Vampires and Werewolves: Thankfully, With Nothing To Do With the World of Darkness or White-Wolf
I never did like Anne Rice or anything she ever wrote, nor have I ever been overly fond of anything inspired from that line of writing. Modern adaptations of the vampire folklore has always rung too overblown and melodramatic for my tastes . . . Which isn’t amazingly surprising, what with the dominance of Melodrama in the Theatre for so long in the 20th century. Anyway, that is beside the point, and what I’m basically getting at is that vampires as egregiously flamboyant and . . . British . . . nobles has always bothered me. There’s good reason I refuse to participate in any games of Vampire: The Masquerade or what have you.
So, all of that was a preface for my review of Van Hellsing, however. I went out with a couple friends on opening night and viewed this flick, not really expecting much, to be honest. I had no expectations for anything beyond a monster-filled action sort of ordeal. I was pleasantly surprised to receive something more than that, though; it was highly entertaining, on top of using interpretations of the folklore of vampires, werewolves, and literary figures that I wholeheartedly loved.
For starters, let’s go with the appearance of Frankenstein and Frankenstein’s monster. It was quite traditional, in many ways harkening back to classic horror approaches to cinema. Which is another thing: Van Hellsing rung very true to those old-time, immortal fixtures in horror history, but with modern graphics and effects that made it come off much more convincing; still, it had the undertones of all those hokey, dated films about monsters that everybody loved to watch as kids. I digress, though, so let me get back to Frankenstein: there was nothing more amusing to me than the character of Frankenstein’s monster in the movie. I’d rather not go into detail about what he did, but to see him portrayed as an intelligent, rational being that spoke for the side of reason and understanding, rather than a frothing, drooling bucket of flesh and bolts, made me happy. Granted, Frankenstein’s monster has always evoked a very large amount of sympathy, but never before have I seen him actually made to be well-spoken and articulate. It was immensely deviant from the original work of Shelley, but I’ve never been one to complain about people taking artistic liberties. In the end, I couldn’t help but smile every time it was fucking Frankenstein’s monster who hit Van Hellsing upside the head with logic.
Now, as can be inferred from the very first paragraph, I just don’t like modern interpretations of vampires, in most cases. They’re way too dainty and way too much like faeries with fangs, in my opinion. Now, in Van Hellsing, Dracula still sipped his glass of wine and acted as an aristocrat would — because, you know, Dracula was an aristocrat — but, also, he did his fair share of raging the fuck out and beating and stabbing the hell out of some motherfuckers. Dracula also wasn’t British, and was, instead, Slavic, ironically enough, considering he was from Romania. By the way, that wasn’t irony, that just made sense. Heh, they even had impaled skeletons out in front of his castle, as my roommate pointed out, that were direct references to the original tale, which the story of Dracula stemmed from, of Vlad the Impaler. In other words, I could not be more enamored with the image of a Dracula that had no qualms being vicious, brutal, ugly, nasty, and dirty. Too many times have I seen vampires who wrinkle their nose at the sight of blood, virtually. No, no, Dracula would not have any problem twisting your intestines out of your stomach by hand, and that’s what he basically did in Van Hellsing.
Admittedly, I am not overly familiar with the story of Van Hellsing, himself, nor have I read any of the literature upon which his character is based. So, I can’t really criticise the movie from that perspective. I will say, however, that I thought Hugh Jackman did a fine job of portraying someone who is internally conflicted with the suffering of having no past and being an inexplicably efficient killing machine. To put it another way and be frank about it, he did an excellent job reprising the role of Wolverine except in a floppy hat with a gigantic crossbow in place of claws protruding from the knuckles. It wasn’t really until I wrote the previous couple of sentences that I even noticed how similar the character of Van Hellsing and Wolverine are, but, yeah, they run along almost identical lines . . . No memory of their past, nor do they have any clue how long they’ve been around, but they do a damn good job at killing people and getting a job done for a higher authority that neither one really agrees with, entirely. Van Hellsing worked for the Church, but obviously did not consider himself a wholly holy man (my apologies for the turn of that phrase); Wolverine worked for Professor Xavier, but commonly struck out on his own in defiance of orders from the Professor. Don’t get me wrong here, either — I’m not registering a complaint about this, so much as I’m making a casual observation. Van Hellsing served very well as the anti-hero of the movie, and kicked a lot of ass. Has anyone else noticed that Hugh Jackman is the 21st century incarnate of Bruce Campbell?
