Yeah there was Dracula: Untold back in 2013 I wanna say

The 2010 Wolfman was the best and most respectful to the classics in that it was an atmospheric HORROR film and not popcorn movie schlock. The werewolf design by Rick Baker is amazing. At least it’s real practical effects and not CGI overload. I disagree that there was “genuine effort” by Van Helsing to do the monsters justice. Van Helsing was just cartoony action schlock with little to no plot and weak characters. Great if you love it, but the Universal Monsters deserve better.

@@samuelbrasher5677 OK, there was that. I thought that was a fine film, too, but I didn't exactly come out of the theater 'loving' it. I would put it as 'good, but not great.'

@@normora877 OK, I'll give the 2010 "Wolfman" props for those, too. But I personally found *its* story and characters weak; I also didn't buy into the angle they were playing up with regard to Lawrence's father (a.k.a. Anthony Hopkins), nor did I feel that sense of 'tragedy' to Lawrence's character once he started becoming the Wolfman. I didn't find anything 'weak' or 'schlocky' about "Van Helsing's" story, characters, or action/effects. How exactly were the effects 'cartoony?' Sure, they don't look or move exactly like CGI today, but they didn't come across as 'cartoony' to me. I've seen it so many times that i for one don't see how the characters or plot of it are 'weak' either. I for one buy into the development of Van Helsing, his allies, and his enemies: Richard Roxburgh goes over the top as Dracula, sure. But I believe that's the angle Stephen Sommers WANTED for that specific incarnation of the character. And it's not like he's 100% one-note: he emotes, and he seems to genuinely enjoying herself in the role. There's no tragedy to Shuler Hensley's Frankenstein's Monster? I for one say there is. They kept the 'misunderstood' aspect of that character: he didn't want to be a pawn, all he wanted was to be allowed to live, to find his place in the world...and I like that he got that in the end. It's also not like the entire film was action. There were PLENTY of scenes in "Van Helsing" where action wasn't necessary and that were dedicated to exploring the characters, presenting the plot, world-building, and such. I could go on and on, but I *respectfully disagree* that "Van Helsing" is just 'schlock with no story and weak characters.' Please don't get offended, this is just me expressing MY personal opinion and MY personal opinion alone. People nowadays get unnecessarily offended whenever someone else has an opinion of a certain film that is outside the "norm." And I find it really irritating.

1. That's a REALLY low bar. 2. Even that low bar is debatable. At least The Mummy had some practical stunts like that airplane thing. This is an ugly CGI slog. As Doug pointed out, they CGI'd that mouth thing instead of going practical like Blade II. If that's not lazy, I don't know what is. It's also by far the longest and most boring.

Well, in the book Jekyll wanted to do evil but his conscience wouldn’t allow it. The point of the formula was to theoretically split his personalities into a bad side and a good side but it didn’t work because Jekyll was not all good unlike what most adaptations tell you. He continued to drink the formula even after murdering a child as Hyde for example.

Regardless of the origins, in the movie we agree that Jekyll was still at fault. Or at the very least Hellsing was trying to kill Hyde and he turned back at a bad time.....wait he woulda have killed Jekyll anyway since they are the same person.....and he killed over a dozen people....how was he innocent? Kinda screwed the review comment here and on the nostalgia episode on that bit. Jekyll=guilty

In the book the formula act as powerful drug for Jekyl, he can't bring himself to stop after the euphoria he enjoy when turned in Hyde

Fabio Varrà he does stop in the end by killing himself, i think

Regardless of any of that both the review and first watch kinda imply that Helsing should have saved him as he was already falling. That’s how I’ve heard them argue letting jekyl die. The monster is at the very least evil, they even tell us how many people and animals he’s killed just cause he can and that’s who Helsing faces. Idk if the movie though is saying the monster just returned to normal form so he would die and potentially get Helsing in trouble or if that was what was going to happen when he died anyway, no matter how he died. In the end isn’t death better anyway? Probably would have been tortured by the priests and then tried to separate the consciousness’ and weaponize the monster

I'm with ya on that

Sadly, as bad as this movie is, it's still probably better than any actual live-action Castlevania adaption that would ever be made.

And the soundtrack is awesome!

@William Slattery Like Doug pointed out, Dracula and all the bells and whistles are fun.What sinks the movie is the dull, undevloped, one-dimensional characterizations of the leads, with whom we spend the vast majority of time.

I agree. I liken it to a Gothic swashbuckler movie.

Well he intentionally created it to turn him into a monster or to separate his good and evil halves. He kept on taking it even after he learned Hyde murdered a child

No, he starts changing unwillingly and then removes Hyde from the world at the expense of his own life.....

The fact that you reduced one of the most complex and timeless character's morality to "evil" shows you have either never read the book or are too dumb to understand anything beyond this movie. Go all the way and just call him "bad dude."

