because he’s drunk suggests a loutishness that alienates both his lonely wife and the sensitive Joe; the lack of dialogue that passes between the two lets the viewer ascribe a burning connection to Joe and Ella’s every stolen glance. It soon becomes evident, however, that the burning isn’t exactly taking place in Joe’s soul: Young Adam quickly devolves from moody murder mystery to a working-class version of Emmanuelle. In fact, Joe does little more than smoke, screw, and look thoughtful throughout the film’s 93 minutes, during which we discover that he knew the drowning victim, a comely lass named Cathie (Emily Mortimer)—a revelation made in flashbacks that are so irritatingly seamless that it’s initially unclear that the story is jumping back in time. McGregor’s at first magnetic turn as Joe is rendered ineffective by Mackenzie’s undernourished script. Joe’s quick, wordless seduction of Ella—whom Swinton gives a no-frills carnality that’s both sensual and distasteful—is repeated with others until it seems a joke. A steamy eye-locking can certainly be passionate, but Young Adam suggests that Joe need only glance at the town’s apparently sex-starved women before they fling their legs around him. The gist of Young Adam is that (1) appearances can be deceiving and (2) most people are selfish bastards. Eventually, an innocent man is charged with Cathie’s death, and Les is shown to be a decent, humble husband and father; meanwhile, earthy taskmaster Ella is happy to ignore her partner’s feelings as long as she’s shagging ne’er-do-well Joe. Within the confines of Les and Ella’s barge, the volatile dynamic makes for a watchable powder keg of a story, but whenever Joe takes his slime elsewhere, Young Adam fizzles. Audience members unsure of their willingness to stay with the filmmaker’s bleak, sexed-up, and somewhat incomplete picture of humanity will likely be polarized by one of Young Adam’s most memorable moments: a custard- and ketchup-dripping rape scene that could, I suppose, be of some dark significance. But the scene scans more convincingly as a bit of hard stuff to top all the soft-core that’s come before. Like the rest of Young Adam, it provokes the senses much more than the mind.
]]>Thu, 05 Jul 2007 21:41:00 GMTMovieBabeMovieBabe Blog7/5/2007 5:41:00 PM By Tricia Olszewski Despite what Anne Rice may want you to believe, vampires can&rsquo;t always be sexy. Century after century of artful seduction, sensuous neck-biting, and well-endowed young cohabitants is bound to get old. So it&rsquo;s only natural that, at a certain age, even the vampiest of vamps turns his thoughts to more meaningful pursuits. Please. Who wants to see a forever-young bloodluster fretting like a middle-aged suburbanite? In Van Helsing, Hugh Jackman&rsquo;s star turn as Bram Stoker&rsquo;s monster hunter, the world of immortals is reduced to the stuff of a WebMD message board. The movie&rsquo;s Dracula (Richard Roxburgh), for instance, is vexed less by Van Helsing&rsquo;s lame attempts to crucifix him into submission than by a more clinical problem: fertility. Yes, the dark lord is having trouble making babies, and he&rsquo;s after the life force of Frankenstein&rsquo;s monster&mdash;or something&mdash;to prevent his current batch of spawn from ending up stillborn like the rest. Sure, it&rsquo;s all part of Drac&rsquo;s evil plan to take over the world, but that doesn&rsquo;t mean that he and his irritating brides don&rsquo;t get to coo and embrace at the first sight of their beastly winged treasures. The progeny problem isn&rsquo;t the only wellness issue among Van Helsing&rsquo;s plot lines: The brother of Princess Anna (Kate Beckinsale) is bitten by a werewolf, but despite his attempts to kill her, Anna won&rsquo;t have him destroyed, because she&rsquo;s heard there&rsquo;s an antidote. The race-for-a-cure talk soon becomes so prevalent you half-expect the characters to bust out matching T-shirts and start a walk-a-thon. Van Helsing is, essentially, The League of Extraordinary Gentleman: Monster Mash Edition&mdash;a Who&rsquo;s Who of legendary villains also including the Wolf Man, Mr. Hyde, and even Igor&mdash;whose gathering, one might suspect, should be effortlessly interesting. As written and directed by The Mummy creator Stephen Sommers, though, Van Helsing is, like LXG, quite effortful indeed. The opening black-and-white homage to Universal&rsquo;s early monster movies is stylish but a bit confusing, involving Dracula but otherwise essentially separate from the rest of the film. Things quickly deteriorate from there: Sommers uses the handy fact that our hero, Gabriel Van Helsing, can&rsquo;t remember his past to simply plop him in front of us, sans introduction and ready to fight a bloated and pretty cheesy-looking Mr. Hyde (beneath the CGI, Harry Potter&rsquo;s Robbie Coltrane) in Paris. Van Helsing then hops to Vatican City for some Bond-inspired weapons-shopping with one Friar Carl (David Wenham), the film&rsquo;s desperate attempt at comic relief, and then the two are transplanted just as quickly to