I saw this yesterday, and my opinion is that movie theaters need to stop allowing people under 16 to go into movies that are rated R even with their parents. Some jackasses decided to take their ~4 year old to see it and sat next to my wife and I. Of course, the kid was a typical kid and was getting scared, yet the parents were too stupid to realize that you shouldn't take a young kid to see a potentially scary movie, so they pretty much ruined it for me.
Some days, I wish I had the license to exterminate stupid parents like this. If they don't have the sense to not take their kid to a scary movie, they probably don't have the brainpower to feed them, send them to school, etc.
quote:I saw this yesterday, and my opinion is that movie theaters need to stop allowing people under 16 to go into movies that are rated R even with their parents.
"Van Helsing" is rated PG-13, but I agree 100% with parents using bad judgement about what movies are appropriare for small children.
I was sitting next to a little girl who absolutely freaked out at "Attack of the Clones" and had to be carried out of the theater. A wonderful viewing experience for the rest of us.
Same thing happened at our viewing. A couple brought in a very young child who would start screaming at the loud noises (of which there were a lot in this film). The mother's solution? Take the baby into the entranceway and stand there so she could still watch the movie. Of course, all that did was shield her from view, the kid's screams were just as bad twelve feet down the aisle.
If you have a baby, spring for a babysitter or wait for the frickin' DVD.
And why is it that Zixar seems so upset at this alleged substandard portrayal of Dracula?
Dracula is supposed to be pretty cool and normally a real bad guy, but the portrayal in this film was not ominous enough. In fact, he didn't really do much for being the primary villain.
Van Helsing on the other hand, was not so famous so there wasn't much expectation other than what was in that Dracula movie from the 90's. Personally, I felt that Van Helsing's character was a bit of a ripoff of Vampire Hunter D and Wolverine.
I was sitting next to a little girl who absolutely freaked out at "Attack of the Clones" and had to be carried out of the theater. A wonderful viewing experience for the rest of us.
Some people just have absolutely no common sense.
I guess it's just a Texas thing, because parents here refuse to leave the theater unless you go get a cop to enter the theater and ask them to leave.
Took the wife to see "Van Helsing" for Mother's Day. It was our daughter's idea. She saw it out in Maryland. She's pursuing Korean sword-fighting-type martial arts right now, and she was impressed with the heroine. I'm looking forward to watching our daughter go through HER lightning swords of doom routine sometime.
I've got to say, when the "wolfman" (not to give away secrets to those who haven't yet seen), silhouetted against the huge full moon with the babe in his arms, tilted his head back and howled, it stirred a thrill in me that movies rarely stir these days. Maybe it was a residual thrill from all the Saturday matinees I watched back in the sixties.
The Van Helsing character reminded me also of a cross between Vampire Hunter D and Wolverine. I pictured the original from Bram Stoker's novel as being someone more like E.W. Bullinger.
I think the monsters' personalities were pretty true to their Universal prototypes, and that was a good thing. Dracula was no Bela Lugosi, but I think some of the things that pictures like this have gained in CGI comic-book-style action, they have lost in atmospherics.
I like the way the brides of Dracula were used for vampire action through the movie to save the Count himself for the big confrontation at the end.
What was with crossbow arms on a gas powered repeating bolt shooter? Apart from that, I liked the psuedo late 19th, early 20th century technology.
I kept expecting to see Frau Blucher show up. And speaking of "Young Frankenstein, Van Helsing's sidekick, the guy who used to be Faramir, kept reminding me of Marty Feldman's "Eye"gor in YF. In all, I enjoyed the movie. Fortunately, no thoughtless parents brought their sprats to the viewing we were at.
quote:I guess it's just a Texas thing, because parents here refuse to leave the theater unless you go get a cop to enter the theater and ask them to leave.
I know what you mean MasterP... but if you go to the manager and complain, they'll (most times) ask the folks to leave... but then you end up missing part of the movie... so you're scrod either way...
Steve: Actually, what I was thinking on that crossbow was that the gas bottle in the stock must have been a holy relic, forged from the adamantine of the gates of Hell. While the mechanism seems far-fetched, there's nothing physically impossible about it, save the reservoir for the compressed gas. When the trigger is pulled, a gas valve could open as the bolt receiver slammed into the headstock, moving a piston to re-cock the crossbow, while the exhaust gas could turn the bolt cylinder on some sort of ratchet. It would work--but you wouldn't get more than a shot or two off of a softball-sized gas tank.
But I take it your question was more "why not use the gas directly to shoot the bolts out of a barrel, instead of the whole crossbow thing?" After all, VH uses two regular Webley .455 manstoppers anyway, and Hiram Maxim invented the machine gun around the time of the movie, so why a crossbow?