@@RVered Dude, the guy made a potion so he could do the things he *wanted* to do without anybody knowing it was him. He's not some noble or tragic character, he's a brilliant mind giving into his basest and evilest desires - which include murder. That's pretty much the textbook definition of evil and his suicide and confession doesn't change that - it's him avoiding having to face anyone he's wronged just like he did with the creation of the potion in the beginning.

@@bobdole4916 Even if you never read it, a quick Wikipedia search would reveal the leading motif of the book: "The novella is frequently interpreted as an examination of the duality of human nature, usually expressed as an inner struggle between good and evil"

I like this portrayal of Dracula cause he can pass as a normal person and no one would know

It was one of the better designs for a werewolf to be seen in a movie. And Hugh Jackman's character's werewolf form was pretty awesome in the way he looked very intimidating.

Then you havent seen a lot of werewolfs movies for exp 80s werewolf movies.

@@markusforsberg6741 Mate most werewolf designs in live-action media are horrendous. They all either look too human, are just straight-up normal wolves or they basically evoke the feeling of shaved, inbred dogs. It's like moviemakers love to conveniently ignore all the amazing art from comics, books or random artists you can find on the internet, depicting visually pleasing yet intimidating werewolves and just go "let us do none of that" Hell, some of the movies that are being praised for their good designs like Howl, Dog Soldiers or Ginger Snaps aren't anything to shake a stick at if you ask me.

Nah, underworld win just be virtue of being a practical effect.💁🏾‍♂️

Fun part was each werewolf had different features like different snout or ear shape

"Have you no acting lessons?" "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

"I HAVE NO HEART!"

"NO!!! For God's sake we've been fucking married for eternity and you just not fucking realized this? Jeez you're dumb!!!"

@@ThreadBomb Have you no agent?

I FEEL NO LOVE NO FEAR NO JOY NO SORROOOH I AM HOLOOOOOOOOH

Mine too i rather enjoy the campy silly nature of the film. Much more fun than the mummy. Your not ment to take it seriously.Also the ladies are rather hot.

I do admit I do enjoy this movie too :P

Same

I actually like this movie without it being guilty pleasure. I can't give good reason for it. I just like it. It's not the best movie ever made but still.. I really enjoy it. Without laughing at it.

It's well aged cheese

Fredarok 😂😂😂

Huh

And they both turned out well, didn't they?

NO! I HAVE NO HEART!

He CARRIES this movie. It also makes the weirdness of the typical Dracula's Bride - the elaborate, flowing costumes, the constant wailing and hissing, the fact that they move in interpretative dance - actually make sense. Usually, Dracula is either really monstrous or really regal, making the behaviour of his Brides look like he's firing duds and making broken vampires. Here, he's just as fantastically corny as they are! Honestly, why did they get Hugh Jackman and Kate Beckinsale to play their roles straight when they're up against cartoon characters?! It makes them look boring.

@Musical Equality Sounds like the Hollow Knight DLC.

Sounds like the perfect trap for Dracula to get blood.

Yes, she is. Don't know how Doug didn't get that.

Yes she does and they just totally missed it.

Sounds like a vampiress drug dealer.

@@Mr.DiughGames WHAT!? And he calls himself a professional critic.

@@bromodragone8405 Not really. He acknowledges he makes mistakes cuz he’s human like all of us.

Same here

Same

This is bullshit

Then have Freddy Krueger's glove in a case, an mp4 with Pinhead showing up and some casual conversation about some killer from Texas with a chainsaw who went on a massacre. It's a smart and creative way to set up the Dark'er Cinematic Universe

You forgot the Invisible Man.

Sounds like the next Scary Movie material.

I think her name is Samara

I can take care of myself. Translation: I'm gonna be kidnapped.

Well.... it's been 25 years and I still haven't seen "The Nightmare Before Christmas".

keriezy That’s a mistake you must rectify.

It was my favorite part

They do in the actual review.

I mean, it is a pretty movie, the problem the two had were the main characters, they weren't bad, just, boring, which can be the worst sin of it. You don't get invested in the characters. Music is fun, visuals of the monsters and scenes are cool. I feel if the main charscters were a bit more campy it'd be more fun, or at least make them less woosen.

I think it looks bad. The high contrast makes it look ugly. Look at Coppola's Dracula for this style done right.

The CGI is just bad even for its time.

@@Clay3613 it's actually really good good it's time

It's the miracle of bad scripting and directing.

That's universal for you, when you want dark and edgy you get the bad scriptwriters and poor directing

How could you possibly make a movie with Kate Beckinsale that I completely wasn't interested in?

Roger Ebert seemed to like the movie he gave it a 3/4 said it was silly but spectacular and fun

I believe they explained this was Steve Sommers there.

