Van Helsing: the nth+1 rewatch
Spoilers ahoy!
I don’t, as a general rule, do werewolves. And I don’t do vampires. Unless they are being hunted by Hugh Jackman or Wesley Snipes, or played by Kate Beckinsale or Richard Roxburgh.
I probably don’t have all the necessary background knowledge to fully appreciate the movie Van Helsing as much as I might like, because I’ve never actually read Frankenstein or Dracula, or any of the canonical werewolf stories. I think I know them fairly well, at least enough to get a majority of the references – like the Creature sailing off at the end of the movie – but there are probably some in-jokes that I miss. Still, I love Van Helsing. I’ve watched it countless times: it’s one of my fall-backs, for when I want a good action romp but don’t necessarily want to give it my full attention.
We watched most of it last night, and finished it off this morning, cos toooo tired. And I got a bit reflective.
Van Helsing himself: I like Hugh Jackman. I really do. I think he has a good acting range, and – having watched the blooper reel for the first time – he seems like a nice guy ‘in real life’. But I grow increasingly unconvinced by that hair, in this role. Aside from that… I think the mythology they’re suggesting for Van Helsing in this movie is totally awesome, and a little part of me wishes there could be a sequel, or prequel, to flesh that out some more. One of the my favourite parts of the whole movie is Dracula crooning “Gabriel… oh Gabriel…” because it’s so spooky. The movie, I presume, is suggesting that Van Helsing is the archangel Gabriel, sent to do God’s dirty work in the world, including killing he-who-became-Dracula – who was presumably a Very Naughty Boy even before he made his deal with the devil. The idea that at some point Gabriel had his memory wiped is intriguing, and I really want to know why: did he disobey God? Was it actually God being compassionate, seeking to give him a better life? And if so, did he become the Vatican’s hitman because it is all he knows? So many questions, and yet such fervent hope that they will never be answered, because no film could do it justice.
Dracula: Richard Roxburgh is so awesome. I could make an obvious joke here comparing Dracula with Bob Hawke, but I won’t… unlike with Jackman’s hair, I think the costume department struck the perfect note for Dracula, from head to toe. Not sleazy, as with many vampires, but delightfully understated in a “I am so rich that I don’t need to wear a shirt emblazoned with Armani” kind of way. I think Roxburgh delivers his lines perfectly – he has such great timing – and his angst over his children is held in wonderful tension with the fact that he doesn’t actually feel anything (he says). I really, really like the fact that we never see him as Dracula until the very end, fighting Jackman-as-werewolf.
The brides: is it just me, or do we never actually find out the brunette’s name is? Anyway, I love the brides. They are very trampy, of course, in their dress, but they’re also vicious killing machines. And they show sisterly solidarity; I’ve seen Big Love, I know how important that is in a polygamous situation. And, the line “hhhello, Anna” is also an awesome one.
Carl: who doesn’t love David Wenham? This is such a hilarious role for him – and, of course, he’s the third Aussie in this cast, which I think is quite remarkable for a Hollywood movie. I love his turn as a medieval Q, and I think he does it delightfully. No Diver Dan and no Faramir; a slightly bumbling monk – sorry, friar – trying to keep his big hulking friend out of trouble. So, much like any other sidekick then. Still, he’s fun.
Anna: ah, Anna. Such ridiculous costuming. Seriously, that corset? And those leggings? Crazy. And who the hell thinks you can run in those boots? Oh right, a male director who wants to appeal to testosterone-crazy boys…. Anyway, I don’t mind Anna. I like that she is mostly self-reliant, that she doesn’t fall for Van Helsing immediately, and that’s she totally impatient with thinking about the situation and just wants to run headlong into it. The one thing that bugs me about her, really – and about the plot as a whole – is that she seems a bit flighty. Seriously, would she really abandon her whole family to Purgatory in an attempt to save her brother, when she doesn’t yet know that Dracula has a cure? Pft.
