Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

i have always loved the character van helsing, and in bram stokers dracula Anthony Hopkins was the best.
Would the movie that came out with jackman been better if it was a darker type horror and stayed truer to the character of van helsing?

Obviously?

I thought Van Helsing was okay. I would have loved it if it was a dark horror. They should have left the adventures to Indiana Jones and let this be a horror.

The only true Van Helsing is Peter Cushing, every horrorfan knows this

Maybe, but the film was just bad all around, it would have needed to be drasticaly different for me to enjoy it. It felt very sloppy.

Not this one, I know Van Helsing to be Edward Van Sloan.

Anycrap, my answer is "No". While it was a total 180 for the character going from a college professor to a trenchcoated 30 something who apparently had Whistler as a parts dealer, it flopped. The character was uncharismatic, his supporting cast were unintentionally comic relief, the CGI monsters were about as bad as those in LXG, and it was just a poorly planned summer blockbuster, and it shows.

Not that I actually enjoyed any of the original Universal monster movies, "Van Helsing" really made a mockery of what they stood for.

I like van helsing but I will admit It should have been darker

trenchcoated 30 something who apparently had Whistler as a parts dealer (Cinema)
...................................................................................................

yes IMO as would all comic book movies.

I loved Stephen Sommer's Van Helsing. It should've been a bit longer & it could've been a bit darker but overall, I loved the film the way it was.

i voted yes, it just noticed that hugh jackman had a jolly good time during his scenes, but unfortunatly this wasn't real horror. I had hoped it would have been a little like Bram's stroker's Dracula.
A dark and classy horrormovie.

the beginning scene......so so sad and i mean sad as in storywise, frankenstine was not milked, he wasnt some dumb coward he was like the freaking terminator, killed people and everything, could treat you to peaces with his bare hands, dodge BULETS! read the books its true.

hellz yeah!!!

it was a ****ing disgrace

No, it wasn't. The Frankenstein in Van Helsing was like the Frankenstein in Mary Shelly's book. He wasn't really supposed to be some super killing machine. Also, Richard Roxburgh did a fantastic job as Dracula & for my first time watching it I thought he was a little scary & was definitely unpredictable.

It should have gone the same way as Coppola's Dracula, not the awful mess that was Van Helsing. Ugh.

The best place to start for a hypothetically improved van helsing movie. Would be to start with the script, and then focus on the tone of the movie. Everything from the introduction of characters to ction sequences were just silly. I know the movie was supposed to be a loose combination of golden age cinema and sophistication, but like backfire said. It just felt very sloppy and undecided on the overall direction

this movie will forever be one of my favorite worst movies of all time. I havent seen the movie in a while, but all i really remember were people swinging from cables to other cables that shouldnt have been there. stuff like that

Why do you all think that this movie was so bad?

Originally posted by Ultimate Hulk43
Why do you all think that this movie was so bad?

here's a better question:

Why do you think this movie was good?

Here's a movie that did away with all the morbid and gothic value of classic monster element and sh*t out a movie where no one could possible take it for any serious value. This film is far too loud(no pun intended). To colorful and flashy. What happen to classic mists and cerebral scares. Hugh Jackman was terrible, dido to Kate Beckingsale(but she's fcuking hot, tho, LOL!). Only thing scary about it was jackman's hairdo and only thing good about it was Kate's flashlights.

Originally posted by Ultimate Hulk43
Why do you all think that this movie was so bad?

Because i have an attention span longer than a retarded crack pheaned lesbian at an orgy party consisting of 1000 milla jovovich clones.

Originally posted by doomsday49
here's a better question:

Why do you think this movie was good?

Here's a movie that did away with all the morbid and gothic value of classic monster element and sh*t out a movie where no one could possible take it for any serious value. This film is far too loud(no pun intended). To colorful and flashy. What happen to classic mists and cerebral scares. Hugh Jackman was terrible, dido to Kate Beckingsale(but she's fcuking hot, tho, LOL!). Only thing scary about it was jackman's hairdo and only thing good about it was Kate's flashlights.

Well, everyone has different opinions & I happen to like the movie. I don't think it was bad but I was hoping for it to be a bit more scary but it's still good the way it is.

it's not that the film is terrible it just tries too hard to be a scary film when really it's hard to be scared by one of the worlds most camp dracula, a frankenstiens monster who looks too rubbery, oh and the fact that the effects were all pretty bad. the werewolf was good though.