You and me both

PhoeniksoftheStorm Ooooh, what a rebel!

I love these because we see the jokes being brought up like the riffs people often do on youtube

sometimes are better

Then you haven't been here sinds the beginning

The point was there is evil in everyone even in a otherwise respected man of the community And how they hide in plain sight So yeah, he was evil but it was an interesting evilness

Dr Jekyle and mr hide are the same person. Even bbc Jeklye delt it

TechnocraticDreadnought The way he holds makes it look like a cane. Like he is about to go out for a night on the town. xD

I saw that too. But apparently this movie is supposed to be set in 1887, so more than a little anachronistic for him to be carrying a late-medieval warhammer and a silly repeating crossbow (I know, vampires, but still). A double-barrelled big game rifle would have made his life much easier.

@@calamusgladiofortior2814 or a girardoni air rifle, like the one that that lewis and clark used. it can shoot around several dozen deadly shots with one air tank, and it had amagazine with ca. 27 bullets in the magazine.

TechnocraticDreadnought the Giarodini air rifles were pretty low velocity, only about as powerful as a modern .22 plinking rifle despite shooting a much bigger slug. Sure a .22 can kill you, but do you want to try stopping a werewolf with it? By comparison, something like a Winchester Model 1886 would give him 9 rounds of .45-70, a full-power military and hunting rifle cartridge. And the French were introducing the first bolt-action, smokeless powder rifle that year. Heck, the Maxim machine gun existed by then. And Carl Benz had already built a gasoline-powered car by 1886. If the Vatican had really wanted to give him a secret, high-tech weapon they could have mounted a machine gun on an early car for him and had the sidekick be his driver...

@@0816M3RC In the movie they show Anna pick it up by the actual handle, which is why Van Hellsing isn't holding it by the handle after taking it from her...

Its not that shitty tbh 6/10

I totally advise you to watch this movie.

Watch it, know it’ll be a bit disappointing, enjoy the good bits of acting and music.

Roger Ebert gave the movie a 3/4 and said it was silly but spectacular and fun

@keller blair except I didn't get it from you lol

I liked his GI Joe movie more than retaliation

Fun story, so I was meant to watch this and Beowulf in year 7, I didnt watch either, two reasons, the volume was far too loud for me and would hurt my ears, and two, I wasnt a big movie fan. So instead I would be in a different room doing something else, a few years ago I watched both movies, because I wanted to see what they were like. I didnt mind Beowulf, but I enjoyed this one a little more. I dont think it's perfect but I do like it.

She is, you're right.

It's even more disappointing that they both were watching and missed it.

It's silly no matter what she's saying, but I'd actually find it more believable as a harpy-esque scream (fits how she looks in that form) than one of Dracula's wives just HAPPENS to know this random woman's name.

Mr. Diugh People have different opinions then you. Let it go.

@@carlotta4th she does know her. In that scene later she calls her "princess"

Even though that doesn't make much sense and is a severely fucked up thing to do to your descendants.

@@0816M3RC Did they explain how it came to be? or are you just assuming they did it on purpose?

@@Darek_B52 From the wikipedia plot synopsis of Van Helsing: "At the Order's Vatican City headquarters, Cardinal Jinette gives Van Helsing a mission: Go to Transylvania, destroy Dracula and protect the two survivors of an ancient Romanian family, the Valerious. Their ancestor vowed that his descendants would kill Dracula, or spend eternity in Purgatory." So it sounds like the ancestor cursed his family into having to kill Dracula. Which is pretty messed up. EDIT: Apparently there is two versions of the Valerious Family's predicament regarding the salvation of their souls. From a citation on the wiki page regarding this: "The film does not remark on or explain the fact that the Cardinal and Carl give very different descriptions of Anna's family's predicament. The Cardinal says that her ancestor gambled with his family's salvation, staking their places in Heaven on their ability to kill Dracula. Carl says that Valerious was offered a very special benefit, a spiritual get-out-of-jail-free card: Kill Dracula, and the whole family gets to go to Heaven, without having to stop in Purgatory."

The classic Universal horror films are way better than Helsing. They had wit, taste and real atmosphere.

But the original Universal monster movies were slow-burn, atmospheric and suspenseful. They excelled in creating a creepy atmosphere and were very effective by the standards of the day. Van Helsing is a dumb action movie, with no atmosphere and cartoonish CGI. It's like what happened with the Tom Cruise Mummy movie. They don't seem to understand their own movies. The classic monster movies were actually very restrained and definitely weren't action-packed. So I don't know why Universal thinks turning them into effects-laden, brainless summer blockbusters is appropriate.

