f13.net

Official website (http://www.vanhelsing.net/)

All indications are that they took a fun, interesting idea and Hollywooded the hell out of it. I am willing to bet that there will be some 'Ohh...Cool!' moments, but they will be drowned out by the overwhelming stench of suck that will pervade this film.

Pity- I think the potential is there.

How can you miss this nugget (http://www.vanhelsinggame.com/us/).

...or the upcoming TV show.

On a sidenote this movie may be fun to look at, but I'm confident it will be a steaming pile of shit.

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen but with more monstarrs!!11!1! that's how bad.

And special effects that somehow manage to look even WORSE than those in League.  UGH.  Their CGI looks like SHIT.  Or to be more accurate, it does not fit in worth shit with the rest of the filmstock and stands out like a sore thumb.  Bad lighting on the 3d models most likely.

/meh. I think it'll be fine, so long as I go in with zero expectations and do not think too hard about it.

I watched house of the dead. Van helsing will rock compared to it!


Kaid

Having survived Pitch Black, I can safely say ditto.

Whoa there bucko. What was wrong with Pitch Black? Given the budget of the movie and no reputation for Vin Diesel going into it, I thought it approached art.

Has Vin Diesel done anything to improve his reputation since Pitch Black? Really, the guy's been in more shitty movies than John Travolta lately.

Don't judge an actors past movies on his present movies. Or else you run into situations like this:

Robin Williams was in Death to Smoochy. Sure, he did The Fisher King, The Birdcage, and Good Will Hunting but he's pissed all over his career with his current turn to weirdness.

Not the best example because One Hour Photo was pretty much awesome, but I think you get the point.

I don't think I was judging his past movie.  For the record I've never seen Pitch Black (kind of want to, I heard it's pretty decent).

But I'll stand by what I said: Vin Diesel has been in a lot of shitty movies lately.  Commercially popular some of them, but all have been crap.

Agreed. But go see Pitch Black. It shows that he makes a viable actor when given something decent to work with. Riddick, in that movie, is one of my favorite heroes/anti-heroes of all time (somewhere in the top 20 below 10).

I suspect all of our opinions of riddick will slump greatly with chronicles of riddick.  It looks like utter shit in the trailers.  Hope it is decent but damn I have 0 hope.  I am more likely to enjoy the schlock campyness of Sky Captain based on trailers.

I liked Pitch Black.  I went back and watched all the commentary tracks, and that is a pretty good sign I really liked the movie.  I would not call it art, but it was a good survival horror/action flick for sure.  More action than horror for sure.

Actually I watched all the directors commentary for Jeepers Creepers 2 recently as well.  A surprisingly good film actually and both commentaries were pretty funny.

Regarding Vin, I think it is the way you phrased it that brought up the question:



You imply that since this movie Vin has gotten a good reputation.  I don't frankly see that.  I think he got a good reputation FOR this movie... But since then, christ has he been in even ONE decent film?  I can't think of any.

The Rock frankly has as many movie action star credentials in my book as Vin at this point.  Vin is too generic for me unless he has a good script to work from.  He does not seem to have any skill to save a bad part/film.  I won't say the Rock CAN do those things.  He can't either.  It's why I put them in the same category.  Disposable action hero people.  Stick Vin in the serious roles and Rock in the humorously self depraciating ones so he can have fun with his eyebrows.

We will see how chronicles of riddick goes.  Could make or break him.

I implied that Vin Diesel had no reputation before Pitch Black and that I didn't go into it thinking "Oh jesus christ, that guy from XxX, shoot me, in the face, right now."

I actually like Vin Diesel, but then I don't expect more out of him that what he's shown he's capable of. Think "Fast and the Furious" and expect no acting ability whatsoever, and you just about have it.

The only time I recall seeing Vin Diesel in a movie is in Saving Private Ryan. He did a fine job of getting shot in the neck.

The rest of the movies I have seen him headline look like utter and complete shyte, so I haven't wasted the time and/or money to see them.

I felt dirty after watching that movie and finding out the director, Victor Salva, is a convicted pedophile. Looking back at the movie and all the half naked young boys running around and this perv directing it really creeped me out. I can't imagine listening to his commentary.

