Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Misc. Films' started by Horrorfan, May 2, 2006.
It’s not good by any means. It’s fun at times. But it’s still such wasted potential. The acting (other than Hugh) bad. The CGI bad. The story bad. The black and white opening is the best part.
It could have been good if Stephen Sommers brought his The Mummy game... But he hasn't brought that since, well, the very first The Mummy.
It has interesting elements to it, but in the end it's just not well done enough, not even in a charming B-movie way, and its faults immensely impact the movies' potential of being enjoyed.
This must have been one of those behind the scenes horror stories where no one really knew what they were doing and nothing in the script (of they had one) made sense to the actual filmmakers and they crossed fingers that somehow an effects blockbuster could come out of it.
I liked it mostly for Hugh Jackman, and David Wenham seemed to be having fun as a swearing friar. Otherwise they tried to do too much with it. They should have chosen one monster and stuck with it instead of throwing three of them into the mix and trying to make it cohesive. I agree that the animated short film was better than the movie.
The outtakes are pretty funny, they're probably on YouTube.
I liked it but by no means was it what it should have been either. This movie could have been so much better. It's disappointing how it did not live up to the promise.
The werewolf designs are still the GOAT.
I used to have a friend who tried to act like a huge film snob, and he hated even the idea of this film, and wouldn’t have accept anything but the classic monsters or Hammer films. I saw it recently, and while it’s not as good as the first two Mummy films, the CGI is much better, and it’s still a fun film. I can still say it’s probably a 4/10 in actually being good to me, but I it’s entertainment value to me is like an 8.
I can't speak to what you need to admit, but I saw this movie in its entirety for the first time recently, and it's terrible. Gaudy and boring. It's in my bottom fifteen of all time, and if it weren't for the sex appeal (Beckinsale, but also Josie Maran is one of the most attractive celebrities I've ever seen), it'd be in my bottom ten.
I saw it in cinema back then and enjoyed it a lot. all of my friends did as well.
ok the acting is bad, mostly Richard Roxburgh
Never could understand it got so much hate
Speaking of it,... I really need to see it again
I ****ing LOVE this movie. I was 12 when it came out and was obsessed with it, so this movie was pretty much tailor made to appeal to me.
Those feelings aside, I still love it. It's a dumb, loud movie about a guy who kills monsters. And it pretty much delivers on it. The plot is dumb, contrived to justify all of these monsters in the same movie, but you cannot fault a man like Sommers with a vision and wills it into existance as much as he can. Part of what makes this movie fun is just the sheer idea of it. It's so bonkers, it's trivial and unfair to dissect the idea of it. Just go with it. And critique the execution after the fact. The bad dialogue, over acting, and a CGI Frankenstein's monster swinging over a chasm is hilarious. It's a bonkers combo of passion and early 00's over CGI. But it's all there because of the quaint, harmless intent of this bonkers vision.
It's no Mummy, but you can tell this is a labor of love for him. No cynicism, no trying to set up a plan of a cinematic universe, he just had this idea and wanted to make it. Kind of like Mummy Returns. Not as good as The Mummy, but goddamn if he doesn't try and push himself.
Whatever you may think of it, Sommers is a man who knew what he wanted and seemed to tell a movie on his own terms. He at least succeeds in creating a roller coaster ride of an experience. It's not a generic movie. Look, it ends with a CGI wolfman fighting Dracula. It's the equivelant of a kid playing with his action figures. There's child like glee to everything and that's great.
I'd recommend Ebert's review of it. He got it.
It's such a shame what happened to Sommers. He instills his movies with more imagination and excitement than what you see in blockbusters today. I wish he was still making them. I wish Kevin Feige would give him a chance. Give him an obscure Marvel character and leave him alone to his vision.
It’s hard to beat the mummy but let’s not compare apples with pears. Just on its own, it’s fun. It’s exciting. It’s adventurous. It’s funny. Roxburgh hams it up which I kind of miss that style of over the top acting these days. I think on a rainy day, it’s just the tonic. It’s good and I’m glad it exists
Loved it whenever it first came out, but not watched it in years. The concept had massive potential, the execution was the issue and people didn’t go for it at the time.
I don't think much of Hugh in this either. He seems to be phoning it in with a dry, monotone delivery most of the time. Either that or he got some poor direction because it is one of the worst performances of his career.
It was better than the aborted Dark Universe. I'll give it that much, but that's rather faint praise.
I like Van Helsing but it's far from a perfect film. I think making Van Helsing an amnesiac immortal and soldier of god was stupid. It made it feel like the character was a Wolverine knockoff.
A little too much iffy CG as well. I would've cut down on that.
I discovered, that I bought the DVD back then...2 Disc Special Edition...I know, what I‘ll watch tonight
Yeah, that aspect was always really unnecessary to me. I can appreciate the religious ideas to it with his good vs Dracula's evil but in a film with this concept, it's forgivable if you don't include it. Fortunately it doesn't bog the movie down too much. It's more of a weird distraction at worst.
So I did do a rewatch of this the other night, and it just cements what I've said before. The werewolves designs in this are really the best in film. Also, I feel like the "monsters" are the only actors who understand what kind of movie this is supposed to be, and they're really playing to it. The two leads are acting like they're in a completely different movie. They're being dramatic, but not in a fun way like everyone else.
I did like the werewolves in this film.
I really liked the Brides as well.
Haven't seen it in years, but as I recall the Brides were the only thing I liked.
I dislike this movie mainly because people associate his look with Van Helsing instead of Solomon Kane.
It's not as good as Stephen Sommer's Mummy films IMO, but I've always enjoyed this film honestly then again I was really young when it first came out. The CGI was never the best IMO, but damn do those designs for the brides and the werewolves kick ass. I also remember really liking a lot of the production design and certain visual shots, although I wish they leaned more into the Gothic horror than they did. Hugh was good in this too and while I love me some Kate Beckinsale that accent she was doing bothered the crap out of me. I'd still watch this over that awful The Mummy movie with Tom Cruise any day though.
Kate Beckinsale was a straight up 10 in this film. Lawd.
The whole tone could have leaned a bit more towards the horror element but (I don't know his name) the guy who played Dracula was awful casting. He had no charm or charisma, which Dracula is meant to have.
Kate Beckinsale is a straight up 10 in sweats, a t-shirt and unbrushed hair.