I'm not disagreeing with any of your points about Van Helsing. But the fact of the matter is that there were over 150 Universal Horror movies between 1920 and 1960, and no, most of them were NOT good movies. After all, the studio was churning out horror movies in this period like there were made on an assembly line. How could it POSSIBLY be true that most of them had good "slow-burn, atmosphere, and were suspenseful" when they were being made like a cheap mass produced product? And I mean literally cheap: these things were made on shoestring budgets. Here, take a look at this list. It's pretty comprehensive. Sure, there are a few gems in there that are legitimately good films. But the VAST majority of them are schlock that were so forgettable, you probably haven't even heard of most of them, or knew that most of them had ever been made in the first place. www.imdb.com/list/ls000493268/

Agreed how can you be bored of this movie the designs are awesome and the fight scenes badass dont know what these guys were watching but it weren't van helsing.

Ron Yahil it’s good to me

#KateBeckinsaleInfiniteBeauty

This movies script in a nutshell still love it regardless

Tom Cruise didn't write and direct the movie

Yeah, it's a dumb comment, like saying Matthew McConaughey did a great job directing Interstellar.

Nolan What are you talking about he made you that precious brendan fraser mummy of course he does

Actually guys, Tom Cruise apparently forewent some of his usual massive salary in exchange for ridiculous creative control over the project to the point that he had power over director Alex Kurtzman and might have directed a fair amount of it himself. So the OP isn’t completely off base. Lol

Imagine him watching the end of Toy Story 3 when they're going into the incinerator "Oh yeah, wow, those toys are so real. I totally imagine this is actually happening."

I kinda agree except when in a movie there’s so much CGI that it should be all CGI and not parts live action, it’s like having majority of the movie drawn in the old fashion but then have live action characters suddenly in it.

The thing with the unrealistic CGI is that it doesn't look as good as real stuff, like compare the OG Jurassic Park to Jurassic World. One had dinosaurs crafted by man while the other had them made by a computer and visually the OG jurassic park looks better because it DOES look real not fake

@@juantheenchilada4528 damn we have computers capable of creating all the models and textures and rigging from scratch all on their own? I had no idea

Joe Scirrotto the original nightmare on elm street the effect of Freddy coming out of the wall and then disappearing was created by cutting a hole in the wall covering it with plastic wrap and a white sheet that was in 1984. And it looked REAL AF. The remake in 2010 used cgi. And it looked fake and cheep as fuck. And probably cost a ton more to make. Makes you wonder why use cgi if you don’t need it

I know the Viziepop the head animator/creator of the show's work as a animation class of mine used her animation thesis "Timber" as a teaching tool.

Elena Anaya, also dr Poison in WW

@@skyluc77 She was Doc Poison in WW?! No fuckin way lol

Yes, my reaction exactly when I found out

I said "The best ones! The castle I wanna live in!"

😐 they filmed in a house basement with a bar in the Wicker Man review.

Maybe, but its a better crossover then we're getting now.

Nathaniel Foga Least this one had effort behind it

This one didn't sequel-bait for half its runtime.

It had an animated prequel that wasn't half bad.

The leads are primarily Australian with a couple of Brits. And not a single Cruise or Brendan Fraser. So this isn't North America's fault. ....for once

If she did say anna it doesn't sound like it.

Yes she does say that.

AAANNAAAAAAAAAA!

Yeah, she says "Aaaanna". They even made a big joke about the "Aaaaaaa" in the NC review and I'm sitting there thinking "But she said "Aaaanna", not "Aaaaaaaaa". Obviously "Aaaaaaaaaa" is more hilarious but it's not what she said."

I hear Anna too..but when I was watching the movie with subtitles. it just said "Would you like to fly?"

Before the series, there was a special called The Care Bears in the Land Without Feelings that had a villain called Cold Heart. That's what Critic was refrencing

love of vengeance sounds like a RENT knock-off

Ollie Humm It’s more the fact that Doug just has really high expectations for CGI. He’s of the ‘Do it right, or don’t do it at all’ mindset.

*GASP* Your Majesty. (Kneels)

Seriously? Are we still doing "WHY DOES THIS VIDEO HAVE 0 VIEWS AND A MILLION COMMANEYTS>!?" in 2018?

Use refresh?

*Hit F5*

Well youtube doesn't count the view until the person clicks off the video, now you know.

@@TheRealBot001 And knowing is half the battle.

Hellsing is a much better vampire hunting show.

Pick a destiny

Do you believe in Destiny? .....if you got that reference...... I am so fucking sorry the wounds have not healed for me either

@casey they didnt mean the brendan fraser movie, they meant the horrible tom cruise one which didn't even try to have practical effects.

WITNESS!

Louis Duarte WHAT A LOVELY DAY!!!!

Alien Bacon Where you will ride eternal shiny and chrome!

I recently watched it for the first time, and this is pretty much how I see it. I was a bit surprised, really, because I was kinda expecting something genuinely bad.