Don't follow much cinema news so was not aware of that.  Anyways, he didn't really say much on the commentary.  The 'directors' commentary was really all the cast instead.  He would just ask a few questions to get them going maybe once every 20 mins or so.

Anyway, I understand now what you meant schild.

The statement was abit blurry initially since it did not show whether you had a positive or negative feeling of Vin's post-pitch black career.  Now I guess I should have assumed that since nodoby in their right mind would see just his non-pitch black work and think he was a good actor.  But you could have gone temporarily insane.  I think that is known to happen in Bat Country.

I weirdly enjoyed xXx. It knew what it was trying to achieve, and it wasted no time going about it.

Enjoyed Vin Diesel in both Boilerroom and Pitch Black, he has better acting skills over the Rock in my opinion, but then maybe that is still aiming at the bottom of the barrel.

I am looking forward to Van Helsing.

The only Vin Diesel movie I've seen was Boiler Room and I liked it quite a bit.  Of course that had little or nothing to do with Vin Diesel and a lot to do with it being a good movie..

My favorite Vin Diesel movie would have to be "The Iron Giant". It had almost nothing to do with Vin and everything to do with being a good movie.

Oh dear.  I thought Vin Diesel WAS the Rock!  Surely, they must be related.  I think I need to get out more.  

Don't make fun of me!  I am feeling fragile and emotional today.

Can anyone name me a good monster movie where the Hero was actually the cooler character, and not the Monster? This movie actually attempts that. Van Helsing is only cool in Dracula movies, not in "Van Helsing" movies.

Yeah, it will suck.

This is coming from the guy who brought us the Mummy and the Scorpion King. Probably a good rule of thumb somewhere in that..

He also brought us "Deep Rising". While on some levels I enjoyed that movie, I could never buy Treat Williams as a quasi-action hero.

Brotherhood of the Wolf falls into that category, IMO.

Vin's movies are crappy popcorn flics. If you enjoy that and aren't looking for deeper meaning they're not too bad.  Plus, I tend to like Vin himself because he's just a huge geek who's managed to get a Hollywood career as sometihng other than a CGI jockey.

Evil Dead 2.  Then again, no monster of any sort could ever be cooler than Bruce Campbell.

Big Trouble in Little China.  Jack Burton was the cool till Ash came along.

Course, I guess you could argue that Big Trouble was more a kung fu flick than a monster movie, but you can not argue that Jack was not cool.

Another thing about Pitch Black that you guys are forgetting is that is was a pretty good space scifi movie during a period when scifi was just about non-existant. That helped it score higher with me, as I was very supprised at how cool the movie was.

I have my fingers crossed for Roddick, but my expecations are pretty low.

I'm probably the only one here, but I thought Pitch black was a really crappy movie and Disel was the worst part of it. It had no redeeming qualties whatsoever.

No I won't argue. I am definitely wrong. Same with Ash.

Hmm... Good point.  I think it also scored big points because no one from the cast really stood out as previous 'star' material.  Most of those I recognized I had considered character actors, not red carpet material.  The problem with Roddick or Riddick or whatever it is going to be called is that now hollywood thinks Vin is the shiz they are going to tailor the movie around making sure his mug is in 80% of the flick.

I can name several off the top of my head

Pitch Black "I ain't the one you need to fear anymore" "It looks clear"
Evil Dead 1 & 2 and Army of Darkness "Good, bad, I'm the one with the gun"
Aliens, Ripley was scarier than the Alien. Of course, obsessive women do that to me.

And for the record I am looking forward to Van Helsing. then again, I don't go into movies looking for deeper meaning, I go into movies looking to be entertained and I think this one will entertain me.

hugh jackman to root for
kate beckinsale to drool for
stephen somers to make it over the top action with some comedy.

I'm there.

Just for the record, I liked it.

So far the critics I have seen are beating the shit out of it. I am thinking ''wide berth" on this one.

I've used movies.com's gathering of reviews to prejudge movies many a time.  So far it's worked pretty well except for movies I know I'm going to like despite what they say (I'm sorry to admit, but I actually did like Matrix: Reloaded).

