zBoneman.com -- Home Movie Reviews

Van Helsing (2004)

Van Helsing
"Wait just a minute! I agreed to fight vampires, Dracula, Frankenstein, the Wolfman, & the Mummy, but you never said anything about my Mother In Law!"

Starring:

Hugh Jackman
Kate Beckinsale

Richard Roxburgh
David Wenham

Released By:

Universal Pictures

Released In:

2004

Rated:

PG-13

Reviewed By:

Adam Mast

Grade:

C+


Van Helsing is absolutely, positively, without question-THE FUNNIEST DAMN MOVIE OF THE YEAR! Seriously folks, nothing comes close. I attended a midnight screening of the new Stephen Sommers epic and I laughed my ass off throughout most of it. Whether or not Sommers intended the movie to be this funny remains a mystery. If all the seemingly unintentional hilarity on display in this picture was Sommers' intent, then The Mummy director is a genius in my book. Personally though, I think Sommers did intend much of this stuff to be taken seriously, and this makes this convoluted mess of a movie all the more entertaining.

For those of you looking for an intelligent and thoughtful take on the story of Van Helsing, stay home. This is not Anthony Hopkins' Van Helsing. This is an overblown homage to the movies that inspired Sommers growing up. And at a glance, the film almost appears to be based on a graphic novel (such was the case with The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen), but it isn't. It all came from within Sommers' fevered noggin.

Hugh Jackman plays Van Helsing, a sort of superhero (complete with high tech, Blade style weaponry) who spends his days dispatching werewolves and vampires back to where they came from, and through the duration of this picture, he even has run ins with Mr. Hyde and Frankenstein's monster. While out performing his duty, he comes face to face with the vampire of all vampires, Dracula. Naturally, the legendary parasite has an evil agenda and it's up to Van Helsing to thwart his evil sinister designs.

This movie is so outrageously silly, I don't even know where to begin. I will say that you will see where the budget went (the movie reportedly cost in the neighborhood of 200 million dollars). To call this an effects-heavy picture would be a grotesque understatement. That's really all it is.

The performances are beyond disposable, granted no actor could have transformed this material into anything besides laughter. On the other hand, I don't think Sommers really gives a rat's ass about such things. Hugh Jackman just sort of walks around with a face of stone and appears to be having a fun time kicking monster butt. And in a weird little twist, he is afforded an opportunity to bring a little Wolverine to his role. Kate Beckinsale (who appeared in the similarly themed Underworld last year) is just dreadful. Sure, she looks beautiful, but the Transylvanian accent is positively awful (it should be noted that none of the cast fare well in the accent department) and she just seems to be hanging around to look good. But the biggest riot of them all is Richard Roxburgh's take on Dracula. He plays him as a smarmy, flamboyant fiend with a fondness for dancing. Oh man, every time this plasma-plundering ponce came on screen, I thought I was going to piss myself.

The look of the picture is impressive. The castles and various landscapes that surround Sommers' movie world are extremely sumptuous. The same can't be said for the cheesy looking wardrobe - many of these costumes appeared to be on loan from Ella Enchanted.

The screenplay (if one actually exists) is all over the place. This movie is just schizophrenic and completely disjointed. And the melodramatic and over-the-top dialogue make it nearly impossible to take anything that any of these characters utter seriously.

Oh yes, as previously mentioned, there are plenty of monsters to be found in Van Helsing. We get CGI werewolves (which have nothing on the superior creations in The Howling and American Werewolf in London), winged and sexy vampire women who giggle and float into the sky (which instantly brought to mind Ash's dancing, decapitated corpse of a girlfriend in Evil Dead 2). There are tiny bat creatures that resemble Gremlins, cloaked servant dwarves which appear inspired by jawas and those creepy little henchmen from the Phantasm series. And, last but not least, Frankenstein's misunderstood monster (who looks suspiciously like Frankenberry of Frankenberry cereal fame). None of them are particularly scary, but they're still fun to watch.

