Thursday 2 January 2020

Van Helsing 2004 by AverageMansReviews

Van Helsing 2004 by AverageMansReviews

Review Time: this film is poor.

Fundamental elements: there are words and a number on screen, cultural elements, background music, no subtitles when another language is being used, quick moving effects, slow-motion effects, time jumps and place jumps.

The movement of this project is in hindsight slow and mix this with the storyline which I will discuss in a minute; basically there is enough blame to go around for this film being poor.

Storyline: it never seems to get going properly it just dribbles on and on [as I have just said you can blame the movement or the storyline here, basically take your pick they are equally just as poor as one another] or better yet in fairness and balance you can just blame both as I have and the ending is uninspiring and I wanted more for sitting through this film which is roughly speaking 131 minutes long.

Comedy level: did we really have to have a 007 James Bond style sequence [the well-known sequence where Q. gives James Bond the latest gadgets and so on.] But moving on a cow being dropped/possibly thrown into a roof from a distance in the air, this was good.

Action sequences/Artistic visions: there are weapons being used, combat and chasing, I have chosen an action sequence that comes to mind the most quickest and easiest to remember; Van Helsing vs. Mr. Hyde this sequence, it has a little bit of comedy, action and a body part being cut off. The artistic visions; Count Dracula regenerating element from being heavily burned or the moving painting or The Ball [this means an event not something you kick or throw and once again just to cover my back I think this is a Ball, but if it isn't; it is something to this effect.] But my point here is this; these three examples all have imagination or creativity behind them in one way or another.

Character developments/Performances: let's begin on a positive having these characters work under Igor at some points in this film was a good idea and Igor himself is good [including performance as well,] but for the rest they are poor. I mean I don't buy this version of Count Dracula; it doesn't have the IT factor of this iconic character.

The performances generally speaking [minus one] ranges from poor to trying to do something with what was given to them. For two examples Jackman and Beckinsale, there is friction/chemistry [depending where you are in this title is depending what you get,] when it turns into chemistry I can see it but I don't feel it until much, much later on in this title. I must quickly point out I am pointing the finger at the character developments on this one and not the performers in question.

There is other chemistry/friction between other characters/performers, let's just say I would feel comfortable suggesting with varying levels of somewhere between "This chemistry/friction is as flat as a pancake" or "It is a safe and reliable formula of main character and his companion, it is something solid in this film."

This film receives: 2/10, yes even though this film has some good elements, the poorness of this project is clear to experience throughout your/my viewing experience.


No comments:

Post a Comment