Tom Cruise is Van Helsing?

[Octoberist]

It's funny how no one here has noticed that 'superhero's info is somewhat inaccurate.

Universal didn't announce Cruise being attached to Van Helsing this week because we would've heard something about it. They actually announced it a year ago:

http://www.eonline.com/news/313144/...-replacing-hugh-jackman-in-van-helsing-reboot

Not only that, the project is stuck in development hell.

 

[Teelie]

I noticed and questioned it.

 

[Lord]

I enjoyed the first one, guilty pleasure, when i was younger i even remember making my oun fake poster of a sequel titled Van Helsing: Reign of the Invisible Man.

 

[Octoberist]

Lord..have mercy.

 

[Lord]

Wh...what?

 

[sueb1863]

The Hugh Jackman version would have been better if they hadn't tried to cram as many monsters as they could into it. But in tone it was fine - I loved that it started out in black and white and used the old Universal logo from the 30s. It was just too busy and got very overblown.

It doesn't need a reboot. Just put Hugh back in the leather coat and give him a better script and make a sequel to the first one.

 

[Octoberist]

The Hugh Jackman version would've worked if it had a more..pulpy Roger Corman vibe to it. Instead it was just cheese with really bad CGI (especially the final battle). I like cheese, but even cheese has to be done well.

 

[Lord]

What does Roger Corman have to do with Universal Horror?

 

[Astro13Zombie]

I hated the Jackman Hellsing movie.
Love the character of Van Helsing though and would love to see him get a proper movie.

Would hope for a portrayal closer to what we saw in Dracula 1931 though rather than the leather clad tough guy that Jackman played.

Just younger of course.

 

[Octoberist]

What does Roger Corman have to do with Universal Horror?

First off, that other post of mine dealt with a double entendre. Sorry you missed the joke!

And secondly, I think you're taking comment too literally. If you're telling me that Sommer's Van Helsing had a classic Universal Monsters vibe..it did..for the opening scene. The rest is just pure bad schlock.

With my Corman comment, it's if you're going to go 'over-the-top' do it with your tongue in your cheek. Go gung-ho with some finesse. His schlock is done right, and that was my point.

 

[superhero]

I also heard that tom cruse is going to be the lead role in the mummy reboot too not going to come out until some time next summer

 

[Octoberist]

You must be doing on purpose. I think I remember you and your 'quirky' comments from last year. And that Mummy reboot not going next year btw.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

I enjoyed the first one, guilty pleasure, when i was younger i even remember making my oun fake poster of a sequel titled Van Helsing: Reign of the Invisible Man.

You are guilty of guilty pleasure.

 

[Drizzle]

The biggest problem with the 2004 Van Helsing was Dracula. What a horrible interpretation of the character.

 

[Lord]

First off, that other post of mine dealt with a double entendre. Sorry you missed the joke!

Don't really understand what that is, sorry english is not my first language.

And secondly, I think you're taking comment too literally. If you're telling me that Sommer's Van Helsing had a classic Universal Monsters vibe..it did..for the opening scene. The rest is just pure bad schlock.

I actually think the look was mostly right, had a dark and gothic look with the mysticicsm Universal Horror films usually brought.

You are guilty of guilty pleasure.

That's why it's called guilty pleasure t:

Which in itself means i don't think it's a good movie, i was just incredibly entertained by it.

 

[superhero]

their also their going t o reboot the mummy. and tom cruse is going to star in it . Its going to come out next summer.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

The biggest problem with the 2004 Van Helsing was Dracula. What a horrible interpretation of the character.

I can't remember one good interpretation there.

 

[Lord]

The Frankenstein's monster interpretation was very different but not bad, it was actually a nice twist

 

[Roose Bolton]

The idea of the wolf man ripping his own skin off was pretty cool.

 

[Drizzle]

I can't remember one good interpretation there.

Frankenstein's monster was okay, as was Mr. Hyde. But they got the Wolfman right.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

The idea of the wolf man ripping his own skin off was pretty cool.

It was cool conceptually, it just wasn't executed well. The Netflix show hemlock grove did a great iteration of that concept though.

 

[Sawyer]

I'm bumping this because it seems everyone has forgotten there was already a thread...

 

[MrMaooz]

I kinda hope he isn't Van Helsing, lol.

 

[Gabe99]

‘Fargo’s Noah Hawley To Adapt His Novel ‘Before The Fall’ In Sony Pic Deal

Hawley, while readying another season of Fargo, is separately scripting an untitled project at Universal that will be part of that studio’s classic monster franchise push.

Universal Monster Shared Universe Movie Set for Spring 2017 Release
Van Helsing is a strong possibility for the 2017 date

 

[Loki882]

The first one suffered from a plot that was somehow both over convoluted and yet drastically low on substance. It just kind of meandered and the plot-device used to bring all of the monsters together just didn't work. It's sad because Jackman was his usual awesome self, they actually gave us a Frankenstein's monster that was closer to Mary Shelley's book (intelligent and articulate), and Richard Roxburgh was delightfully over the top as Dracula (come on, the best Dracula's are the over the top/theatrical ones).