Right now it's sitting at 3 positive, 5 negative and 2 mixed.  They usually gather about 15 reviews so all are not in yet.  Recent bombs like Envy, Godsend, And The Whole 10 Yards got absolutely shit upon (14, 15, and 15 negative reviews). So they smell out shit pretty well.

So based so far on what they've got, lets assume a break down of 5 positive, 7 negative, and 3 mixed.  In my experience, this means see the movie if you like the genre or just want some mindless entertainment mixed in with horrid acting.

The disturbing part is that all of the positive reviews sound absolutely 100% paid for.  Pulling all punches, using highly cliche'd catch phrases to describe the movie.  Sad.

I'll probably steer clear and rent this one.  Or at least the wife will, for Hugh Jackman.

At least Reloaded had the saving grace of good Monica Bellucci shots and the highway scene, which made the shitty plot somewhat bearable. Revolutions had nothing to redeem it in any way except the fact that it does end.

Gayest Dracula I have ever seen.  I liked it, basically mindless fun much like The Mummy.  If you liked that one you will probably like this one.  If you are looking for a serious movie with deep thought don't bother.

I'm going to see it. I liked both Mumnmy movies, and for the record Matrix Revolutions (which I think of as live action anime, probably why most Western audiences didn't like it/didn't get it.)

The key to these movies is going in knowing what to expect. Don't go into Van Helsing looking for a horror movie. Go in looking for a fun action movie.

Have you ever seen the very early dracula movies based off of Bram Stolkers origional dracula?  From what i remember, he was portrayed much the same way.

Okay.

The style of acting was... I lack words to describe. If you've seen old, black and white Dracula and Frankenstein flicks, you'll understand. It was meant to be this way. It was not meant to be an overly serious, dark and sinister flick. It was meant to emulate those old horror flicks and I thought that was conveyed well by their opening scene in black and white.

Van Helsing does some crazy shit and takes a royal beating and they certainly make his character appear legendary and larger than (human) life by the simple fact that he can take such a beating and not get a scratch.

Overall, the movie is action packed and a fun romp. You'll need to suspend your reality to enjoy it, otherwise, you'll be in disbelief every 5 minutes. If you like action and a good old tall tale based on legend, you'll enjoy the film.

Plus, Kate Beckinsdale is HOT!

I found that as soon as I made up fake names for Van Helsing, Dracula and Frankenstein and pretended it was not them I enjoyed the movie.

Van Helsings background was really really really suspect in that movie. For somebody called Van Helsing, that is. In the context of the movie (ignoring the background of the characters by other sources) it worked, though.

Having seen both LXG and Van Helsing recently, I have to say that LXG was better.

Still it saddens me to see a film with three Australian's in lead roles (Jackman, Wenham and Roxborough) that was almost so bad it was good. All of them can act better that what you see in Van Helsing, so I blame the director on this one.

So can judge my taste in films, I'm willing to also state publicly that I enjoyed the Matrix Trilogy, but mainly for 1) its style - no action film past this point can ignore what the Matrix offered, and 2) Agent Smith - a great villain and good performance.

Shit.  Now I have to start burning down local movie theatres and video outlets again to keep people from watching this shit.  My god did the Mummy movies suck ass.  I can't think of a pair of movies I hated more than Mummy and Mummy2.  No redeeming value in either film IMO.  I didn't even like the effects (too obvious, too over the top).

I would rewatch the weekend at bernies movies before those two.

Thread was good though.  Lets me know to take them off even the rental list.

Oddly enough my "shit radar" went off when it came to LXG and I haven't even rented it. Haven't even looked for it on cable. VH I'll go see cause I enjoy the occasional movie roller-coaster ride. Where I can go "oooo" "aaaahhhh" then go and do something else a couple hours later.

Having never seen either Mummy flick or Van Helsing, I would give the nod to VH just for the simple fact that Brendan Fraser is no where to be seen. The guy is like Keanu Reeves' less talented cousin.

I like the first Mummy flick, and the second one, not as much. I thought it was a perfect vehicle for Brendan Fraser to play the pulpy, cliffhanger type hero, and I was right.

