Posted by C2FThom at edutopia.mpsaz.org on January 16, 2004 at 11:13:12:
In Reply to: Van Helsing Trailer posted by PantherModern on January 16, 2004 at 08:42:52:
First of all, yes the CGI is horrid. I'm hoping they have that fixed by this summer--seems to be how a lot of the medium-grade CGI movies work out.
Second, I think Van Helsing's a compelling character from what I've seen at him before, so it doesn't have to *just* be a mindless action flick. But it is Universal, so I wouldn't doubt if it is.
Lastly, there is nothing wrong with Jackman's Wolverine. He's my fave character and I've loved him since I was, what, 12? (Must've been '92 or '93.) I'd like to think I know the character better than most, at least better than most who weren't around when Giant Sized #1 came out. Granted, Jackman's Wolverine is different than the comic Wolverine. He's taller, less hairy, but more significantly to me he seems a little more sophisticated. I think of Wolverine and I picture him leaning on a wall or sitting under a tree, wearing a cowboy hat, calling someone darlin'. I can't quite picture Jackman's Wolverine doing that.
But I'm okay. As I see it, it's just a different version of the character. Maybe more sellable, I dunno. But Jackman has managed to capture most of the complex elements of the character's psychology and personality: the mistrust, the rage, the lust and envy, but also that unsuspected streak of tenderness. I don't think we've seen such character apsects captured in other comic films as we have here. Batman was pretty bland as a character. Reeves was pretty spot on with Supes, but the character doesn't require much. Tobey Maguire did a good job with early Peter Parker, but we've yet to see how he changes over the years, which is an important aspect of the character. But in the X-Men saga, we have two very good examples: Wolverine, as well as Nightcrawler (Alan Cummings). A strong argument could be made for Magneto as well, but we've seen so many versions of him in the books it's hard to judge.