Van Helsing Review

The eponymous character of Abraham Van Helsing is a creation of Bram Stoker in his 1897 Gothic horror novel Dracula. He's an aged Dutch doctor with a wide range of interests and accomplishments. He's supposed to have been simply an aged medical doctor of his time, but many adaptations of this character depict him as a vampire hunter, monster hunter, and the archenemy to Count Dracula. One of these creative reinterpretations was a movie released in 2004, Van Helsing. It is frankly not a good movie, but it's an interesting form of low-budget B-movie that I doubt anyone could have foreseen as little as a decade before its release. Silly a movie as it is, it's a guilty pleasure of mine to watch.

Famed monster slayer Gabriel Van Helsing (Hugh Jackman) is dispatched to Transylvania with Friar Carl (David Wenham) to assist the last of the Valerious bloodline in defeating Count Dracula (Richard Roxburgh). Anna Valerious (Kate Beckinsale) reveals that Dracula has formed an unholy alliance with Dr. Frankenstein's monster (Shuler Hensley) and is hell-bent on exacting a centuries-old curse on her family. Together Anna and Van Helsing set out to destroy their common enemy, but uncover some unsettling secrets along the way.

Ridiculous and over the top as Van Helsing is, I have to give it props for creativity. The character of Van Helsing is vastly different from his original depiction in Bram Stoker's Dracula. This is a young Van Helsing with more monster hunting gadgets and gizmos than any one person should be able to carry on themselves and still walk. This Van Helsing wields a rapid fire crossbow, spinning wrist blades, explosives, retractable silver stakes, and weaponized holy water. All of which are creatively used to his advantage in entertaining action scenes. The movie was distributed by Universal Pictures who made iconic monster movies back in the 1940's including Count Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, and werewolves. Van Helsing brought several of these Hollywood icons together again in a way similar to the multi-monster movies that also Universal produced in the 1940's such as Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man or House of Dracula. There's even an implication that an escaped Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde is true identity of The Hunchback of Notre Dame whom Van Helsing encounters in Paris early in the film. The way that these monsters came together felt natural for this particular world setting and the varied methods of combating these creatures made for some interesting fight scenes, especially in cases when multiple monsters were ganging up on our heroes and a weapon that might hurt one creature would have no effect on the other creature.

I am convinced that this was a fairly low budget movie, or at least it was for the most part inexpensive to make. I'd estimate that roughly 85-90% of Van Helsing was filmed with the actors in front of a green screen and then a fleet of very busy CGI artists filled in the details afterwards. I realize that CGI can be very costly, but I can't imagine it being more expensive than creating elaborate, believable sets or filming on location. There have been a number of movies that basically were CGI intensive with actors in front of green screens which ended up looking just terrible, such as Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. This movie looks pretty solid, though. Many of the monsters are just as CGI generated as the villages and castles they terrorize, but they look great. And I feel that it is important to say that Van Helsing features one of the best looking movie werewolves I've ever seen, even if it's transformation is unorthodox.

Van Helsing received mostly negative reviews. It was criticized for having poor acting, way too much CGI and special effects, and being a mockery of the horror genre. I can't exactly disagree with most of these criticisms. Most of the acting is very melodramatic and is so stylized that it's hard not to scoff at the movie's attempts to look cool. I can't for the life of me imagine the actors falling apart in peals of laughter at some of the poses and superfluous, artificial back flips that were required of them. Parts of the dialogue were so cheesy that I simply had to roll my eyes before pressing on in the movie. Van Helsing isn't trying to be a horror movie; the horror genre is supposed to elicit feelings of fear in its viewers. This movie doesn't even make a poor attempt to do that. Sure, there are iconic monsters from horror movies, but Van Helsing is an action movie and the action choreography is fun, if a little hard to swallow at times. Critics may have dragged the movie through the mud, but the film grossed $300 million worldwide and did well with the general public, becoming one of the biggest blockbusters released in 2004. That ought to tell you something about its quality.