However, it is nowhere near serious cinema. It is the pulp serials of the 20's turned into 2-hour movies with CGI effects. That's it. Looking for any deeper meaning or significance than that will surely mean you hate it with a white-hot passion.

You forgot to mention Rachel Weisz.

A hot piece of tart like that should go without saying in a pulpy action movie.

Exactly why I liked the mummy movies. Modern pulp.

"LXG" was genuinely painful to watch.  I don't recall having seen a movie that was that bad, and had both so much potentual and so much money poured into it.  The ONLY reason we didn't walk out of it was the suspense of wondering if it could get any worse.  Silly me, of course it could.  Plus the fact I never walk out of a movie just like I always finish a book once I start it.  I paid for the damned thing, I'm going to use it no matter how much it hurts.  I sat through "Nightfall" for god's sake, "LXG" was a walk in the park by comparison.  

But yeah, if you hated "The Mummy" you will hate "Van Helsing".  Big surprise, Van Helsing as an action hero.  If you can't get your head around that you're wasting your lunch money.

Probably to no ones surprise I am looking forward to "The Day after Tomorrow" and "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" too.

The right side of my brain says "ohh, The Day After Tomorrow looks like it could be interesting, you should go see that."

The left side of my brain says "AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH FUCK!!!!1!  THE DAY AFTER TOMMORROW IS COMING RIGHT AS US!!! RUN!!!!"

Listen to the left. The guy who did Independence Day is in charge. The suck factor may actually go off the charts on this one.

I don't understand why people feel the need to THINK in some movies. The Day After Tomorrow will be the biggest pile of shiny we've probably ever seen.

I don't go to movies to think. I go to movies to be entertained. Day After Tomorrow looks like an agenda movie to me so I'll skip it. Sky Captain I want to see just because it seems so different from typical mainstream movies.

Van Helsing was enjoyable. No need to think, only be entertained.

The Day After Tomorrow is a flimsy plot excuse to destroy major cities on the big screen with beautiful CGI. Like Independence Day. Sure, after you get over the initial Shock and Awe of the spectacle on screen, the movie blows monkey balls. Kind of like Twister.

TDAT is the regular theater equivalent of going to the iMAX theater, only they toss a flimsy plot and some gut-wrenching human drama in with it. If you don't see it in the theaters, there is no reason to ever see it again, unless you own a spiffy home theater.

And like ID4 it will be worth exactly one viewing.  I swear everytime I see ID4 now, the movie just gets worse and worse.  Once you get past the shit blowing up and pay attention to the actual flick, it just sucks.  Plot holes, shitty acting, bad pacing, this movie had it all.

I doubt I'll see TDAT in theatres. My wife is rather immune to eye candy flicks and will likely not want to go.

I can watch the trailer and see the shiny. That does nothing for me. If the plot is so thin and the acting so bad that they distract from the movie, I can't enjoy it. I need something more substantial for my time investment- after all, I could be reading a decent book instead of staring mindlessly at a crappy movie.

This thing is gonna blow on a biblical scale. I will avoid it.

Way and I apparently think exactly alike when it comes to movies and why we watch them.  Two hours is a fucking precious commodity in my life, I hate to leave a theater and think of all the other things I could have been doing with that time instead.  I hate it even more because I have to pay to waste that time.  I enjoy watching good movies, but there are a ton of other things I'd rather be doing than paying ten bucks to mindlessly stare at a screen and suspend my disbelief for two hours.

Mummy 1 was surprisingly fun.  Mummy 2 was a piece of shit, with some of the worst one liners ever voiced on the silver screen.

I finally saw Van Helsing tonight. Not an oscar worthy movie. Not LoTR. Not the first Matrix. It was however decent fun, if over the top to the Nth degree. I was actually surprised at the ending, simply because I don't expect that kind of thing in a summer action movie.

Not bad at all.

Movies in general are in a death spiral for more than pure "turn your brain off" fun. The only thing that got me out to the theatres was LOTR this year, and that was because I considered them to be wonderful films. Everything else coming out is either fart jokes, rehashed romantic comedies, CGI shiney, or star action vehicles. And that's not even the summer bullshit yet. Bitching about movies being bad has lost its panache, considering that few even make it about passable today.

