Contains SUPER MILD spoilers, but don't worry, story is the least important part of this film.

"I want to live!" screams Dr. Victor Frankenstein's monster, a living being created from body parts of dead humans. The film a "Van Helsing" wants to live too, but like the monster, it's patchwork of so many different things that it can be uneven, and often, quite ugly. But also like the monster, it supplies some great entertainment.

"Van Helsing" is an homage to the universal horror films of yesteryear, complete with the monster, the Wolfman, and Count Dracula. If you're not familiar with the character of Van Helsing, he was introduced in the original "Dracula" novel as Abraham Van Helsing, a professor who had a knowledge of vampirism and helps defeat the evil Count. Everyone from Laurence Olivier to Anthony Hopkins (in the best portrayal of the character to date). Here, Stephen Sommers ("The Mummy" and "The Mummy Returns") makes him into a young hero (Hugh Jackman) who is like a combination of Indiana Jones, Vampire Hunter D, and "The Mummy"'s Rick O'Connell. He's a leather jacket wearing, dual pistol packing badass with no past and immortality who works for the Vatican be disposing of those pesky evil creatures that destroy the innocent. It's a pretty cool concept, but it has a few glitches. There are many, many, many, many problems with "Van Helsing," and rather than try to put them into review format, they will be listed as follows:

1. Writer/Director Sommers can't make up his mind. Is "Van Helsing" a corny but extremely fun action film? Or is it a dead serious film? It switches between these two moods, and unlike "The Mummy," it never finds even ground. One moment characters are cracking jokes and they fight in slow-motion, and next they become serious as a funeral. It's erratic and bothersome.

2. The acting. While Jackman's charisma makes Van Helsing a great character, the same can't be said for the remainder of the cast. Kate Beckinsale, decked out like a dominatrix, overacts with a horrible, horrible accent. She has no chemistry with Jackman, and her character is irritating. Comic relief is supplied by a friar who accompanies Van Helsing. His schtick soon becomes tiresome, and I kept hoping for a vampire to rip his head off. Worst off is Dracula's brides, portrayed by three of the worst actresses I have ever seen. This could in part be blamed on Sommers' script (see #3), but these gut-churning performances will give me more nightmares than the vampires, werewolves, and walking corpses combined. This will also be the appropriate time to mention Richard Roxburgh as Dracula. Roxburgh is no Lugosi or Lee (Hell, he's not even Gary Oldman) and his Dracula barely surpasses average. Still, he's by no means the worst Dracula ever put on film.

3. The writing. Sommers may have an interesting vision as a director (more on that later) but his writing sure can stink. Unlike his clever "Mummy" scripts, "Van Helsing" often feels forced and the humor contrived. It also leads to some of the most ear-splittingly bad conversations I have heard in a long time.

4. For the record folks, "Van Helsing" is one of the loudest and busiest films I have ever seen. I don't think there is a frame that goes by that doesn't have some sort of computer-generated image in it. Whenever possible, Sommers throws in an action scene or an explosion. Things happen for no reason. Please explain to me how a wooden wagon crashing can cause a fireball explosion. Also please explain how a werewolf scratching a carriage will cause it to catch fire. In the last 20 minutes, "Van Helsing" collapses into a mind-numbing mishmash that is so loud and busy that I could barely even follow it.

5. Mr. Hyde. Early in the film, Van Helsing battles this famous monster. Why this doesn't work for me is that in the novel "The Mysterious Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," the doctor does not transform into a hulking, 10-foot tall monster as he does here (or in last year's bomb, "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen"). In the book, he just became a madman. Same body, but different mind. But gee, that sure wouldn't work for an action film, now would it?

Despite these major complaints, I find myself enjoying "Van Helsing." Jackman is fun as the title character, and the action is fast and furious. Universal horror buffs may enjoy it more than the average folks because they will get to see how Sommers has adapted their favorite characters. Despite his weak actor, Dracula himself is better than ever, walking on walls, transforming into a giant bat, etc. The Wolfman is amazing. He no longer sprouts fur, but tears his skin off to reveal the wolf beneath. Frankenstein's monster is more retro, with his brain partially exposed through glass, an electric powered heart, and a hydraulic controlled leg. All three characters are brought to life with amazing visual effects. The locales are also beautiful and the art director should be commended. The opening black and white sequence (that Universal Buffs will soak up with glee) is stellar.

These good aspects may seem like few, but they are enough to save "Van Helsing" from being a disaster. The summer movie season has begun, folks, and judging by the smiles on the mainstreamer's faces as they left the theatre, it accomplished what it was made to do: entertain the casual filmgoer.

© Written by Jacob Hall

How We Rated This Film TC Candler - C+ Richard Propes - C- Jacob Hall - B-

TC Candler's Comment

There are two reasons that 'Van Helsing' fails to earn a recommendation from this critic. First of all, it is about a half an hour too long. This type of loud action film with little character development has a comfort level that doesn't usually extend past the 90 minute mark. Second of all, the special effects are extraordinarily weak for a film with a $130 million dollar budget. I am sure that all this CGI crap requires a lot of work and skill, but the creatures they've created here have very little weight or substance. It is like looking at a cheap cartoon

All that being said, the film is often entertaining enough to make the trip worth while. I really liked the performances by Hugh Jackman and Kate Beckinsale. They're both great movie stars and certainly look the part. What's even more impressive is that they almost make the ridiculous dialogue worth listening to. I am sure that both of them think of this film as a 'paycheck' rather than a exercise of their acting talents, but they do their utmost to help us past the cheesy parts.

I'll admit it... I actually came close to recommending this film, and that is something I truly didn't expect to say going in. If for no other reason, it is yet another excuse to watch Kate Beckinsale grace the silver screen. I think I'd pay $7 to watch her sleep for two hours. Overall, though, unless you are a huge fan of this genre, I suggest you steer clear of this cheesy action flick.
 

Richard Propes' Comment

I could almost sum up my review of this film by calling it "The Polar Express" on acid. That's how it felt to me...you take a film with an extraordinary budget (estimated at $130 million here), based largely in special effects, a basic storyline and, in this case, throw in the acid trip by adding noise and lots of it. That's "Van Helsing."

Not even the presence of Kate Beckinsale could ever make me watch this film again. The film has interesting visuals, but the atmosphere isn't capitalized on and I found myself largely uninterested most of the time. An obvious homage to horror films past, the film's dialogue is absurdly lame and the special effects show no signs of the enormous budget.