Objectively, Van Helsing isn't a terrifically good movie, but it is a whole lot of fun. The action is great, the visuals are above average, and the ridiculous story is entertaining enough to enjoy. It starts out looking like a special effects overkill, but by the end it succeeds in assembling all the monsters and plot threads into a high-voltage climax. Van Helsing is silly, but spectacularly fun. If it doesn't sound like something you'd enjoy, you probably won't. I did, however, and I recommend seeing Van Helsing for the fun of it. With so many classic monsters present, it makes for a good movie to watch during Halloween. I have a copy of Van Helsing sitting on my movie shelf next to other titles I like to enjoy every now and again.

What is your favorite monster hunter movie? What do you like about it? Comment below and tell me all about it!

Star Wars: The Force Awakens Review

So, in case you've been living under a rock for the past several months, there is a new Star Wars movie out! Being respectful of all my fellow geeks on the internet who have begged the rest of the internet to avoid spoilers, I will avoid being too specific here and describe my impressions. Apart from a broad synopsis in the following paragraph, I won't reveal anything you haven't seen in the trailers you've probably seen 147 times. Of course, if you want to go in to the movie fresh with nothing but the trailers on your mind, I wouldn't read beyond this paragraph. I will say here, though, that this Star Wars movie feels more like Star Wars than all the prequel trilogy movies combined. Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015) is a good, solid film.

Thirty years after the defeat of the Galactic Empire, the galaxy faces a new threat from the evil Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) and the First Order. When a defector named Finn (John Boyega) crash-lands on a desert planet, he meets Rey (Daisy Ridley), a tough scavenger whose droid contains a top-secret map. Together, the young duo joins forces with Han Solo (Harrison Ford) to make sure the Resistance receives the intelligence that could potentially turn the course of the ongoing fight against the First Order.

There, see? That wasn't too spoilery, was it? Honestly, I'm doing my best not to tarnish your experience seeing this movie.

I was legitimately worried about this movie when it was announced; the last time I got excited about a new Star Wars release it SUCKED. That abominable prequel trilogy tarnished Star Wars with abysmal storytelling, insulting characters, flimsy plots, blatant self-promotion for merchandise, twisting established rules of the setting, too much CGI and poor green screen execution, iconic characters (like Yoda) behaving in completely contrary to how they were previously established, a lack of impacting significant scenes, and too much unrealistic lightsaber madness. If any of that had appeared in this new Star Wars movie, director J.J. Abrams would forever after by referred to as "Jar-Jar Abrams" and lost his credibility as a director. Thankfully, gratefully, The Force Awakens makes genuine effort to shake Star Wars from its slumber, and reconnect the series with it's much pined for past. The Force Awakens is what we were hoping for when The Phantom Menace was announced, and it is good.

I loved this new cast. We've got new a great set of characters who are interesting and dynamic as well as some solid actors playing them. I'm glad we're getting some more diversity in the cast; the original trilogy featured two female characters and one token black guy. Here, we've got a couple of new female characters and a black lead character who isn't just there to be a token support cast member. Rey is a spunky, self-reliant young woman with a charming accent who both wants to leave her situation, but is determined to stay and stick it out. Finn has a disquieting past and a sheltered upbringing; a lot of the universe is new to him and we get to experience the unfamiliarity of this new story along with him. Kylo Ren is a complex antagonist; he is an intimidating force to be reckoned with. He is dangerous and unpredictable, but clearly feels morally justified in his motives. You very quickly enjoy disliking him, but the more we learn about him the more empathy we feel for Kylo Ren. I loved these characters and am truly looking forward to seeing them in action in the future!

It was a sheer joy to see Han Solo again. I've seen several of Harrison Ford's more recent films and much as I love the guy, he is showing his age. However, it's been awhile since I've seen Ford look this energetic and spry in a movie. This 73-year-old actor not only takes on the mantle of his legendary, iconic role again, he very clearly enjoyed doing it! There are a couple other appearances of some familiar faces, but Han Solo as a major character (rather than a cameo) genuinely gave this movie a fun and deeply nostalgic aspect.

Vague as my synopsis above was, I'm sure it sounds familiar if you are a fan of Star Wars. The Force Awakens seemed to borrow several elements from A New Hope. This is both good and bad. On the one hand, structurally, The Force Awakens almost seems like we're repeating the past on some level. But on the other hand, there are enough new locations, events, and characters, that the two movies don't quite compare. It almost seems like a remake of A New Hope with so many creative liberties taken that it's effectively a completely different movie, but still rings true to the original enough that it fits perfectly in to the franchise's chronology without repeating itself.

