I learned early on in my enjoyment of Stephen Sommers' work that it is not to be taken seriously, but that you were to sit back and enjoy the ride. I did this with "The Mummy" and "The Mummy Returns" and certainly had a great time (The less said about "The Scorpion King" the better).
"Van Helsing", however, is an entirely different story. OK, I went into this not taking it seriously, but this film was beyond ridiculous at times. I am dying to know where the witty and energetic dialog of "The Mummy" and "The Mummy Returns" went. Except on the odd occasion, I can't find it in this script. Also, there are events in the film that seem totally implausible. (Such as - how could Frankenstein's monster have such an adult depth of understanding about the world and about who he is so quickly after his creation)
Besides that the actors in this movie sometimes ham it up to the max. Roxburgh in particular in his portrayal of Dracula was so over the top at some points that I wanted to smack him. There was also something about him that did not register quite as the sexy vampire that can lure women to their doom. Maybe it was that strange nose of his that kept drawing my attention in every scene he was in.
I would like to tell you that there was some great special effects in this film. There usually are in a Stephen Sommers film, but I couldn't see them given the fact that the screen was so dark half the time. There was very little color or light in this film, and it only added to my general feeling of dislike.
Mr. Sommers, I could tell by the ending that you were thinking "sequel" in your brain. May I suggest that you try a new idea instead.
"Van Helsing", however, is an entirely different story. OK, I went into this not taking it seriously, but this film was beyond ridiculous at times. I am dying to know where the witty and energetic dialog of "The Mummy" and "The Mummy Returns" went. Except on the odd occasion, I can't find it in this script. Also, there are events in the film that seem totally implausible. (Such as - how could Frankenstein's monster have such an adult depth of understanding about the world and about who he is so quickly after his creation)
Besides that the actors in this movie sometimes ham it up to the max. Roxburgh in particular in his portrayal of Dracula was so over the top at some points that I wanted to smack him. There was also something about him that did not register quite as the sexy vampire that can lure women to their doom. Maybe it was that strange nose of his that kept drawing my attention in every scene he was in.
I would like to tell you that there was some great special effects in this film. There usually are in a Stephen Sommers film, but I couldn't see them given the fact that the screen was so dark half the time. There was very little color or light in this film, and it only added to my general feeling of dislike.
Mr. Sommers, I could tell by the ending that you were thinking "sequel" in your brain. May I suggest that you try a new idea instead.