Igor: I was way more excited than is, perhaps, appropriate when I discovered that Igor was played by the same man as played Benny in The Mummy (“Hey O’Connell, looks like I’ve got all the horses!”). He makes a magnificent henchman, and I really like his delivery, too.
The Creature: eh. I don’t have particularly strong feelings for him either way. He’s obviously meant to come across as noble and self-sacrificing, as opposed to everyone who wants to kill him and thinks that he’s a monster. But sometimes he just comes across as a willing martyr; perhaps that’s when I’m in a particularly cynical mood. I do like the costume, though, with the random green lights.
The plot: oh yeh, I guess there is one. I like the battle with Mr Hyde, even if it is fairly extraneous, except for setting Van Helsing up as a misunderstood soul. First big problem: why did the Vatican wait until only the two Valerius children were left before sending Van Helsing? Particularly when the Cardinal know that there is a link between Van Helsing and the situation there, what the insignia on the scroll and his ring being the same? It makes the Vatican seem unnecessarily selfish. Moving on… I like that the brother became a werewolf, but I think that it could have been done better.
Watching it this time, there are gaping plot holes all over the place, which nearly put a dampener on my enjoyment of the movie. Particularly, that’s an awfully long time between the first and twelfth peels of the bell, when Van Helsing becomes a werewolf. But… I choose to ignore those holes. The characters are interesting enough, and the effects are good enough, that I am happy to put my critical faculties largely on hold and just enjoy it. Because if I can’t do that, then I will never be able to watch a good exploding action movie again, and then my life would be over.
Also, I was reminded on this rewatch how much I like the music in this film. During the carriage race it really adds to the drama, and there are a few bits where Van Helsing’s theme adds delightful atmosphere.
Day 15 – belated, as well
Day 15 – Your “comfort” book
Depends entirely on my mood and why I need comforting.
I’ve recently been reading all the Eddings I can get my hands on; that’s been pretty comforting.
Juliet Marillier’s Wildwood Dancing and Cybele’s Secret are comforting because they’re so easy to read and I love the characters – and the romance.
Hmm. You know what? Embarrassing admission: I think the comforting books are the ones with romances I enjoy. So, in movies I like Han&Leia, I like The Fifth Element for all the awesome action and explosions but so much for the love-angle… and this goes on, and on, in many of my favourite flicks. So I think the same thing applies to books (see previous posts – The Changeover etc). However, I’ve realised in thinking about this question that actually, my recent re-reading of Eddings aside, I haven’t done much comfort RE-reading in a long, long time. I tend to read new stuff instead – new for me, anyway. Which is… interesting. Although I am now feeling the love of the re-read, and am wondering about diving back into the Deathstalker series….
When a franchise just doesn’t know when to die
AvP: Requiem.
Aliens hunt humans. Predator hunts aliens. Lots of humans die.
I was not expecting big things, don’t worry. I was hoping for a straightforward action shoot ’em up. I had hoped for it to make sense, in the alien/predator universe.
Well… it’s a weird movie when the predator is the hero. But there were absolutely no humans that I cared about enough to see them as the hero; not even the pseudo-Ripley figure was particularly engaging. I guess it’s fun to meet new types of aliens (although surely, in five movies, we would have met them all?), and it is always (like, the one time it’s happened before) to see what happens when humans realise the predator is worth keeping on their side.
Seriously though? Not a movie I would receommend even if you are seriously in need of veging. AvP 1, yes; so insanely over the top that I really quite enjoyed it. This one? Being set in a town makes it too cluttered; there are way too many characters to encourage caring about any of them; and there is no reason for most of what happens, except Kill! KILL!!
And I haven’t even finished watching it yet…
Thoughts on Harry Potter #1
Fairly random thoughts, really:
The book was quite similar to the film, in that there was only one section that I remembered being a lot different from the movie (and that might anyway be my memory): the opening. I don’t recall so much detail about Harry-getting-to-Dursleys, which didn’t surprise me and which I quite enjoyed.