Star Wars has notoriously challenged itself in fight scenes in the past. For example, take the battle on Hoth in at the beginning of The Empire Strikes Back against the Empire's AT-ATs or the battle on the verdant moon of Endor in Return of the Jedi with the high speed chases through the trees. The Force Awakens does this as well. In one scene (shown in the trailer; not a spoiler) there is an aerial dogfight between TIE fighters and X-Wings close enough to the ground that the ships reflections are seen in the lake nearby, while in close proximity our heroes fight off stormtroopers on the ground. This was amazingly choreographed and was fascinating to watch. There are other dogfights in space between the First Order and the Resistance toward the end of the movie which are intense, creative, and exciting!

The prequel trilogy had basically nothing but lightsaber fights when two characters were going head-to-head. Sure, we all love lightsabers but having every fight involve lightsabers cheapens their impact. In The Force Awakens we have some lightsaber fights, but they are reserved for the major, climactic fights. They are easily among the best lightsaber fight scenes. In A New Hope, choreography wasn't well established and looked more like two people waving glowsticks at each other, even when it was an iconic confrontation. In the prequel trilogy it was over choreographed to the point that it looked like dancing with glow sticks that rarely even hit one another. In this movie, the lightsaber fights strongly resembled real sword fights. Kylo Ren's lightsaber resembled a heavy broadsword and he moved like it had a lot of weight. His opponents clearly lacked experience fighting with lightsabers and it showed in their technique. They end up being some of the most realistic-looking lightsaber fights in the franchise.

There is a beautiful subtlety to new material and to the references of previous films in The Force Awakens. In the Prequel trilogy the movie practically asks, "Okay, stop everything. This is where we are going to find out where C-3P0 came from. Just look at how much effort went into the puppet for this character." The original trilogy didn't stop everything to tell you how important a new character will be; it didn't stop to tell you who Obi-Wan Kanobi is or what a lightsaber does. It just shows you the amazing new concept or character, and if it's important it shows you what it does along the way. There are new crazy weapons that stormtroopers use (again, we see this in the trailer; not a spoiler) and we see it in action just long enough for that one fight to occur. Characters develop gradually along with the story over the span of the movie, giving them depth. We don't stop everything merely to show off something new, it's just part of the movie and we watch in awe as we take it in. It's beautifully subtle and makes for a smooth-flowing story.

Star Wars: The Force Unleashed is a good, solid movie. It's everything we had hoped and dreamed of back in 1999 before getting the rug pulled out from under us by The Phantom Menace. It's got a good story packed with action and populated by both familiar faces and fresh blood. This movie successfully recalls the series' former glory while injecting it with renewed energy. It has a solid beginning, middle, and end but leaves some questions unanswered which will inevitably be addressed in future installments. The Force Awakens begins another epic chapter in the Star Wars Saga in the best possible way. This is absolutely worth seeing in theaters, and I urge you to do so. This is the quality of Star Wars movie we want to see in the future, so please help make sure it does well in the box office. This is also well worth the investment to own when it is available on home video.

What were your impressions of Star Wars: The Force Awakens? Comment below and tell me about it, but kindly avoid spoilers for anyone who may not have seen it yet.

Oz The Great and Powerful Movie Review

As a long time fan of the 1936 film The Wizard of Oz, I was beside myself with excitement when I saw the trailer for the upcoming Oz The Great and Powerful.  After the initial euphoria wore off I then feared the movie would be little more than a CGI-fest set in popular, established setting with little plot and weak characters, similar to Tron: Legacy. I still jumped at the opportunity to see it, but braced myself for disappointment.

Oscar "Oz" Diggs (James Franco), a small-time circus magician with dubious ethics, is hurled away from dusty Kansas to the vibrant Land of Oz. At first he thinks he's hit the jackpot-fame and fortune are his for the taking. That all changes, however, when he meets three witches, Theodora (Mila Kunis), Evanora (Rachel Weisz), and Glinda (Michelle Williams), who are not convinced he is the great wizard everyone's been expecting. Reluctantly drawn into the extensive problems facing the Land of Oz and its inhabitants, Oscar must find out who is good and who is evil before it's too late. putting his magical arts to use through illusion, ingenuity, and even a bit of wizardry, Oscar transforms himself not only into the great and powerful wizard of Oz but into a better man as well.

