Van Helsing - A Review

[David Meek]

MPAA Rating: PG-13 for non-stop creature violence, frightening images, sensuality
Runtime: 132 minutes

Director/Writer:
Stephen Sommers (Deep Rising, The Mummy, The Mummy Returns)

Cast:
Hugh Jackman - (X-Men, X-II, Swordfish, Kate & Leopold) as Gabriel Van Helsing
Kate Beckinsale - (Pearl Harbor, Underworld, Serendipity) as Anna Valerious
Richard Roxburg - (Mission Impossible II, Moulin Rouge, The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen) as Count Dracula
David Wenham - (Moulin Rouge, The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy, Dark City) as Carl
Robbie Coltrane - (From Hell, The Harry Potter movies, Message In A Bottle) as Mr. Hyde

For only the second time in my life, I walked out of a movie before it had finished. Van Helsing not only did not meet my minimal expectations in a film, it did not meet them in a fairly catastrophic manner. Stephen Sommers has done several decent-to-good movies and I was expecting something similar in touch and feel with his effort The Mummy - well, my bad. Sadly, the combination of Sommers, Jackman, Beckinsale and Coltrane didn’t add up to more than the sum of its parts. In fact, it fell far short of the potential inherent in that group. More on this in a moment - let me get my blood-pressure back to normal.

This "story" (there's gotta be one in there somewhere - oh, maybe not) follows Gabriel Van Helsing, an internationally infamous killer/revered holy man (WHAT?), as he is sent by a secret order of the Catholic church to wipe out Count Dracula and his minions in Transylvania, and at the same time save an important family line from eternal damnation. Quickly running into the basement of the cathedral as he’s leaving, he finds Carl, his trusty medieval weapons inventor/scientist/comic relief who has the absolute latest in demon-killing - a rapid fire crossbow. Yep, you heard it here first folks - a weapon that resembles a baby Gatling gun mated with a crossbow that shoots a gazillion bolts (with a muzzle velocity close to that of an M-16) before needing a reload. The silliness only goes downhill from there. Once Gabriel and Carl get to Transylvania they immediately encounter Anna, the last surviving member of the family needing to be saved. She a bustier-wearing, super-tight-Lycra-pant-wearing (did they have Lycra back then?), and high-heel-wearing vixen that has more weapons cached on her than Arnold carries in one of the Terminator movies. Now, to top it off, as best I could tell, if it’s supposed to be a cartoon, no-one told the actors. They try to soldier on, over-acting and emoting for everything they are worth - on EVERY SINGLE LINE. The best example I can give is that watching this movie is like being in a Harlequin romance novel - you know, the old bodice-rippers. Women with chests heaving, and strong, silent, steely-eyed, mysterious men. I can’t go on. . . .
:banghead:

With the exception of Carl,, who did bring a few good moments with him, there was no sense of connection between any of the actors. There was no sense of anyone believing in their own character. It was a bunch of disjointed performances by people that seemed to be trying to overcome their lack of enthusiasm for their roles by going over-the-top on drama. I wore thin very quickly. There wasn't a sense of direction or cohesiveness from Mr. Sommers, either. Again, had it been marketed as a cartoon/parody it might have come closer to working, but it wasn't, and so it didn't.

I do have to admit that the production values are rather high for the most part. It’s a generally a very nice image. Good detail and stylish colors are used to good effect in the various scenes. Another strange-seeming item was the special effects - they range from excellent (the werewolf change-overs) to “did they use crayons?” (the flying wives of Dracula).

Audio is a constant barrage on your ears from all channels, including the deep bass. Good channel separation gives you quite the feeling of things whizzing, jumping, howling, flying, crashing all around you. Unfortunately too, the actors’ voices are very clear and easily understood. Had they been mumbling rather than over-emoting, the movie might have worked better.

I could go on for days, but nah. Stay away. Stay FAR away from Van Helsing.

I give it :1: (for PQ/SQ) out of :5:.

[aud19]

That sucks I had high hopes for this one :cry:

Jason

[ht_addict]

Even before I went to this one I knew it was a check your brain at the door, grab your popcorn and pop and enjoy. This movie certainly is as bad as David says. Its a decent action flick worthy of a matinee, thats going to make a great DVD. Helluva better than the last movie I saw. Hellboy.

ht_addict

[Andrew Pratt]

David you walked out on Kate :E

[Burke Strickland]

David -

Correct me if I've gotten the wrong impression, but I get the feeling this movie might not make it onto your list of "Ten Favorite Films of 2004" even if you see only nine others this year. :>)

Burke

[David Meek]

Yeah Andrew, I know. I can say it. "I walked out on Kate". Waaaahhhhhh! :cry:

But that should tell ya just how stinky this thing was.
:E

[George Bellefontaine]

I was talking to my brother who saw this film yesterday and Tex's review pretty much confirms what Bro said: " It stinks." Too bad, I was really thinking this was going to be a good flick with all those great monsters of yore.

