Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

What the heck?

I went to the cinema yesterday. Watched Van Helsing. I should have known what to expect, considering it was another vampire movie, set in Transylvania (which is always so ridiculously over the top gothic and gloomy in movies), but I did it anyway.

Seriously, is it too much to ask to do at least a little bit of research about the country the frikkin' movie is set in? Because, what's with the bad Slavic accents? What?

If Romanian sounds like any other language at all, it's a bit like Italian. Not like any Slavic language at all -- its roots are Latin. Latin, I tell you! Which is why I can understand (written) Portuguese without ever having learned one word of it, and can at least guess at the meanings of most Italian, French and Spanish texts.

Dammit. The movie itself was ridiculous and probably intentionally so, but the overabundance of atrocious accents really grated and kept me from enjoying it. Oh, and there wasn't even any redeeming nookie in the end -- instead, I got to see one of the most umbelievably stupid, cheesy movie endings ever.

I think the saddest thing about it all was that there were just a few moments of perfect, natural acting that showed what this movie could have been, because Hugh Jackman and Kate Beckinsale are actually good actors, and David Wenham is just delightful.


( 6 comments — Leave a comment )
May. 15th, 2004 06:53 am (UTC)
I pretty much had the same opinion. I was insanely disappointed in Van Helsing. I felt they spent too much on CGI/special effects and not enough on writing a script. Plus Dracula needing the Frankenstein monster to birth his unborn? Lame.

And the sheer number of babies was silly. Even after 400 years I doubt they could have been that prolific.
May. 16th, 2004 03:23 pm (UTC)
The number of babies was silly indeed, although I didn't dwell on that too much. However, I think the script was intentionally silly. Maybe they thought vampire movies have to be cheesy and illogical... Who knows?
May. 15th, 2004 08:38 am (UTC)
I neevr expected anything of that movie so i ahd a drarn fine time laughing my ass off at the cheesy accents and cliché bits. Flinched once in a while at the tastlessness of the monsters and was happily suprised at the pretty fine werewolf renditions (save the shots whith the spikey rabbitear-look). B MOVIES WITH A BUDGET!! is a whole own category in itself, fer sure, ha ha ha. XD
May. 16th, 2004 03:26 pm (UTC)
The werewolves were good indeed -- as was Mister Hyde. It amazed me to be honest, since the last humanoid animation I saw from ILM was the horrid, horrid Scorpion King in The Mummy 2. Damn, but I so wanted to hurt them after that one...

And yes, B movies with a budget can be entertaining. The first Mummy movie was, which is why I had such high hopes for this one... *sigh*
May. 15th, 2004 01:08 pm (UTC)
You forgot. Hugh Jackman also has long hair! [/fangirl]

Haven't seen it yet, but that's the only reason I intend to. ^_^
May. 16th, 2004 03:28 pm (UTC)
Hugh Jackman is nice and an actor I really like, but for some reason I can't fangirl over him at all. Actually, my hormones are strangely indifferent to all male actors I know. No idea why.
( 6 comments — Leave a comment )