If you've never seen The Wizard of Oz, I have to wonder where you've been for the last 77 years. It's one of the most beloved movies ever made; you owe it to yourself to watch it and to introduce your children to it. Since Oz The Great and Powerful is a prequel to a 77-year-old classic, there will probably be some audiences (i.e. post-Harry Potter children) who don't know or care about The Wizard of Oz. They will probably be lost watching this story about a not-very-nice grownup in a magic land, but for long time watchers of The Wizard of Oz, Oz The Great and Powerful is enchanting and fun.

Oz The Great and Powerful sadly shares a kinship with George Lucas' Star Wars prequels in the way it presents a beautiful, borderline-sterile digital update of a world that was richer, purer, and a lot more fun in lower-tech form. Like Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, the actors in Oz The Great and Powerful look artificially superimposed against their CGI backdrops. However CGI is nothing short of gorgeous and while it does look artificial, it's nothing short of stunning to watch. It's also uses 3-D well; it shows a lot of depth, not just projection.

There are lots of subtle little things that hint at events in The Wizard of Oz which are fun to watch for. There are characters in the Kansas prologue and in Oz that are played by the same actors and have thematically similar conflicts. Before heading to Oz, one of Oscar's old flames says she's going to marry a man by the last name of Gale; suggesting she is Dorothy Gale's mother-to-be. One of Oscar's first feats in Oz is frightening off a cowardly lion with smoke and mirrors. We also meet a tinker whom it is implied builds the Tin Man. We even see that distinctive spiral beginning of the Yellow Brick Road where Dorothy starts her journey a few years later.

James Franco has worked with director Sam Raimi before in the Spider-Man Trilogy as Harry Osborn. In Oz The Great and Powerful, he plays this occasionally sincere character that is often a con man. Oscar is an illusionist and a serial liar, Franco has played this kind of role before, but here he seems more believable when Oscar is being deceitful than he is when Oscar is being sincere. It evens out to a less-than-captivating performance.

Much of Oz The Great and Powerful centers around Oscar's transformation from the me-first snake oil salesman into the Wizard of Oz, or rather "the man behind the curtain." Oscar relies on inventions of his earthly hero Thomas Edison to pull off his biggest trick ever, which will likely even have the audience convinced. Around that point, the movie breaks free of its beautiful, but artificial trappings, and becomes a story with heart in the final act.

Oz The Great and Powerful doesn't have the classic feel that The Wizard of Oz has, but it's still a fun movie. Viewers who have never seen The Wizard of Oz are not likely going to enjoy it as much. Nevertheless, Oz The Great and Powerful is very effective as its own film and as a prequel to one of the most beloved movies in history. It's not perfect; most of the live actors do an adequate or sub-par job. The story has several plot twists to keep it interesting; such as who the Wicked Witch of the West is. You know she's going to be in the movie, but you're still blown away when we find out who it is. There are a few scenes that might be a bit too scary for viewers under the age of 6, but this is an excellent family film that is worth catching in theaters. Possibly in 3-D if you enjoy 3-D; it was well implemented. I'm glad I saw it; I had low expectations for this movie, but I was pleasantly surprised. I didn't quite like it enough to get my own copy, but it was worth the ticket price.

There is an obscure third Oz movie also made by Disney. It came out in 1985 and is called Return to Oz. Freaked the heck out of me as a kid. Have you seen Return to Oz? Would you like to see more movies set in  the Land of Oz? Comment below and tell me about it!

Wrath of the Titans Movie Review

Back in 1981, a special effects move was released called Clash of the Titans. It featured some fairly impressive stop-motion animation coupled with live actors. It's a cheesy classic that few people seem to remember. In 2010 was a cutting-edge remake that was basically a special effects fest. It was pretty fun, but couldn't be taken very seriously. Box office successes deserve sequels, right? So Wrath of the Titans (2012), a sequel of a remake of a old cheesy movie, was made. Why did they think this was a good idea?