Transylvania for an assignment to kill Dracula. Here they team up with Anna, whose royal family has been plagued by the supervampire for generations. It&rsquo;s also the point of no return for Van Helsing: An appearance by Dracula&rsquo;s brides (Elena Anaya, Silvia Colloca, and Josie Maran) at the snowy, bleak town center is momentarily thrilling, as the white-winged vixens descend ferociously on the villagers in a midday guerrilla attack. But then they open their mouths&mdash;revealing cackling witches&rsquo; voices dripping with the cartoonish eee-viiilll better befitting Young Frankenstein. Though brooding, forgetful Van Helsing is made of practically the same stuff as Wolverine, Jackman is unable to make his character smolder. (Maybe it&rsquo;s the hat.) Beckinsale, attempting an awkward Romanian accent, is also less watchable than she was in the thematically similar Underworld. (Maybe it was the cat suits.) At least Sommers seems to understand the stiff actress&rsquo;s main appeal: He introduces us to her ass before we glimpse her ringlet-framed face. Indeed, the director&rsquo;s script offers so much mawkishness and ineptitude that it&rsquo;s tough to know what else to single out. OK, it&rsquo;s not: Dracula&rsquo;s constant switching between screaming and acting a pillar of calm. Anna&rsquo;s out-of-nowhere moment in which she confesses, &ldquo;I&rsquo;ve never been to the sea...I bet it&rsquo;s beautiful!&rdquo; An ending in which a fallen character&rsquo;s face appears all Lion King in the sky. And finally, one anachronistic little whoopsie that symbolizes this mess of a movie pretty much perfectly: an airborne carriage that&mdash;yes&mdash;explodes on impact. The monsters in Young Adam are far lustier than those in Van Helsing, but that doesn&rsquo;t make them any more compelling. Based on a novel by Scottish Beat writer Alexander Trocchi and directed by fellow Scot David Mackenzie, Young Adam is a slow, sullen affair that mistakes a lack of definition for thoughtful lyricism. On the canals of &rsquo;50s Glasgow, Joe (Ewan McGregor) is working on and living in a barge owned by Les (Peter Mullan) and Ella (Tilda Swinton). One day, he and Les come across a body floating in the water. There&rsquo;s no sign of foul play on the slipcovered young woman&rsquo;s corpse, and the mystery of her death becomes the talk of the town. Joe at first seems an upstanding sort, a quiet hard worker whose puppy-dog expressions make him appear sympathetic even as he&rsquo;s rubbing legs with Ella underneath the dinner table. A brief bedroom scene in which Les can&rsquo;t get it up because he&rsquo;s drunk suggests a loutishness that alienates both his lonely wife and the sensitive Joe; the lack of dialogue that passes between the two lets the viewer ascribe a burning connection to Joe and Ella&rsquo;s every stolen glance. It soon becomes evident, however, that the burning isn&rsquo;t exactly taking place in Joe&rsquo;s soul: Young Adam quickly devolves from moody murder mystery to a working-class version of Emmanuelle. In fact, Joe does little more than smoke, screw, and look thoughtful throughout the film&rsquo;s 93 minutes, during which we discover that he knew the drowning victim, a comely lass named Cathie (Emily Mortimer)&mdash;a revelation made in flashbacks that are so irritatingly seamless that it&rsquo;s initially unclear that the story is jumping back in time. McGregor&rsquo;s at first magnetic turn as Joe is rendered ineffective by Mackenzie&rsquo;s undernourished script. Joe&rsquo;s quick, wordless seduction of Ella&mdash;whom Swinton gives a no-frills carnality that&rsquo;s both sensual and distasteful&mdash;is repeated with others until it seems a joke. A steamy eye-locking can certainly be passionate, but Young Adam suggests that Joe need only glance at the town&rsquo;s apparently sex-starved women before they fling their legs around him. The gist of Young Adam is that (1) appearances can be deceiving and (2) most people are selfish bastards. Eventually, an innocent man is charged with Cathie&rsquo;s death, and Les is shown to be a decent, humble husband and father; meanwhile, earthy taskmaster Ella is happy to ignore her partner&rsquo;s feelings as long as she&rsquo;s shagging ne&rsquo;er-do-well Joe. Within the confines of Les and Ella&rsquo;s barge, the volatile dynamic makes for a watchable powder keg of a story, but whenever Joe takes his slime elsewhere, Young Adam fizzles. Audience members unsure of their willingness to stay with the filmmaker&rsquo;s bleak, sexed-up, and somewhat incomplete picture of humanity will likely be polarized by one of Young Adam&rsquo;s most memorable moments: a custard- and ketchup-dripping rape scene that could, I suppose, be of some dark significance. But the scene scans more convincingly as a bit of hard stuff to top all the soft-core that&rsquo;s come before. Like the rest of Young Adam, it provokes the senses much more than the mind. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/romance/MemberTagFilms.aspxromance
Number of films tagged: 7161