Van Hellsing, overall, was a good, old-fashioned action movie with strong tinges of horror/monster flavour. A friend, in his writing about the movie, called attention to the comparison that can be made between this movie and The Mummy, with Brendan Frasier, which is a point on which I agree. The plot is straightforward, the characters aren’t complicated, and the theme is not anything outside that of the epic archetype. It didn’t make me think, and it didn’t make me cry . . . It made me laugh, and it made me smile, and it, most of all, entertained me very thoroughly.
Yes, I did completely fail to address the character of Anna Valerious, and that has to do with the fact that there is very little content added by her presence, really. She’s the female lead role, and she serves as the stereotypical strong-willed but out-matched love interest for the hero. Yes, yes, we’ve all seen this arrangement before: she wants to fight, but she can’t do it on her own, and is ineffectual up until a very vital crux point wherein she displays the inner qualities of her character by making a single, crucial action. I wasn’t particularly moved by Velerious, further than thinking that Kate Beckinsale is not all that attractive in a corset (or in general, in my opinion). Eh, she was there, and she had a function, but she just . . . Failed to add anything interesting to the mix, in the end.
Don’t go into Van Hellsing expecting the latest and greatest movie of all-time, and don’t go in expecting to see the figures of common lore treated as they usually are. Do expect to see an action-filled two hours of impressive effects and well-written dialogue. Blatantly ignoring Anne Rice and making corny monster movies look good, Van Hellsing rates at a low 13% Failure Rating — because that’s about what I felt about it, and the number is appropriate, damn it.
So, I was rereading this review before saving it, and realised I failed to acknowledge a character I did like, so let me do that real quick. The Friar Carl: comic relief, holy but sinful man of the cloth. Much like the Egyptian in The Mummy, he supplied the role of a coward sidekick who didn't want to really be there, but did help out, profusely. He was funny, and he was the brains of the bunch. Also, he handed out medieval-flavoured gadgetry like candy, so I can't say, "No," to that.
Come to think of it, there's really a lot more in this movie I could address, but I don't think I want to devote the time to it. So, in a series of short sentences, I will touch on several more things, quickly. Igor as a treacherous bastard was great. "Dracula has evil Oompa-Loompas, teehee." Why does the Holy Church of Rome have something akin to the British Secret Service of James Bond fame? I want a gatling crossbow. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde must've taken a vacation from the League of Extraordinary Gentleman long enough to cameo in this movie, by the way . . . And die. And much with the room for the sequelling and the oye, nice lady, too. Done.
[At a much later date, I came to be informed that Van Hellsing was directed by the same guy who did The Mummy, so I suppose that explains the uncanny similarity, eh?]
Adios.
So, all of that was a preface for my review of Van Hellsing, however. I went out with a couple friends on opening night and viewed this flick, not really expecting much, to be honest. I had no expectations for anything beyond a monster-filled action sort of ordeal. I was pleasantly surprised to receive something more than that, though; it was highly entertaining, on top of using interpretations of the folklore of vampires, werewolves, and literary figures that I wholeheartedly loved.
For starters, let’s go with the appearance of Frankenstein and Frankenstein’s monster. It was quite traditional, in many ways harkening back to classic horror approaches to cinema. Which is another thing: Van Hellsing rung very true to those old-time, immortal fixtures in horror history, but with modern graphics and effects that made it come off much more convincing; still, it had the undertones of all those hokey, dated films about monsters that everybody loved to watch as kids. I digress, though, so let me get back to Frankenstein: there was nothing more amusing to me than the character of Frankenstein’s monster in the movie. I’d rather not go into detail about what he did, but to see him portrayed as an intelligent, rational being that spoke for the side of reason and understanding, rather than a frothing, drooling bucket of flesh and bolts, made me happy. Granted, Frankenstein’s monster has always evoked a very large amount of sympathy, but never before have I seen him actually made to be well-spoken and articulate. It was immensely deviant from the original work of Shelley, but I’ve never been one to complain about people taking artistic liberties. In the end, I couldn’t help but smile every time it was fucking Frankenstein’s monster who hit Van Hellsing upside the head with logic.