It felt very much a first novel; there were some aspects of her writing style that had me wincing. That said, it was certainly readable. Obviously…
It is hard for me to say whether I would have been hooked on this had I read it sans-hype, and before seeing the movie. Possibly? Certainly the omnipresent threat of Voldemort, and the rather neat ‘one school year in a book’ timeline, makes a series seem attractive enough.
There weren’t that many characters in this book, and I think most of them made it into the movie. I know a friend of mine has a thing for Pansy, and I don’t remember her from the movie; there might have been one or two profs who didn’t make it into the movie either. Other than that, a good concordance I think? Also, I had forgotten how genuinely obnoxious Hermione was early on, and how little Harry and Ron like her at first.
This is probably one of the books where for me, having seen the movie was actually quite useful. I love Maggie Smith, so seeing her as Prof McG worked immensely well for me; ditto Robbie Coltraine as Hagrid. The banquet scenes etc probably also worked better for my limited imagination with something to remember.
Characterisation? Not that great. Plot? Not overwhelmingly original. Descriptive? Quite. Do I understand Tansy’s mania for fanfic? Not yet.
This video is full of awesomeness
Of course, you will have to have a passing appreciation of both Star Wars and Star Trek to get the awesomeness… but it’s still remarkably clever editing, even if you don’t!
The Other Boleyn Girl
I wonder if Anne really was as scheming and conniving as this movie makes out… I’m not sure which I think is more believable.
And George?? Seems to me that that’s taking the slander and propaganda put out at the time a little bit too seriously. I find it very difficult to believe that there was any suggestion of incest. It was simply too taboo, surely. (The actor, though – Jude from Across the Universe! – lovely.)
Poor Mary Boleyn. How horrid to be dealt with like that… and to have history all but ignore you, too, after all of that! She is the most interesting of them all, I think, from this portrayal: George is weak; Anne is something of a bitch; Mary is simply too good for her own safety. Natalie Portman is surprisingly good in this role, as is Scarlett Johanssen.
Their mother – whom I can only ever regard as Duckface, thanks to Four Weddings and a Funeral – is magnificent in this movie. Eric Bana… usually I’m a big fan, but he wasn’t wonderful for me here. Maybe because he has quite a bit part, focusing as it does on the women; maybe because filling the shoes of Henry VIII is a big ask, and he’s just not quite up to it – or the script isn’t.
I also hadn’t realised that the gap between Anne and Jane was quite so short as the movie implies, but I guess it makes sense since one of the reasons for getting rid of Anne was the overwhelming desire for a male heir, and Jane seemed like a good option (as, of course, she was. Poor Jane).
Sad: no mention of the allegation that Anne ordered a French sword for the execution because it would be sharper and therefore swifter.
The costumes are simply delightful; I enjoyed the music, too, and the sets.
Iron Man
I’ve seen Iron Man, finally.
And it was brilliant, as I’d heard. I know nothing about the comics, so obviously I can’t comment on its authenticity. But the opening – how he gets the idea, creates it – very clever! Ridiculous, but clever. Tony Stark is one hilarious hero, and hugely enjoyable to watch. I hadn’t expected Robert Downey Jr to be nearly as good as he was! Infinitely watchable. I had expected Gwyneth Paltrow to be a bit painful, but actually I thought she fit the character quite nicely.
The story was interesting enough, without trying to be too ambitious, which I think can sometimes be a failing in films that really, should be all about the action. (OK, I don’t really mean that, but I think directors do sometimes forget that there are lots of us who are happy with good solid stories, and lots of action, and don’t need more convolutions than The Wheel of Time.) There were a couple of points where I was surprised, which is really all I ask for!
The effects were also brilliant.
On the Beach
I’ve finally got around to watching it: the Gregory Peck version.