Stephen Sommers doesn't miss a chance to wink at the films he loves. One of the more obvious sequences involves Van Helsing's tour of a weapons and gadgets arsenal, a direct homage to James Bond (made all the stranger given that Hugh Jackman's name has been kicked around as a possible Bond replacement). I also thought the opening black and white sequence was a nice touch. There are numerous other tips of the hat as well. From the old school Universal monster movies to more recent fright pictures like the Alien films, Sommers borrows from the best, but this movie is just too damn nutty. It's like an overcrowded sanitarium, with a security problem. And while, I kind of admire his energy, there's no getting around that this really is a rather bad film.

However, there is "good bad" and then there's "bad bad." Van Helsing is more "good bad." This is to say that it was so lame that I actually found it somewhat amusing. Clearly, the movie is way too long (it clocks in at around 2 hours and fifteen minutes), but for the most part, I had a great time laughing and yelling lines back at the screen in a Rocky Horror kind of fashion (on a side note, there's a character in this picture that looks a lot like Rocky Horror's Riff Raff).

I'd still like to see a serious take on Van Helsing. For a while there, I heard that Francis Ford Coppola and Anthony Hopkins were discussing it. For whatever reason, they decided not to do it - opening the door for Sommers scattershot, balls to the wall vision. You'll have to see this one to believe it. Thus far, I think my favorite review of the picture was one I read over at aint-it-cool-news.com. Some guy called it a 200 million dollar Troma film. Like the movie itself, that's just hilarious.

:: zBoneman.com Reader Comments ::

Good Helsing

Good Helsing

Indeed this film was an out and out comedy, you could put it up against Young Frankenstein any day of the week. Having seen a few behind the scenes features about the making of this film, I'm convinced that Sommers did not intentionally set out to make such a knee-slapper of a film. He kept referring to it as a horror roller-coaster. I'm certain that very little of the proceedings were intended as tongue-in-cheek - sadly for him, I think Sommers was being quite earnest about most all of this film. And as you suggest, this only serves to enhance the comic effect. Kitchen Van Helsink is going to be treasured as a campy classic that will live as long as it's vampires.

Cereal Killer

Cereal Killer

Loved your review - I haven't shopped for cereal for a few years and I became curious if Frankenberry still exists. And if so, what a miracle it is that Hollywood hasn't made a movie about him.

Martin Linson

Martin Linson

Van Helsing is a fun summer movie that's taking a lot of crap not being a profoundly moving character study and for being a monster thriller guilty of overkill. Sometimes you just gotta say screw the critics and go have fun. Stephen Sommers is not Steven Spielberg, but I had fun watching his Mummy flicks even though they too were (overbloated-effects-heavy duds). Sure this movie was funny in a few places where Sommers was probably shooting for serious - but I think you've to give him some credit for having the savvy to know we were going to laugh at his fruit-bat of a Count Dracula, but even as fey as he was, he had some pretty hot wives. And lets face it, the beginning of the film was nothing short of spectacular. I say check your Siskel and Roeper cloak and dagger at the door and go have yourself some fun.

conundrummer

conundrummer

The Golden Globes are going to have a devil of a time - trying to decide whether or not Van Helsing should be nominated as a comedy or a drama. Wait a minute - what was I thinkin' - it's not going to get any nominations. This movie sucks like a hungry vampire.

monster

monster

In the trailer for this laughable monster mash, they insist on calling Frandenstein's Monster, Frankenstein - and don't they know it's pronounced Fronkensteen?

Verona

Verona

I think that this movie was great! I liked it so much that I have seen it 4 times already- and its only been out a week! I think that Beckinsale, Jackman, and Roxburgh did an outstanding job. I do wish there had been more plot development as far as where Van Helsing came from, why he murdered Dracula to begin with, and why he was the left hand of God. I was very drawn into Dracula's character, but maybe Roxburgh's sexy accent and swaggering movement contributed to that more than anything else. I don't think there should be a sequel though. I think this is a one shot deal and without the 3 original Universal Monsters, I don't think it would be that great. Not to mention Anna Valerious can not make an appearance by the fact that she's, oh, dead. Anyway, I loved it, plan to see it tons more times and I recommend it to any and everyone.