If you want to intelligent entertainment, Barnes and Noble is probably close-by.

Hey, don't you be dissing fart jokes.

Dick and fart jokes have made Kevin Smith a millionaire!

I dont know, I am looking foreward to Shrek 2, and Spiderman 2 as being rock solid kickass movies.

Ironically Shrek 2 will be fart jokes and Spiderman 2 will be a rehashed romantic comedy with CGI shiney and a purty vehicle for the stars.

I'm sure something in black and white, in Italian, and about World War 2, sad clowns, and grapefruit will come out this summer and you too will be happy.  

Most of the rest of will probably enjoy those 2 offerings (I do agree on your assesment of Shrek 2, but Shrek was pretty much the same thing, yet it was entertaining).

I didn't say it wouldn't be entertaining! I'm sure I'll love both offerings. I was just stating the obvious.

Damn, and i thought the sarcasm tags were soooo obvious :P

Holy fucking piece of crap?! Not enough cleavage, story and acting poor to make the Rodents eyes bleed? The only thing I smiled at in this movie was the friar and the horribly shitty gremling ripoffs ( and only because they were horribly shitty gremling ripoffs. ).

It's great that monster movies are making a comeback, it's a shame they suck worse then last time.

The promotional machine for Van Helsing wants to suggest that it is an Indiana Jones inspired movie.

So those who saw it tell me: Indiana Jones or not?

What I'm referring to is the fact that the movie is meant to be a 'modern day serial adventure' where the heroes are capable of the most cartoonish feats, and the approach to danger/violence is a very lazy and comical style - wherein danger is afoot, but you're allowed to laugh at it.

Hate to buck the trend but I'd much prefer an Indiana Jones style Van Helsing to a Lord of the Rings style Van Helsing - and would see VH2 and VH3 if this is the case.

Once or twice or noticed Indylike music and some indylike scenes, but unlike Indy, it sucked.

Warning- Severe Necro post!

So, I was channel surfing last night and noticed The Day After Tomorrow was about to start on HBO. With morbid curiosity, I sat down and watched it.

Dear sweet Jesus it was bad. The 'science' was apparently concocted by a 2nd grader with a severe head injury. This thing was off the charts bad, just as I correctly predicted a year ago. Has anyone else sat through this piece of shit?

I keep seeing it popping up on HBO.  Once or twice I've leaned over to the wife and ask if she'd want to watch it.  The most positive response I get is a kindly, "what's on the history channel?".   I've sat through Armageddon and that other stupid comet movie, I don't think I feel up to another predictably crappy disaster movie.  It's such a shitty genre; Volcano, Twister, Armageddon, Dante's Peak, Deep Impact (remembered the name!), The Core, etc. 

Has there ever been a GOOD natural disaster movie?

I watched it. Then again - I watched the sisterhood. I keep meaning to post a review of it - but I can't find the words to describe it. (I'm thinking it's because I killed off a huge number of brain cells in self defense).

As for Day After Tomorrow... Emmy Rossum is a total cutie.  She was da bomb in Phantom (of the opera). But - yea - bad movie (Day that is.)

TOWERING INFERNO.. OJ for the win!!!

Add War of the Worlds to the list of bad disaster movies

I would love to hear your min-review of it- bite the bullet and watch it soon. You can derive some pleasure out of MST3K-ing the shit out of it, and leering at Emmy Rossum.

Heh, it is loosely based upon a book by Art Bell.

Art Bell? I would have expected something more plausible from him.

I Netflixed it, because the wife wanted to watch it. I kept getting the stinkeye stare from her while we watched it together, because I was sort of MST3king it. What a fucking shit stink movie.

"RUN! FROM THE CGI WOLVES! RUN! FROM THE ... COLD???? I WILL LEAVE MY WIFE TO DIE IN WASHINGTON WITH A VEGETABLE WHILE I HIKE ACROSS 3 STATES TO FIND MY PROBABLY POPSICLE SON IN A LIBRARY SOMEWHERE IN GODDAMN MANHATTAN BECAUSE I'VE BEEN A SHITTY DAD!"

