Monday 10th 2004f May 2004
« « The Ladykillers| Troy » »Van Helsing
If this website were a democracy, I’d have to say that this movie sucked big time, because the three people I went with were all of that opinion. But it isn’t. And it didn’t.
I’m having a hard time understanding all the vitriol. I really don’t see where this movie fell down on its promise. Sure, it’s no Pickpocket or Seven Samurai, but is that really what we were expecting? Is that what they led us to believe we were going to get?
The movie starts with a black and white re-enactment of one of the most enduring images from the films that act as its inspirations: the Mob of Villagers with Flaming Torches Storms the Spooky Castle where Doctor Frankenstein is Transgressing Against the Natural Order of Things. Just as lightning strikes and the monster twitches, Count Dracula appears. He’s financing Viktor’s experiments for his own (presumably nefarious) ends, and he’s bribed Igor to help him steal the monster. The mob descends and Frankenstein is incapacitated, but his creation lurches to his aid. He carries his parent into a nearby windmill, but it’s a dead end. The villagers set it alight. The good doctor and his 9 foot tall conglomeration of corpses are consumed by the flames, but not before the recently conscious wretch has delivered itself of a heart-rending cry of “Father! Why?”. The Count surveys the flaming wreckage. Back to square one.
This is great stuff. And now we know where we are, right? The Universal classics, revisited. But not straightforwardly. These guys have been substantially reimagined. We’re not getting Karloff and Whale’s lurching, uncomprehending Frankenstein; we’re getting the curiously erudite and tragically misunderstood model from the second part of Mary Shelley’s novel. We’re not getting Lugosi and Browning’s suave, refined Count; we’re getting a much twitchier, more athletic version with clearly defined issues. And these vampires don’t turn into wimpy little bats – they’re more like the Harpies from Jason and the Argonauts.
It’s a little over the top, in the same way that the universe is a little big. But I liked that. It entertained me. This movie has it’s pleasures. It doesn’t mislead you about what they’re going to be, and it doesn’t stint on them. Not everything works, and the things that don’t do clunk loudly, but Robbie Coltrane and ILM’s cool take on Mr. Hyde had me in a forgiving frame of mind for most of what followed.
The movie only really falls down in its entirely human participants. It’s not that Hugh Jackman does a bad job, but his character seems curiously incidental to the movie that bears his name. They really do try hard to tie him to Dracula on some kind of emotional level, but I didn’t buy it. Or, maybe more accurately, I didn’t care. The moments of character growth and change which are normally considered necessary for a movie to work on the most basic level seemed completely superfluous and even a little embarrassing here. Stop emoting, I want to get back to the parade!
I’m reading a lot of complaints about the CGI. Sure, it’s cartoonish. Why not? The CGI’d characters in this movie come across more like a sophisticated version of the animated ones in the Disney movie Pete’s Dragon than, say, Gollum. This was not a problem for me. I love cartoons. I love it when they interact with people. I don’t feel that all CG monster’s need to look and feel like the ones in Jurassic Park.
This is lucky for me, I guess, and puts me at odds with a lot of other people. My expectations weren’t that high, and they were comfortably exceeded. This is by no means a great movie. It was too long, there are massive and insulting plot inconsistencies, and I have absolutely no desire to see it again, but it was far more imaginative than it had occurred to me it might be. Even the slightly-too-numerous clunky bits were more often than not a result of overreaching, not a failure of imagination. I don’t know what everybody else’s problems are. I’m glad my standards are so low – I was the only person that night who felt they got their money’s worth, and that’s a nice feeling.
Comment ID: 52
At 10:42 pm on Monday 10th 2004f May 2004, Nigel opinedI haven’t seen it yet but I can speculate. I thought “Underworld” sucked a big one but at least in that they had the sense to put Kate Beckinsale in some tight leather outfits. It almost made the film bearable … for a few minutes. Have the filmmakers in this case wisely elected to force her into costumes that would scarcely clothe one half her size?
And I don’t know why but this page keeps displaying weird on my laptop.. A laptop which, as we all know, is a superior computer to the one upon which your review was originally composed.
Comment ID: 53
At 10:48 am on Tuesday 11th 2004f May 2004, Anthony testifiedMs. Beckinsale’s fetching leather attire is indeed one of the pleasures of which I spoke.
And please be more specific about your problems with this page. I’d like it to be accessible to all, even my unfortunate macintosh-afflicted brethren.
Comment ID: 54
At 3:43 pm on Tuesday 11th 2004f May 2004, Nigel channelledThe page appears to be blank, apart from the BG picture, until I scroll all the way to the right.
This is not my only Mac affliction. I’m having trouble getting links to work in my own blog entries. So much for Blogger’s update! Pah!!!!!!
Comment ID: 55
At 3:52 pm on Tuesday 11th 2004f May 2004, Anthony assertedI’ve changed something. How is it now? Is it just this review or all the reviews? Is it the recipes as well?
Comment ID: 56
At 9:08 pm on Tuesday 11th 2004f May 2004, Nigel started typing, with this resultThis is puzzling. If I click on ‘Main’ the body of the review snaps to the left over the picture but the sidebar disappears. The comments also disappear.
I told you that BG picture was trouble!!!!
Comment ID: 57
At 9:34 pm on Tuesday 11th 2004f May 2004, Anthony discoursedOK, I guess that’s confusing. I’ve gotten rid of the “Main” option. Is it still aligned to the right?
Comment ID: 58
At 7:22 am on Wednesday 12th 2004f May 2004, Nigel wroteYup!
Sorry ….......
Comment ID: 59
At 7:16 pm on Thursday 13th 2004f May 2004, Nigel proclaimedIt’s working now. Very slick now getting the poster to apppear too.
Comment ID: 60
At 10:06 pm on Monday 17th 2004f May 2004, Andrew Bellware started typing, with this resultSo, what did you think of Underworld? Or should this be in the “Ask Anthony” section?
Comment ID: 61
At 10:51 pm on Monday 17th 2004f May 2004, Anthony saidNo, here’s fine.
As to Underworld… Never saw it. Sorry.
Comment ID: 62
At 2:10 pm on Wednesday 19th 2004f May 2004, Nigel wanted everyone to knowI saw Underworld. It’s shite. Too long, boring and almost pretentiously overwrought. Some of it was quite funny in a very uintentional way.
I only actually went to see it because:
1) The trailer did show the now Mrs. Wiseman in those costumes.
2) It was shot on 3perf and post-produced by Arri in Munich and so qualified as research for my last job.
3) I was bored anyway.
4) My date wanted to see it. (No. That’s a lie.)
5) I dunno, isn’t 4 excuses enough?