Two answers:
1) You have to stake a vampire through the heart, according to legend. Wooden bullets wouldn't stand up to the stress of being fired, and would really be too small, anyway. Since the bolts have to be fletched in order to have a stable flight, you can't form a gas seal around the feathers. You could push it out with a gas check block from behind, but friction would require a gas seal beyond the technology of the time. Transferring energy from a short release of gas to compressing the steel of a crossbow's arms keeps the energy ready to discharge better than relying on gas, whose pressure will drop as rounds are fired. It also allows the crossbow to be manually cocked when the Miraculous Gas Bottle runs out.
I noticed the little puffs of exhaust steam coming off of the Frankenstein monster's knee when he used it. I thought it was cool, too, but I didn't think to mention it in my post. Thanks for refreshing my memory.
Regarding the powers of the crossbow bolt thrower, I enjoyed the shot where the sidekick (or was it Anna?) peeked out from behind the horse trough or whatever it was, and the whole area was just bristling with bolts except for the character! It sure fired fast, but I don't think we can say too much for its accuracy :-)
You are very considerate. But the name of a character is not a spoiler.
They just changed his name for the movie, which is not exactly a faithful adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel. I guess it's the same reason The Incredible Hulk on television was "David Banner" instead of Bruce. Some writer probably owed a war buddy a favor or something.
quote:...the name of a character is not a spoiler.
Thanks, Raf. I didn't want to unwittingly reveal a plot device to folks who haven't seen the movie yet. I really dislike folks doing that to me, so I avoid reading anything that has "spoiler" attached to it (unless I've already seen the show). ;)-->
Recommended Posts
Mister P-Mosh
I saw this yesterday, and my opinion is that movie theaters need to stop allowing people under 16 to go into movies that are rated R even with their parents. Some jackasses decided to take their ~4 year old to see it and sat next to my wife and I. Of course, the kid was a typical kid and was getting scared, yet the parents were too stupid to realize that you shouldn't take a young kid to see a potentially scary movie, so they pretty much ruined it for me.
Some days, I wish I had the license to exterminate stupid parents like this. If they don't have the sense to not take their kid to a scary movie, they probably don't have the brainpower to feed them, send them to school, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I think it's AMC theaters that prominently posts the following suggestions
by the ticket counter...
PG -let the kids go
PG-13- go with your kids
R- leave your kids home
Something like that, across all the ratings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Van Helsing
And why is it that Zixar seems so upset at this alleged substandard portrayal of Dracula?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
And why is it that I should explain myself to a sock puppet?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
MasterP!: I officially license you!
VH: wassamatta? can't take a little constructive criticism of your movie?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pirate1974
"Van Helsing" is rated PG-13, but I agree 100% with parents using bad judgement about what movies are appropriare for small children.
I was sitting next to a little girl who absolutely freaked out at "Attack of the Clones" and had to be carried out of the theater. A wonderful viewing experience for the rest of us.
Some people just have absolutely no common sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Same thing happened at our viewing. A couple brought in a very young child who would start screaming at the loud noises (of which there were a lot in this film). The mother's solution? Take the baby into the entranceway and stand there so she could still watch the movie. Of course, all that did was shield her from view, the kid's screams were just as bad twelve feet down the aisle.
If you have a baby, spring for a babysitter or wait for the frickin' DVD.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
Dracula is supposed to be pretty cool and normally a real bad guy, but the portrayal in this film was not ominous enough. In fact, he didn't really do much for being the primary villain.
Van Helsing on the other hand, was not so famous so there wasn't much expectation other than what was in that Dracula movie from the 90's. Personally, I felt that Van Helsing's character was a bit of a ripoff of Vampire Hunter D and Wolverine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I guess it's just a Texas thing, because parents here refuse to leave the theater unless you go get a cop to enter the theater and ask them to leave.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Took the wife to see "Van Helsing" for Mother's Day. It was our daughter's idea. She saw it out in Maryland. She's pursuing Korean sword-fighting-type martial arts right now, and she was impressed with the heroine. I'm looking forward to watching our daughter go through HER lightning swords of doom routine sometime.
I've got to say, when the "wolfman" (not to give away secrets to those who haven't yet seen), silhouetted against the huge full moon with the babe in his arms, tilted his head back and howled, it stirred a thrill in me that movies rarely stir these days. Maybe it was a residual thrill from all the Saturday matinees I watched back in the sixties.
The Van Helsing character reminded me also of a cross between Vampire Hunter D and Wolverine. I pictured the original from Bram Stoker's novel as being someone more like E.W. Bullinger.
I think the monsters' personalities were pretty true to their Universal prototypes, and that was a good thing. Dracula was no Bela Lugosi, but I think some of the things that pictures like this have gained in CGI comic-book-style action, they have lost in atmospherics.