Number of people who tagged: 169

Number of times used: 1003

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT71611691003Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/horror/MemberTagFilms.aspxhorror
Number of films tagged: 260

Number of people who tagged: 110

Number of times used: 344

]]>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:48:03 GMT260110344Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/vampire/MemberTagFilms.aspxvampire
Number of films tagged: 610

Number of people who tagged: 62

Number of times used: 135

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:39 GMT61062135Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/terrible/MemberTagFilms.aspxterrible
Number of films tagged: 59

Number of people who tagged: 47

Number of times used: 64

]]>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:51:39 GMT594764Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fairytale/MemberTagFilms.aspxfairytale
Number of films tagged: 197

Number of people who tagged: 45

Number of times used: 80

]]>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 19:04:51 GMT1974580Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hero/MemberTagFilms.aspxhero
Number of films tagged: 638

Number of people who tagged: 43

Number of times used: 141

]]>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:55:16 GMT63843141Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/monster/MemberTagFilms.aspxmonster
Number of films tagged: 1143

Number of people who tagged: 41

Number of times used: 95

]]>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:22:02 GMT11434195Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/supernatural/MemberTagFilms.aspxsupernatural
Number of films tagged: 515

Number of people who tagged: 35

Number of times used: 55

]]>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:07:53 GMT5153555Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/undead/MemberTagFilms.aspxundead
Number of films tagged: 203

Number of people who tagged: 29

Number of times used: 49

]]>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:07:26 GMT2032949Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/werewolf/MemberTagFilms.aspxwerewolf
Number of films tagged: 161

Number of people who tagged: 28

Number of times used: 53

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:39 GMT1612853Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dark-comedy/MemberTagFilms.aspxdark-comedy
Number of films tagged: 27

Number of people who tagged: 19

Number of times used: 38

]]>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:18:41 GMT271938Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/frankenstein/MemberTagFilms.aspxfrankenstein
Number of films tagged: 104

Number of people who tagged: 19

Number of times used: 20

]]>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:37:28 GMT1041920Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/creative/MemberTagFilms.aspxcreative
Number of films tagged: 15

Number of people who tagged: 18

Number of times used: 21

]]>Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:43:44 GMT151821Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/creature/MemberTagFilms.aspxcreature
Number of films tagged: 303

Number of people who tagged: 13

Number of times used: 20

]]>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:55:17 GMT3031320Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dracula/MemberTagFilms.aspxdracula
Number of films tagged: 110

Number of people who tagged: 13

Number of times used: 16

]]>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:37:28 GMT1101316Tag