A decade after his heroic defeat of the monstrous Kraken, Perseus (Sam Worthington) the demigod son of Zeus (Liam Neeson) is trying to live quieter life as a village fisherman as the only parent of his 10-year-old son Helius (John Bell). Meanwhile, a struggle for supremacy rages between the gods and Titans. Dangerously weakened by humanity's lack of devotion, the gods are losing control of the imprisoned Titans and their ferocious leader, Kronos, father of the long-ruling brothers Zeus, Hades (Ralph Fiennes), and Poseidon (Danny Huston). Their unity had overthrown their powerful father long ago, leaving him to rot in the abyss of Tartarus, a dungeon that lies deep within the cavernous underworld. Perseus cannot ignore his true calling when Hades along with Zeus's godly son, Ares (Edgar Ramirez) switch loyalty and make a deal with Kronos to capture Zeus. The Titan Kronos' strength grows stronger as Zeus' remaining godly powers are siphoned. If Kronos is able to escape Tartarus, it will mean the end of the world.

The cast that appears in this movie had to have been contractually obligated to take up these roles again for this sequel. Liam Neeson is known for some outstanding roles; Oskar Schindler in Schindler's List, Henri Ducard in Batman Begins, even some of the lousy movies he's appeared in like Star Wars: The Phantom Menace and Battleship were made slightly better just because he's in them. One of the best reasons to watch the 2010 Clash of the Titans was to hear him say, “Release the Kraken!” Then there is Ralph Fiennes reprising his role as Hades. He's a stellar actor who will likely be remembered forever as Lord Voldemort. Bill Nighy even appears for a short while. All these actors are exceptional, but given the terrible script and and sloppy story, I can't imagine why they would consent to appear in this movie. Sam Worthington's acting hasn't improved, and the only real change we see in the character is he now has a stupid-looking haircut.

The script in Wrath of the Titans is ridiculous to say the least. Right from the opening character introductions, the dialogue is awkward, forced, and corny. One of the villagers in Perseus' community approaches him and basically says, “Well, hi there! You are Perseus. You defeated the Kraken exactly ten years ago. You are the son of Zeus. You fight good. Now everyone knows what happened in the last movie. I will now remind you that you have a son who will probably fight as well as you did. For the sake of the audience I'll also remind you that I have asked you before, but do you intend to teach your son to fight?” I'm exaggerating only a little bit. No one causally walks up to someone and reminds them of their personal history and reputation as if it was a conversation starter. Sadly, it doesn't get any better after that. Fortunately, later on there's too much action for us to notice much of the laughable dialogue the characters are shouting at one another.

Like its predecessor, Wrath of the Titans is a special effects fest. The CGI artwork was actually quite good. Lots of fireballs, exploding mountains, ugly monsters, and moving labyrinth walls. The scene that has Perseus and company braving the labyrinth that surrounds Tartarus is an intricate one. The walls moved constantly; halls became dead ends, narrow corridors crushed in on our heroes, and floors withdrew themselves from underfoot. It's was like a gigantic stone clockwork device that could sense where the human-size gods were and tried to destroy them. The monsters and titans were fairly detailed and well animated for the most part. That has to be the most pathetic excuse for a minotaur I've ever seen, though; it looked more like an ugly human with horns. The minotaur scene was so short, I'm not even sure why they bothered including it.

There have been movies made where the excellent implementation of special effects are what made the movie worth watching. Wrath of the Titans is not one of those movies. The special effects and CGI work was excellent, even if the scale and spacing was vague. The characters were shallow and uninteresting, the script was laughable and poorly written, and the story was murky and incomprehensible. That significantly weakened my ability to enjoy the special effects and action. The production itself was way below the talents of most of the actors involved, but I'll excuse them on the grounds that they were probably under contract. Wrath of the Titans was not a good movie; it was not even a decent sequel. If you really want to see some fun Grecian gods clash, just stick with Clash of the Titans. It's silly and over the top, but it's fun. Don't bother with Wrath of the Titans, it's just not worth the money to even rent it.

Do you have a favorite "Greek Epic?" I thought Ben Hur was pretty good. What's your favorite? Comment below and tell me all about it!