![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Boromir vs. Faramir
Nov. 29th, 2004 10:57 pmI saw two movies this weekend.
The first was National Treasure. There was a longer line at the Apollo than any I'd yet seen, and I was sure that everyone there had been suckered by advertising and the Disney name, that there would be a lot of grumbling and walking out; I was only going for schlocky fun, and because I actually find Masonic conspiracies nifty. But the all-townie audience seemed to like it, as did I; it was a nice, simple adventure movie, like we used to get in the 80s. (Think Goonies.) What CGI there was was not intrusive; the camera angles were traditional; the story was a straightforward mystery; the characters were archetypes; the annoying comic relief actually made me laugh. I like a movie like that now and again, a simple story told well.
I was particularly pleased by Nic Cage's motivation, which was strictly intellectual and preservationist. (This is also the motivation of Indiana Jones, but it's not sufficiently "cool" for most recent action heroes.) Sean Bean (aka Boromir) played a likeable bad guy, which was rather a treat. And the middle third of the movie is set in Philadelphia, which made me nostalgic; they actually visited the Franklin Institute! I admit I have a soft spot for the All-Seeing Eye in the Pyramid and hidden messages on the back of currency, but I think they've got a nice appealing movie here.
I rented Van Helsing the next night. It was...less fun. The movie opens with the worst Dracula I have ever seen: an aging, swaying rock-and-roller in a pompadour who can't seem to take anything seriously, and who never ever comes within spitting distance of being a credible threat. David Wenham (Faramir) is wasted as a comic-relief monk, and the climax seems to have been written to capitalize on a certain prior role of Hugh Jackman. (*snik*) Moreover, the climactic battle is fought between two poorly rendered CGI creations, which makes it rather difficult to feel anything for the "characters" (and I use the term loosely).
I expected that a movie-monster-fest with Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, a werewolf, and Mr. Hyde would at least be B-movie fun; after all, Universal produced some fabulously goofy all-star bouts with the same source material. But Van Helsing was ponderous and bleak. I enjoyed the artful (and when I say artful, I mean blatant) use of cleavage by Dracula's wives and the corset-clad Kate Beckinsale, and I thought Shuler Hensley played a nicely dignified Frankenstein's monster. Beyond that...vade retro, Van Helsing.
The first was National Treasure. There was a longer line at the Apollo than any I'd yet seen, and I was sure that everyone there had been suckered by advertising and the Disney name, that there would be a lot of grumbling and walking out; I was only going for schlocky fun, and because I actually find Masonic conspiracies nifty. But the all-townie audience seemed to like it, as did I; it was a nice, simple adventure movie, like we used to get in the 80s. (Think Goonies.) What CGI there was was not intrusive; the camera angles were traditional; the story was a straightforward mystery; the characters were archetypes; the annoying comic relief actually made me laugh. I like a movie like that now and again, a simple story told well.
I was particularly pleased by Nic Cage's motivation, which was strictly intellectual and preservationist. (This is also the motivation of Indiana Jones, but it's not sufficiently "cool" for most recent action heroes.) Sean Bean (aka Boromir) played a likeable bad guy, which was rather a treat. And the middle third of the movie is set in Philadelphia, which made me nostalgic; they actually visited the Franklin Institute! I admit I have a soft spot for the All-Seeing Eye in the Pyramid and hidden messages on the back of currency, but I think they've got a nice appealing movie here.
I rented Van Helsing the next night. It was...less fun. The movie opens with the worst Dracula I have ever seen: an aging, swaying rock-and-roller in a pompadour who can't seem to take anything seriously, and who never ever comes within spitting distance of being a credible threat. David Wenham (Faramir) is wasted as a comic-relief monk, and the climax seems to have been written to capitalize on a certain prior role of Hugh Jackman. (*snik*) Moreover, the climactic battle is fought between two poorly rendered CGI creations, which makes it rather difficult to feel anything for the "characters" (and I use the term loosely).
I expected that a movie-monster-fest with Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, a werewolf, and Mr. Hyde would at least be B-movie fun; after all, Universal produced some fabulously goofy all-star bouts with the same source material. But Van Helsing was ponderous and bleak. I enjoyed the artful (and when I say artful, I mean blatant) use of cleavage by Dracula's wives and the corset-clad Kate Beckinsale, and I thought Shuler Hensley played a nicely dignified Frankenstein's monster. Beyond that...vade retro, Van Helsing.
