Van Helsing
*whoops, typed Van Halen first time round, that would have been a slightly different discussion*
Well I want to know what people thought of the movie as I was supremely unimpressed and would not advise anyone to see it. I would put it on a par with The Avengers. Anyway, I also wanted to discuss some of the finer points of logic in the ending so if you haven't seen the movie yet, read no further. SPOILER AHEAD!! SPOILER AHEAD!! SPOILER AHEAD!! SPOILER AHEAD!! SPOILER AHEAD!! SPOILER AHEAD!! SPOILER AHEAD!! SPOILER AHEAD!! SPOILER AHEAD!! SPOILER AHEAD!! SPOILER AHEAD!! SPOILER AHEAD!! Okay, so Dracula was a Gypsy prince who was murdered and made a pact with the Devil to come back to life as a vampire. And then we find out it was Van Helsing who murdered him. This leads to a number of questions: a) This would mean that Van Helsing is over 400 years old. I guess this makes sense if he is the 'left hand of God' but if he is a supernatural good guy, how could he ever be killed OR turned into a werewolf? b) Why would he have murdered Dracula in the first place. The gypsies seem to think that Dracula was not innately evil until he made his pact with the Devil. c) Isn't the whole point of being a gypsy that you don't live in a huge castle and worship Christianity |
Good questions. Here's what I have to say:
Firstly, I think the movie was alright ... I guess. I mean, it was crafted well, and the transformations were cool, indeed, but ... meh. As for questions: Van Helsing was referred to as Gabriel by Drac a number of times. Making him Gabriel, God's Messenger. I suppose that for the purposes of the movie, he had to be born in the form of a mortal human. Maybe he killed Drac before because he was hired to do so. Or maybe he was some tyrannical leader; I can't remember if the movie explained it. And I don't know anything about gypsies. Lastly, I must point out some things about the Frankenstein Monster. In the original story by Mary Shelley, Victor Frankenstein was a college student studying biology and medicine, and eventually, he did achieve the creation of life. As the movie shows, the thing he creates is very large (the doctor considers handling larger body parts easier than handling small ones). But, he was actually a fairly attractive thing, by human standards. He even had long, dark hair, if memory serves. There was no bullshit about bolts in the neck and a flat scalp. He did study Christian religion, and was a very emotional and psychological being. But he is never referred to as Frankenstein in the original work; he is called the creature, or the monster. Van Helsing avoids this mistake, and calls it Frankenstein's monster. Very good! Anyhow, I suppose that they had to do what they did for the movie's purpose. Frankenstein created the monster all on his own (there was never an Igor, or as the original version of the film called him, a Fritz). The secret of bestowing life isn't even in the book. The monster was terrifying to Frankenstein, and he went slowly crazy, trying to cover up his monster for several years. It tries to follow him and to approach him civilly, but Frankenstein eventually ends up dying of some disease in the North Atlantic; he didn't die in a windmill fire. Frankensteins monster eventually made its way up to the north pole, where he destroyed himself with fire. Okay, enough Literature Review. I just wanted to present what I knew. |
I hav'nt seen it yet, not gunna either so I just read trough the post. I heard van Helsing is a little cliche and stuff and a just a bad movie. The fact that so much 'ancient' character are mixed in one movie is stupid anyway for all I care...
|
:
|
haven't seen the movie yet, but I know it's very multicultural:
An Aussie, playing a Dutchman, while the Americans think he's German... |
STUPID AMERICANS!
|
To be honest it does seem immensely cliché but i'm still going to see it.
I really don't think that they should have had all the famous monsters in one film. And if they should they shoudln't have killed them all off [i assume they kill them all off] and so leave a kinda open endedness for the third film [if it's going to be a trilogy]. And i say third film because when a bad guy escapes death in the first one, only to appear in the second and get killed, it kinda takes the...i dunno...goodness out of it. So if the bad guy were to appear in the 3rd, it'd be much better. |
I haven't seen it, I saw Shaun Of The Dead instead.
Is Van Helsing any god? |
...
They made Dracula a gypsy? He was supposed to be a noble or boyar, who was served by gypsies, not one of them. And Gary Oldman will always be the best Dracula to me.
|
No the good guys were gypsies. Dracula was a gypsy before he became a vamp. And Richard Roxburgh does quite a good job.
I had another thought about Van Helsing yesterday. Assuming he is some angelic 'left hand of God' character why would he be trying to redeem himself? Also, if he really fought with the Israelites at Masada then he can't really be all that good cos they lost the battle with the Romans and all committed suicide rather than be enslaved |