Fuck, that movie sucked it.

Not to forget Whitley - I used to write decent horror, but then the Greys touched me in a bad place and now I suck -Streiber.

I din't bother with the movie, but the book has some good bits and better science - but they do get carried away with a lot of stupid speculating.

´
What are you talking about?
Twister is great. How can you not like a movie that has flying harvesters in it?
Volcano had it's tongue firmly in cheek... at least I choose to believe it's all intentional ("never mind the science, let's blow up LA!")
And Armageddon was so over the top stupid, it was good (apart from all the sentimental crap). Space Madness, gatlings for combatting asteroids, crazy Swedish Rusiian cosmonauts, Paris getting wiped out... it has it all!

AtomicToy summed The Day After Tomorrow up best.

When I watched that movie, the first thing to really grab me as crappy filmmaking was when donnie was on the airplane, and kind of freaking out, and he had peanuts all over his tray. Then the flightattendant comes by and he flips up his try and some how the hundreads of nuts just disapear.

Yeah, I know. Its the little things.

I saw Once Upon a Time in the Midlands last night.  It was good.  Someone should watch it.

I TIVO'd it.  I sat down and watched it.  I told my wife she didn't have to and could go do something else because it was likely to be horrible.  She watched it too because I guess she likes spending time with me or something.  Apparently now I owe it to her to watch a bad chick flick with her.  I can only hope Mandy Moore and Anne Hathaway die in a firey car wreck now.

Emmy Rossum was cute.  That's the best thing I can say for this movie.  That and it was terrific fun to make fun of while watching. My favorite moment would be yelling "SAURUMON!" when the flock of birds flew overhead.  Thoughout the entire movie I couldn't shake the feeling that the movie could have been a lot better if at some time a horde of CGI orcs came rampaging through the city killing all in their path.  Then tanks.  Tanks v. orcs: that would have saved the movie.

Gotta love the stereotypical US vice president.  They really needed to have him wear a name tag that said "MY NAME IS DICK CHENEY, ROBOT DICK TO MY FRIENDS".  And yes, people out-running weather is something they need to stop doing in movies. It's as bad as out-running fire, an atomic blast, an avalanche, or in some instances LIGHT! 

Bad, bad movie with triple bad dialogue and horrible CGI.  Something I will never, ever watch again and just file into "disaster movies suck".  And to Hanzii, yes, all of those movies still sucked.  Flying cows doesn't save shitty movies.  Althought at one point watching this film during the LA scene I said to my wife, "see, they're missing an opportunity to have Helen Hunt and Bill Paxton drive by in a yellow truck".

You're wrong you stupid man. Flying cows saves everything.
Spiderman 4 with Venom and Carnage battling through New York - add a flying cow (and don't forget the goddamn flying harvesters) and it will be good.

A good disaster movie doesn't need a plausible disaster it needs above avearge acting, heroic sacrifice by fat extras, stuff blowing up, sidekicks burning, rocks falling AND flying cows. I could do without dogs being saved, but some people dig those, so Ill let it slide - I'd rather see some adorable kid outrunning a fire with his budgie perched on his ear... but that's me.
And we need more movies about killer bees... or newts.

Do zombies count as a natural disaster?

Ishtar?

Oh wait, there was nothing natural about it.

Van Helsing 40k, starring Hugh Jackman as Imperial General Victor van Helsing, figting the Chaos Hordes on Terra Prime.

I'd buy that for ten bucks even.

I want Alien 5.  Aliens get loose on Earth, multiply prodigiously, and attempt to eat everyone.  I want huge battle scenes with 500 aliens running through the city at night, jumping over cars and kicking ass and fighting the army.  Directed by James Cameron.

With a flying cow.

A flying cow?  EEK!

Hollywood is only willing to give you more Sigourney Weaver, showing how tough broads really can be, with shaven head, implausible storyline and directed by the last guy to direct a Bond movie.

Underworld just came on HBO, speaking of movies that may suck horribly. I think I'll give it a glance.

Bad idea.

