Why did you hate VAN HELSING so much?
Author |
Message |
zingy
College Boy Z
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:40 pm Posts: 36662
|
Algren wrote: Speaking of Razzie's, what is the Razzie's this year :???:
Catwoman and Alexander sweep in the nominations. :razz:
|
Sun Feb 06, 2005 6:49 pm |
|
 |
Algren
now we know
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:31 pm Posts: 68230 Location: Seattle, WA
|
I dont agree that Catwoman should be there, but i understand why it is.
But Alexander? why the fuck is that there!!!! I swear the bastard razzie people judge it on BO sometimes.
_________________STOP UIGHUR GENOCIDE IN XINJIANG FIGHT FOR TAIWAN INDEPENDENCE FREE TIBET LIBERATE HONG KONG BOYCOTT MADE IN CHINA
|
Sun Feb 06, 2005 6:52 pm |
|
 |
zingy
College Boy Z
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:40 pm Posts: 36662
|
Algren wrote: I dont agree that Catwoman should be there, but i understand why it is.
But Alexander? why the fuck is that there!!!! I swear the bastard razzie people judge it on BO sometimes.
Well, I believe Starsky & Hutch got a nomination, and that made quite a lot. Even if it is based on BO, doesn't that make sense, a little bit? I mean, obvsiously if the movie didn't gross that much, or is a huge dissapointment, there's a reason.
|
Sun Feb 06, 2005 6:54 pm |
|
 |
andaroo1
Lord of filth
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:47 pm Posts: 9566
|
alex young wrote: This movie is a lot of fun and way overcriticized. It is better than, say, The Mummy Returns. I'm glad the Razzies snubbed it.
I waaaaaaaaaaaaay disagree with this. The actors in The Mummy movies had so much chemistry and energy. Even when it started to suck, it was still fun.
|
Sun Feb 06, 2005 6:54 pm |
|
 |
Algren
now we know
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:31 pm Posts: 68230 Location: Seattle, WA
|
Zingaling wrote: Algren wrote: I dont agree that Catwoman should be there, but i understand why it is.
But Alexander? why the fuck is that there!!!! I swear the bastard razzie people judge it on BO sometimes. Well, I believe Starsky & Hutch got a nomination, and that made quite a lot. Even if it is based on BO, doesn't that make sense, a little bit? I mean, obvsiously if the movie didn't gross that much, or is a huge dissapointment, there's a reason.
Maybe yeh, but surely it should be judged by the Board of Razzie, not how it performed. :???: i dunno im just guessing.
_________________STOP UIGHUR GENOCIDE IN XINJIANG FIGHT FOR TAIWAN INDEPENDENCE FREE TIBET LIBERATE HONG KONG BOYCOTT MADE IN CHINA
|
Sun Feb 06, 2005 6:57 pm |
|
 |
STEVE ROGERS
The Greatest Avenger EVER
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 18501
|
VAN HELSING had Promise but here's what was totally screwed up:
1. The Actor who played Dracula.. Your shitting me??? Talk about totally miscast for this role..
2. The Law of Physics in this movie drove me crazy.. Example: Kate Beckinsdale's character is being held by her feet from a Flying Vampire flying them threw the air probably a good 50 feet above the ground and then smacks Beckinsdale head first into a tree with a HUGE welt on her forehead and the magically does a complete flip in midair and lands on her feet..
3. Mr.Hyde.. Why did Mr.Hyde have to look like SHREK??? Why did this character need to be CGI?? Why not a real actor and make him look more like Mr.Hyde instead of this Gumbi like character???
The Saving Grace of thie movie?? The Werewolf.. The FX and the strands of CGI Hair looked AWESOME and very mean and menacing... If not for this, this movie would've sucked far worse..
_________________http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dmXF3CE04A This kills TDKR At the box office next summer.. Get used to this
|
Mon Feb 07, 2005 5:26 am |
|
 |
Levy
Golfaholic
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:06 pm Posts: 16054
|
It's the worst movie of 2004! How someone can call the effects good is beyond me. Those flying bat babies looked crappy like The Birds from Hitchcock and the final battle of the monsters was just terrible.
Than you have Beckinsale with a ridiculous romanian accent and Richard Roxburgh in one of the worst performances of all time.
The action sequences were a bore, not one exciting scene in the whole movie.
The only one with dignity left after this crapfest is Hugh Jackman
|
Mon Feb 07, 2005 8:25 am |
|
 |
Algren
now we know
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:31 pm Posts: 68230 Location: Seattle, WA
|
I agree the character of Dracula was mis-cast, he played one of the bad guys in M:I-2 if im correct, and this role wasnt for him, but hey....get over it. Your other points i see nothing wrong with.
_________________STOP UIGHUR GENOCIDE IN XINJIANG FIGHT FOR TAIWAN INDEPENDENCE FREE TIBET LIBERATE HONG KONG BOYCOTT MADE IN CHINA
|
Mon Feb 07, 2005 8:39 am |
|
 |
Snrub
Vagina Qwertyuiop
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:14 pm Posts: 8767 Location: Great Living Standards
|
I didn't hate Van Helsing, it just bored me silly.
EDIT: Except for the flying baby vampires. They were hilarious.
|
Mon Feb 07, 2005 11:54 am |
|
 |
Front of House
Full Fledged Member
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 11:15 am Posts: 53 Location: UK
|
Levy wrote: It's the worst movie of 2004! How someone can call the effects good is beyond me. Those flying bat babies looked crappy like The Birds from Hitchcock and the final battle of the monsters was just terrible. Than you have Beckinsale with a ridiculous romanian accent and Richard Roxburgh in one of the worst performances of all time. The action sequences were a bore, not one exciting scene in the whole movie. The only one with dignity left after this crapfest is Hugh Jackman
funny - i thought the worst thing about it was hugh jackman! i loved him as wolverine (tho' didn't really rate the films) and was disappointed by his camp performance as van helsing...
i thought the film was awful, but at the end of the day, i wasn't bored for a single scene... and i would rather be entertained by crap, then secretly bored by a great film that i'm trying my best to like.
actually, i take that back: i thought the first vampire raid went on a tiny bit too long. but the film whizzed by, and i laughed at quite a few parts.
has anyone seen the cartoon? is it any better?
Front of House
--
Today's Bodybuilding Tip. When training your shoulders or back, avoiding pulling to/ pushing from behind the neck. You can minimise the risk of injury by doing these exercises to or from the chest. Arch your back a little for maximum contraction. In this striking pose, it is vital to keep your moustache stiff and shiny, so have a tub of gentleman's grooming wax close by.
|
Mon Feb 07, 2005 12:01 pm |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 75 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|