[aud19]

She is pretty darned yummy isn't she... :drool:



Jason

[aud19]

EDIT: Never mind...fixed it ops:

Ok where's Kev... the image isn't showing up.....?

Jason

[David Meek]

She is pretty darned yummy isn't she...

Oh, absolutely! Pant, pant. ;x(

I'll make up for walking out on her - I'll pop in Underworld and get my Kate fix.

[Azeke]

Yeah, I saw this film on my 50th birthday (May 7th), and I was anticipating a bit more, not one of the best films I've seen (glad I caught the matinee). Don't waste your good movie money on it. Rent it on DVD, but be prepared this film is strictly for entertainment/brain dumping.

Regards,

Azeke

[Burke Strickland]

On the whole, it looks like the “professional” critics agree with you, David. On Rotten Tomatoes, out of 143 reviews of “Van Helsing” that they've tabulated so far, only 35 liked it, while 108 panned it – more than 3 to 1 against. Overall, the critics' average rating was 4.3/10, a relatively low score equivalent to less than two stars out of four.

They all pretty much agreed that the special effects were awesome, although one cited a lengthy list of recent spectacles where we've seen similar effects before where the effects actually supported the story. So the bar is getting rather high in this area industry-wide. But the lack of credible acting, character development or story left them cold. Of course, most of them didn't like "Underworld" either, so what do they know? ;>)

Burke

[Andrew Pratt]

It looks like we're all too late anyway as she just married her Underworld Director boyfriend.

[SpOoNmAn]

Like Ive said b4, I dont know what people were expecting. Its a movie based off a comic, dont expect an oscar caliber movie.

Its a fun romp, and any fans of werewolves, kate, and vamps, will enjoy it. Especially if you go to the matinee, and pay half price.

I loved the movie :T

[Burke Strickland]

I dont know what people were expecting.

Sounds to me like the folks who were disappointed with "Van Helsing" expected, among other things, a somewhat cohesive story that makes sense in the universe it sets up, reasonably competent acting to effectively portray the types of characters introduced to us by the film, and consistency in the presentation of special effects. Those don't sound like too awfully much to ask, even for a popcorn movie. For instance, "The Fifth Element" scored big on all those points in addition to having reference quality video and sound.

Its a movie based off a comic, dont expect an oscar caliber movie.

You mean like:

Superman based on the Superman comic (nominated for 3 Oscars – Best Film Editing, Best Sound, Best Music Original Score John Williams, and in addition won a Special Achievement Award at the Oscars for special effects)

Spiderman based on the Spiderman comic (nominated for the Best Sound and the Best Visual Effects Oscars)

Road to Perdition based on the Road To Perdition “graphic novel” which is a fancy name for a comic book about something other than fantasy or superheroes (Won Oscar for Best Cinematography - Conrad L. Hall; nominated for Best Actor in a Supporting Role - Paul Newman, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound, Best Music Original Score - Thomas Newman, Best Art Direction/Set Decoration)

Batman based on the Batman comic (won Oscar for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration)

Dick Tracy based on the Dick Tracy comic (won Oscars for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration. Best Makeup, Best Music, Original Song - Stephen Sondheim; nominated for Best Actor in a Supporting Role - Al Pacino, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Sound)

Perhaps since they were based on comics, those should have been disqualified for the Oscars, since their awards and nominations tend to give such movies a "good name". :>)

[Burke Strickland]

You've talked me into watching it.

We are each entitled to our own opinion of any given movie, and if a particular film strikes us as enjoyable, it doesn't matter if 100 other people we know say it stinks (unless one of them is our ride home and they are leaving in the middle.) :>) On the other hand, if we've decided a movie is an all-time turkey, another 100 folks telling us it is a joyful triumph isn't going to change our minds, either. We still have the right to sulk while they revel in its glories. :>)

I have not seen "Van Helsing" but given the reactions to it, here and elsewhere, it is now in the same "must see" category as "Battlefield Earth", "Ishtar" and "Gigli" -- just to find out for myself if it is really as special as a few folks (including Roger Ebert) insist, or as awful as some others (as in “most of the people on the face of the earth who watch movies” ) :>) have claimed.

[David Meek]

Ebert liked it?!?!?!?!?! :E

[George Bellefontaine]

Ebert does surprise me at times. You know, though, like Burke I will now have to see this ( on dvd) just to see for myself how awful it is.

Oh, and speaking of Kate Beckinsale, she may be coming to my backyard ( Halifax) this summer to make a film with Billy Bob Thornton. She's being considered for the film entitled FADE OUT. It's apparently a psychological thriller and Thornton playes a schizo screenwriter married to an actress. If it turns out to be Kate, looks like I'll be spending a little time in Halifax this summer.