Now, as can be inferred from the very first paragraph, I just don’t like modern interpretations of vampires, in most cases. They’re way too dainty and way too much like faeries with fangs, in my opinion. Now, in Van Hellsing, Dracula still sipped his glass of wine and acted as an aristocrat would — because, you know, Dracula was an aristocrat — but, also, he did his fair share of raging the fuck out and beating and stabbing the hell out of some motherfuckers. Dracula also wasn’t British, and was, instead, Slavic, ironically enough, considering he was from Romania. By the way, that wasn’t irony, that just made sense. Heh, they even had impaled skeletons out in front of his castle, as my roommate pointed out, that were direct references to the original tale, which the story of Dracula stemmed from, of Vlad the Impaler. In other words, I could not be more enamored with the image of a Dracula that had no qualms being vicious, brutal, ugly, nasty, and dirty. Too many times have I seen vampires who wrinkle their nose at the sight of blood, virtually. No, no, Dracula would not have any problem twisting your intestines out of your stomach by hand, and that’s what he basically did in Van Hellsing.
Admittedly, I am not overly familiar with the story of Van Hellsing, himself, nor have I read any of the literature upon which his character is based. So, I can’t really criticise the movie from that perspective. I will say, however, that I thought Hugh Jackman did a fine job of portraying someone who is internally conflicted with the suffering of having no past and being an inexplicably efficient killing machine. To put it another way and be frank about it, he did an excellent job reprising the role of Wolverine except in a floppy hat with a gigantic crossbow in place of claws protruding from the knuckles. It wasn’t really until I wrote the previous couple of sentences that I even noticed how similar the character of Van Hellsing and Wolverine are, but, yeah, they run along almost identical lines . . . No memory of their past, nor do they have any clue how long they’ve been around, but they do a damn good job at killing people and getting a job done for a higher authority that neither one really agrees with, entirely. Van Hellsing worked for the Church, but obviously did not consider himself a wholly holy man (my apologies for the turn of that phrase); Wolverine worked for Professor Xavier, but commonly struck out on his own in defiance of orders from the Professor. Don’t get me wrong here, either — I’m not registering a complaint about this, so much as I’m making a casual observation. Van Hellsing served very well as the anti-hero of the movie, and kicked a lot of ass. Has anyone else noticed that Hugh Jackman is the 21st century incarnate of Bruce Campbell?
Van Hellsing, overall, was a good, old-fashioned action movie with strong tinges of horror/monster flavour. A friend, in his writing about the movie, called attention to the comparison that can be made between this movie and The Mummy, with Brendan Frasier, which is a point on which I agree. The plot is straightforward, the characters aren’t complicated, and the theme is not anything outside that of the epic archetype. It didn’t make me think, and it didn’t make me cry . . . It made me laugh, and it made me smile, and it, most of all, entertained me very thoroughly.
Yes, I did completely fail to address the character of Anna Valerious, and that has to do with the fact that there is very little content added by her presence, really. She’s the female lead role, and she serves as the stereotypical strong-willed but out-matched love interest for the hero. Yes, yes, we’ve all seen this arrangement before: she wants to fight, but she can’t do it on her own, and is ineffectual up until a very vital crux point wherein she displays the inner qualities of her character by making a single, crucial action. I wasn’t particularly moved by Velerious, further than thinking that Kate Beckinsale is not all that attractive in a corset (or in general, in my opinion). Eh, she was there, and she had a function, but she just . . . Failed to add anything interesting to the mix, in the end.
Don’t go into Van Hellsing expecting the latest and greatest movie of all-time, and don’t go in expecting to see the figures of common lore treated as they usually are. Do expect to see an action-filled two hours of impressive effects and well-written dialogue. Blatantly ignoring Anne Rice and making corny monster movies look good, Van Hellsing rates at a low 13% Failure Rating — because that’s about what I felt about it, and the number is appropriate, damn it.
So, I was rereading this review before saving it, and realised I failed to acknowledge a character I did like, so let me do that real quick. The Friar Carl: comic relief, holy but sinful man of the cloth. Much like the Egyptian in The Mummy, he supplied the role of a coward sidekick who didn't want to really be there, but did help out, profusely. He was funny, and he was the brains of the bunch. Also, he handed out medieval-flavoured gadgetry like candy, so I can't say, "No," to that.
Come to think of it, there's really a lot more in this movie I could address, but I don't think I want to devote the time to it. So, in a series of short sentences, I will touch on several more things, quickly. Igor as a treacherous bastard was great. "Dracula has evil Oompa-Loompas, teehee." Why does the Holy Church of Rome have something akin to the British Secret Service of James Bond fame? I want a gatling crossbow. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde must've taken a vacation from the League of Extraordinary Gentleman long enough to cameo in this movie, by the way . . . And die. And much with the room for the sequelling and the oye, nice lady, too. Done.
[At a much later date, I came to be informed that Van Hellsing was directed by the same guy who did The Mummy, so I suppose that explains the uncanny similarity, eh?]
Adios.
posted by c.Jay Wrong at
1:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home