VH1

VH1

I guess I'm going to be the voice of the everyman than the hoity toity critic on this one. Two early reviews have compared Van Helsing to such mega-flops as Howard the Duck and Battlefield Earth. All I can imagine here is that these bitter critics must have some personal ax to grind with writer/director Stephen Sommers (who also helmed The Mummy, and The Mummy Returns - also genre flicks panned by film snobs, but loved by paying audiences). Yes, Van Helsing plays fast and loose with "the rules" and some purists may pooh-pooh that, but as far as I'm concerned it's actually truer to the original Universal monster flicks than it's being given credit for. Yes, many of the scenes are overwrought, the dialogue spews corn on occasion; and there is silly comic relief in between the intensity — but all these tactics were employed in movies such as Dracula (1931), Frankenstein (1931), and The Wolf Man (1941).

After the silvery and shadowy black-and-white homage prologue, the movie takes an 'Indiana Jones meets James Bond' turn, even introducing a very Q-like character, the gadget-doting Carl (David Wenham), a friend and kindred spirit who accompanies Gabriel to Transylvania. (In fact, Van Helsing could almost be an audition tape for Jackman to vie for either Bond of Indiana Jones.) When the movie hits its stride, it's action and horror all the way.

As the Dr. Van Helsing we all know from Stoker's immortal novel, he is the character in name only. Much of the mythology has been mooked, but it serves the purpose of Sommers' plot and as such, Jackman is the best man in an already very well-cast film. He brings panache, physical prowess, and a sense of irony to the larger-than-life defender of all things right, and if the movie does well Jackman could very well have another franchise (ala X-Men) with a fits-like-a-glove character to play in the years to come. Jackman is unquestionably becoming an enormous star and it is his turn in Van Helsing is a mere stepping stone to the great things that like ahead. Not that VH is no throwaway, but I think it's a sampling of the fun that Jackman will be brining up in the next 5 years to come.

Helsing his Praises.

Zzziggy...

Zzziggy...

Was I imagining it, or did Frankenstein's monster have a big block chained to his ankle as he rowed off into the sunset?

For Helsings Sake

For Helsings Sake

True - you gave this movie due props for having a comic sensibility, I really think you got carried away on belittling it becuase it was funny when it wasn't supposed to be funny. Let's facie it Sommers doesn't know how to say "when' when it comes to CGI effects but at the same time, that's what made the movie fun for me, it was just balls out - shotguns ablazing effects and for a summer film that's what audiences want. Critics get a little too caught up in their p's and q's when they should just be eating popcorn and having fun!

Adam

Adam

To the last post. P's and Q's? What? Firstly, I can't stand it when critics are dismissed as nothing more than people who go into movies just to tear them apart. Actually, I don't even really fancy myself a critic. I consider myself a movie fan. To accuse me of not having the ability to just sit back and have fun is rather insulting. I can't speak for all other writers but I got into this because I love movies. I even have aspirations of making my own film someday. Which leads me to another theory I really hate; "those who can't create, critique". What a crock. Guys like Roger Ebert (whom I respect greatly even if I do disagree with his opinion quite often) are perfectly content in doing this for a living even though they have the capacity to go in other directions (Ebert has written screenplays).

Anyway, I know my little rant has gotten us off the subject, so let's talk a little bit about Van Helsing. One of Sommers' big problems is that he doesn't know when to say "when" (when it comes to CGI or otherwise). There are other such film makers. A good example would be Quentin Tarantino. His pictures (particularly Kill Bill) drip with a pure love of movies, but when he opts to not say "when", it benefits the movie. In Sommers' case, it hurts the movie (at least whereas Van Helsing is concerend). I've been much more kind to Van Helsing then most people have been. Hell, if our music reviewer Kyle England had written the review, you'd really be attacking him. He thought this picture was complete garbage.

Let's face it. VAN HELSING IS INCREDIBLY MEDIOCRE! I admire Sommers' energy, but it all kind of seems wasted in this movie. The only thing that really saved it for me was the unintentional humor. There's something really endearing about watching a dumb movie that doesn't realize it's dumb.

By the way, I know how to sit back and just have fun at the movies. Go back and read some of our older reviews. I think you'd be really surprised by some of the films I've loved through the years. That probably sounds like a cheap ploy to get you to keep reading our site, but it really isn't. I'm just interested in showing you that it's not all about the P's and Q's.

Add your own comment here and see it posted immediately!