[SpOoNmAn]

how/why someone would/could put this movie into the "awful" category, is beyond me.

To each their own. cant wait for the DVD :T

[David Meek]

Aaron, that's it exactly! If we all liked the same things in films, it'd get boring at the movies real fast.
:

[Gordon Moore]

Von Hellllsiiiink.....hahahahaha....can I have some ham with that cheese.

David covered the highlights and the story (?).

I had high hopes during the very nice homage to 1930's Frankenstein but that was all we have at a glimpse at what the movie could have been. Instead we get campy schlock, but unfortunately, doesn't quite fall in the "so bad, it's good" category. So inevitably, it winds up being a bad movie with high production value.

The tone of the movie...that's where I felt I got ripped off. The tone was not what was advertised. They presented something a little darker and that's definitely what we did not get.

Man everyone was over-acting in this one and most of the jokes fell flat. Most people in the theater were laughing at the movie not with it (and that's never a good thing).

The actor playing Dracula actually fit in quite well with the tone of the movie. His performance wasn't the traditional Dracula nor the darker, seducing menace that current films have portrayed. He took a risk, I appreciated it and in the end he won me over(in spite of the cries from most people as "worst Dracula ever.......ever").

The actor playing Frankenstein's monster was completely and utterly over-acting....horrible choice. Why they gave him key plot development dialog was way beyond me. They totally missed the boat on the monster. We get that he's a tragic and sympathetic monster, but they instead choose to hit us over the head with a 12lb sledgehammer and tell us (numerous times) how much good is in his heart (what is this E.T.? Take a good look at the monster and you'll see what i mean).
Heck I'd take Peter Boyle any day...."puttin on the ritzzzzz."

The werewolves were well done...but...with so much CGI, it just bcame tiresome after the well thought out transformation sequence. Simply put, Underworld does the werewolves better....better yet, rent American Werewolf in London...far better movie and zero cgi (Quite possibly THE original horror/comedy....where the jokes actually work and break the tension).

As for the suprise guest :wtf: Why was he a mini-hulk????? I didn't get that at all.

Finally, the cgi was annoying and very obvious sometimes (intrusive overkill...think Mummy Returns)...people jump around with an almost spiderman quality...swinging from ropes...falling from trees....running up walls....flying horses (yup, flying horses) this movie gets some very unintentional laughs.

Set design is a winner in this...there's a ballroom scene that you'd swear was plucked from Moulin Rouge....fantastic sets...very grand....over the top like the rest of the movie but this time in a good way.

Sommers has no ability to see an action scene through...nor is he very good at setting it up. Everything is simply a good idea strung together with very thin thread...He has lots of ideas but no clue how to bring it together. So we are left with seconds of tension followed by boo-scare moments, followed by action and finally followed by comedic relief (that's the whole movie in a nutshell). For one reason or another, he can't seem to pull this forumla off.

I noticed he carried Writer/Director with this one...and I say he should choose one or the other because he appears to be spreading himself way too thin. Possibly suffering from M.Night syndrome trying to recapture the glory of his big hit and never quite accomplishing it. I liked what Sommers did with his version of the Mummy...I hope he rekindles that energy someday and drops the sugar high he infuses into his current movies with a paper thin plot.

I suppose if I was 12 hopped up on pepsi and nibs I probably would have liked this one more.

Ah well....we'll always have Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff, and Lon Chaney (Sr./Jr.)

3/10 (maybe a 4/10 for sets).

Good for one viewing and completely forgettable. Rent it if you must or wait for the cheap theater, there are far better movies to waste your good money on.

[Gordon Moore]

Like Ive said b4, I dont know what people were expecting. Its a movie based off a comic,

I din't think it was based on a comic at all....It's based on the character from Bram stoker's novel. They got the idea after filming Coppola's Dracula and this was supposed to be the follow-up....but it got pushed back and was turned over to Stephen Sommers after his work with the Mummy. The movie evolved into this (makes you wonder what it could have been)...

Why he changed Van Helsing's name from Abraham to Gabriel was odd....I guess based on his origins :roll: they found it more fitting.

[David Meek]

David covered the highlights and the story (?).

Hehe. It didn't take long to cover the highlights - that's for sure. :rofl:

Good review Gordon. :T

[Lex]

Ebert is no more than a Hollywood Yes man. Tell me, have you ever heard of him dissing a film with a bad review? I'm curious, have you?

I'll not be seeing this film or buying it. Yes, indeed a free rental through my Daughter's job at a video store could still be paying to much, lol.

Lex

[Gordon Moore]

Well this one comes to mind...he didn't mix words here:

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

[George Bellefontaine]

Yeah, Gordon, and I couldn't agree with him more on that one.