It's almost good it's so bad.  Really, you can tell it was written/directed by a prop guy (who married Kate) and co-written by a bit part actor/stuntman.  Some parts are so bad they just make you laugh.  The guy that plays Kraven turns in honestly one of the worst acting performances I've ever seen put to film.

Good news is, there will be a sequel that will probably battle Bloodrayne for the title of "crappiest vampire movie EVAR!"

Wow, that was complete and utter ass. I loved the sword slash thru the face, fake out, oh no half your head is gone thing. WHAT WAS THAT? Was there a plot? Half Vampire-Werewolves? At least the action was solid.

There are worse supernatural films.

Still, I really disliked Underworld.  And I was dumbfounded at the positive reaction it got from a lot of people.

Yes, the chop through the head was really quite stupid.  Notice how they keep lengthening that out in action films?  Eventually we'll get to the point where the main character will slice through the badguy's head in the first act, but no one but the main character will realize it until act 3.

Now that would be the shit.

That movie made me physically retch. I don't remember ANYONE liking it though or giving it a positive reaction. Except for zee hot girl bouncing around in leather. But I wouldn't call that giving the movie a positive reaction - that's called being a guy.

Hmmm, I'm fairly sure some Masquerade players out there liked it.

But I can chime in with my own 'OMG, WHAT A WASTE OF MY LIFE'S EGG-TIMER THAT FILM WAS' comment.

They would, wouldn't they?  :x

Screw vampires. I just don't understand why there hasn't been a decent (not even great) werewolf movie in 20 years.

[edit] Oh wait.

In English, I mean.

Dog Soldiers?

I can't even say that I hate it...I've tried to watch it a couple of times, but always ended up turning it off. Definitely not what I'm looking for. I want a Werewolf flick in the classic sense (i.e. Jekyl/Hyde). Not Predator with cockney accents. I don't care so much about seeing blood and guts as I do watching a guy psychologically deteriorate.

edit: spelling

Also, I'd just like to add: I've got a thing for "lonely guy" stories (Taxi Driver, Monte Christo, Mad Max, Last Tango in Paris, almost any given spaghetti Western or Samurai tale.....and the like). Loneliness is the main reason why I watch classic monster movies too. When it's changed to "survival", "gore", or "horror" (or whatever) I feel little reason to watch. Just my opinion though...

I can see where you're coming from, but I LOVED Dog Soldiers.

Just one of those things.

"There is no Spoons."

Give a try to the Ginger Snaps trilogy if you are feeling adventurous. Certainly not classic werewolf fare, but deffinately not Dog Soldiers either (which I also loved).

Brotherhood of the Wolf. Bonus points go to Monica Bellucci's breasts in that one.

Also, Underworld was a bag of demonic leper nuts. My friend at work told me it was great, and I almost cried with how stupid it was. Cool premise, interesting gadgets, shitty acting, shitty writing.

I'm sure a good werewolf movie would entail werewolves throwing cows.

I just knew a ton of people who said they loved it (Underworld) and they'd look at me in disbelief for saying it was awful.  I don't know, maybe it's the water out here.  I felt it could've been FAR worse, but it was pretty mediocre and, yes, a waste of time to watch.

But you wanna see really awful, go watch Wes Craven's "Cursed".  Now THERE'S an awful werewolf flick.  Dear god.

Sing my angel of music!!! Sing for me!!

Check Rossum out in Phantom of the Opera. The first 10 minutes are worth it alone - even without her. The theatre transformation scene has to be the coolest use of of CGI I have ever seen. Plus - Emmy can sing - maybe not lipsink so well - but she can sing.

They wouldn't happen to be dedicated players of the White Wolf PnP RPGs that Underworld borrows most of its stuff from?

Nope.  I'm the only one, of the people with whom I spoke, who actually knew anything about the World of Darkness.  That turned me off further from the film, that they ripped it off without giving credit.

Now give me a Vampire: The Masquerade or Werewolf: The Apocalypse movie and I'm fucking there.  Even though it'll almost certainly suck.

(http://epguides.com/KindredtheEmbraced/logo.gif)

Firefly kicks ass.