I like the way the brides of Dracula were used for vampire action through the movie to save the Count himself for the big confrontation at the end.
What was with crossbow arms on a gas powered repeating bolt shooter? Apart from that, I liked the psuedo late 19th, early 20th century technology.
I kept expecting to see Frau Blucher show up. And speaking of "Young Frankenstein, Van Helsing's sidekick, the guy who used to be Faramir, kept reminding me of Marty Feldman's "Eye"gor in YF. In all, I enjoyed the movie. Fortunately, no thoughtless parents brought their sprats to the viewing we were at.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Steve: Actually, what I was thinking on that crossbow was that the gas bottle in the stock must have been a holy relic, forged from the adamantine of the gates of Hell. While the mechanism seems far-fetched, there's nothing physically impossible about it, save the reservoir for the compressed gas. When the trigger is pulled, a gas valve could open as the bolt receiver slammed into the headstock, moving a piston to re-cock the crossbow, while the exhaust gas could turn the bolt cylinder on some sort of ratchet. It would work--but you wouldn't get more than a shot or two off of a softball-sized gas tank.
But I take it your question was more "why not use the gas directly to shoot the bolts out of a barrel, instead of the whole crossbow thing?" After all, VH uses two regular Webley .455 manstoppers anyway, and Hiram Maxim invented the machine gun around the time of the movie, so why a crossbow?
Two answers:
1) You have to stake a vampire through the heart, according to legend. Wooden bullets wouldn't stand up to the stress of being fired, and would really be too small, anyway. Since the bolts have to be fletched in order to have a stable flight, you can't form a gas seal around the feathers. You could push it out with a gas check block from behind, but friction would require a gas seal beyond the technology of the time. Transferring energy from a short release of gas to compressing the steel of a crossbow's arms keeps the energy ready to discharge better than relying on gas, whose pressure will drop as rounds are fired. It also allows the crossbow to be manually cocked when the Miraculous Gas Bottle runs out.
2) It just looks cooler on film.
Oh, btw, anyone else notice Frankenstein's steam-powered leg? Nice touch.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Good tap dancing, Zix!
I noticed the little puffs of exhaust steam coming off of the Frankenstein monster's knee when he used it. I thought it was cool, too, but I didn't think to mention it in my post. Thanks for refreshing my memory.
Regarding the powers of the crossbow bolt thrower, I enjoyed the shot where the sidekick (or was it Anna?) peeked out from behind the horse trough or whatever it was, and the whole area was just bristling with bolts except for the character! It sure fired fast, but I don't think we can say too much for its accuracy :-)
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
The Mummy III Zix?
Thought that was meant to be the film The Scorpion King...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Okay, Mummy IV, then. My mistake!
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kevlar2000
(SPOILER)
What I don't understand - Why does Dracula call Van Helsing "Gabriel"? I thought his name was Abraham.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Kev,
You are very considerate. But the name of a character is not a spoiler.
They just changed his name for the movie, which is not exactly a faithful adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel. I guess it's the same reason The Incredible Hulk on television was "David Banner" instead of Bruce. Some writer probably owed a war buddy a favor or something.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I think that they were trying to hint at Van Helsing being the angel Gabriel, or something. He was supposedly the left hand of God, after all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Side-note on the crossbow, from someone who's read a bit on
vampire-hunting...
Different weapons have different effects.
A crossbow or a bow is a superior traditional method for hunting
vampires, since they can be used to stake a vampire from a distance.
Both of them have an advantage over even a "stake-thrower" shotgun,
in that the arrow/bolt will enter the chest but not exit the chest
(to stake a vampire, the stake has to stay in his chest).
So, unless your vampire is vulnerable to other weapons and you have
them handy, both are good. A crossbow offers several advantages over
a bow, which is why it's used more often. Sounds like the movie
addressed the crossbow's one drawback-the cocking of the crossbow for
the next shot. Light crossbows could be levered back, but heavy
crossbows used a cranequin and were cranked back into place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunny1
Hi, Word Woof. . .
you shur know about a lot of stuff. .
hoo are you? and can you give me a hint?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
WW said:
...which raises the question: "why have you done that?" are there vampires in your neighborhood? thinking of a carreer change?Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kevlar2000
Thanks, Raf. I didn't want to unwittingly reveal a plot device to folks who haven't seen the movie yet. I really dislike folks doing that to me, so I avoid reading anything that has "spoiler" attached to it (unless I've already seen the show).
;)-->
Now, on with the discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
meganpenworthy
I'm advising anyone who is going to see it to leave around the 10 minutes to the end mark because after that, the cheese factor is high.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.