The opening credits have a delightful orchestral theme. It took me a while to realise it was Waltzing Matilda. It continues as a theme throughout the whole flick, which gets a bit distracting for those of us who know the words.
It’s the most glorious black and white. Colour doesn’t allow for the lovely use of shadow that b&w does, or contrasts; I’ve seen a coloured version of Casablanca and it just doesn’t have the same mood.
It’s set in Melbourne! There’s the Post Office!
I adore Peck. That voice!
Filmed in 1959; there’s a dramatic moment when the calendar reveals that it’s 1964. Dum dum dum.
This is quite a different post-apocalyptic film from what we have tended to get more recently. It’s a peculiarly old-fashioned view of the apocalypse: no anarchy. It’s complicated – in its relationships, its view of causes – and it likes being complicated. It also likes thinking about the causes, which perhaps results from its Cold War origins.
It’s also a lot more forthright than I was expecting, perhaps because it’s based on an Australian book? Example: Lt and wife having a kiss near the beach, stranger walks past and says “Give ‘er what for, mate.” The Lt just waves.
Also: no petrol. Lots of bikes! And horse-drawn buggies.
Ah yes… blame the scientists… there’s even a hint of blaming computers. Fred Astaire is not, so far, as bad as I had feared. Ava Gardner is good; Donna Anderson is marvelous, as the somewhat naive, innocent young wife. Anthony Perkins is utterly fabulous as the young Lt.
My darling has always said we should move to the east coast of NZ’s south island, because the prevailing currents and winds would make it the safest place in the event of a nuclear disaster.
Oh, I really think I’ll have to read this. I’ve never read any Shute; A Town like Alice is really not my thing; this, on the other hand, is right up my alley.
She Who Must be Obeyed
So for those of you about my age or older, who had parents who liked the non-commercial side of TV, that saying surely only has one connotation: Rumpole of the Bailey, discussing his Missus.
I have recently discovered, to my delight, that Leo McKern/Horace Rumpole is not, actually, the originator of that saying. Instead, it is the full title of the titular character in She, by H. Rider Haggard.
I’d heard of the book in passing, and had recently listened to King Solomon’s Mines (more on that in a bit), so I was delighted to find it at Librivox. I got seriously hours of entertainment from listening to She. It’s a glorious adventure tale – very obviously of its time; one of the few difficulties is getting past the “he was a good fellow… for a savage” comments that abound – with handsome young men, ugly old stalwarts, servants who know their place, cannibals, and a supremely beautiful yet terribly flawed woman. I couldn’t figure why I’d never heard of it as a movie – there are some scenes that just seem to have been written for the screen – but I’ve discovered there have actually been two movies. One b&w number from the 1930s, which from IMDb stays faithful, and one starring Ursula Andress as She and Christopher Lee as one of the ‘savages’ (boot polish, anyone??) (and Bernard Cribbins as the servant – that’s Donna Noble’s grandpa!) from the 1960s that is… less so. I don’t think I’ll bother.
Anyway, it’s great. All sorts of interesting questions are raised: are men simply zombified by love? Are all women expected to wait 2000 years for their true love to return after they kill them the first time (oops, slight spoiler)? Are all savages either utterly corrupt or utterly noble? Can hair really go from grey to golden?
Crank
Hmmm.
Jason Statham is an awesome action actor. He’s such a straightman, but delivers comedic lines gloriously. I believe he does lots of his own stunts – and frankly, the only reason to watch most (all?) of his movies is for the stunts.
This movie… well. Action? Tick. Dialogue? Not so much. Care factor of said balance? Not so much. Cos the action is So Cool.
Not the sort of film to watch if you want actual substance – but really, who does? I quite liked the quirky ending, though. And there’s no pretense at credibility, which I appreciated; it was designed and executed as exploding-chasing-gratuitousness, and that’s exactly what you get.
(See how I’m not even bothering to pretend at a plot description? It would be pointless. It’s not why you’d watch it.)
Randomly Yours, Alex 