'Van Helsing' review

Rating: ** out of ****

Originally written May 7th/2004

When I first heard the story for "Van Helsing", it seemed like a good premise. I am a fan of horror films, and the classic ones especially, so the idea of packing three or four of them into one film seemed a little contrived to me, but I was willing to overlook it as long as it gave us a good kick off to the summer season. Last summer we had a great kick-off to the summer with X2, so why can't lightening strike twice? Sometimes it can, but this time, it did not.

"Van Helsing" takes place during the late 19th century, where famed monster hunter Dr. Gabriel Van Helsing heads to Eastern Europe to battle with Count Dracula, the Wolf Man, and Frankenstein's Monster - as well as Mr. Hyde, to a lesser degree. By his side is the ravishing Anna, a member of a family that has all but been destroyed by the forces of evil. Now, this may sound all well and good, and it is a good story, but unfortunately the film takes what could have been a great monster/action movie and smothers it beneath a pile of computer effects (some of which are excellent, and others are mediocre), poor acting, and just plain old cheesiness at times. I know what you are thinking: "How can a movie about monsters not be a bit cheesy?" Well, I was excepting a bit of cheese, but not an entire box of Kraft Dinner!

The lack of logic in this film is devastating. The whole story centers on this conspiracy by Count Dracula to utilize Frankenstein’s Monster and use him to bring to life an army of in-utero vampire babies. First off, I really do not know why vampires need to make babies - they are vampires! Why can't they just go bite people as they have been doing for the entire time we have heard stories about vampires? In addition, if the vampire babies are born dead, why do they need to be brought to life (like Frankenstein)? Aren't they supposed to be vampires too? Clearly, they are - and vampires are not alive! So if vampires were not alive, why would they need to be brought to life? Damn you, circular logic! Anyway, even looking past that, the very means by which the babies are conceived is unorthodox and never fully explained. The dead vampire offspring hang from a subterranean ceiling wrapped in cocoons, yet we are never given a full and complete explanation as to how they were created. We are just supposed to assume that the Vampires put them there, and how that happened is not important.

Another aspect of the film that bothered me was the real inconsistency in good special effects. Some of the effects - such as those of Frankenstein's Monster and The Wolfman were very good and perhaps almost "Best Visual Effects" good. However, others were downright bad, such as the flying vampire vixens sent by Dracula, and the transformation of Dracula from human form to Vampire form. It is as though the effects gurus seemed to think that some scenes were more important than others were and deserved more time and care.

The film does have its good points. Hugh Jackman gave as good a performance as can be expected, given the material he had to work with. This was not Kate Beckinsale's best performance, but at least we have to look at her in that Corset, which more than made up for cheesy Transylvanian accent. One aspect I enjoyed which was original was the method in which humans turned into Werewolves. In most werewolf films, the humans seem to grow hair and contort their bodies - literally turning into a wolf. In "Van Helsing" though, the human proceed to tear their skin off and reveal the wolf underneath, as if the beast was inside them, desperate to get out, and finally manages to escape its flesh prison.

Watched at face value, I can see how people will enjoy "Van Helsing". It does have enough cool action sequences and special effects to keep you entertained. However, watched for anything more than that will be a let down, in fact the film let me down as an action film as well. I really was not impressed overall.

Steven Sommers who brought us the first “Mummy” film, which I liked, directs “Van Helsing”. He also brought us "The Mummy Returns" which could possibly have been the worst film of 2001. As per usual with a Sommers film, the story line takes a back seat to the special effects and almost non-stop action. I think Sommers should take another crack at an emotional drama or family film. After all, he did direct "The Adventures of Huck Finn" in 1993, which I think is one of the better family films of the last decade or so. It is just unfortunate that a man who seems to have the ability to make good films is falling into that "Michael Bay" category of style and special effects over substance.

'Eurotrip' review

Originally written May 26th/2004

Rating: **1/2 out of ****

Jeff Schaffer's "Eurotrip" is a raunchy, teen sex romp in the tradition of "American Pie" and "Road Trip". The problem is that those films were better. "Eurotrip" is not a bad movie, at least not in my opinion. The creators just did not play out their idea well enough.

"Eurotrip" begins with the character of Scotty (played by newcomer Scott Thomas) who had just graduated high school and is planning to go to med school. At the graduation ceremony his long-term girlfriend Fiona (Kristin Kreuk of “Smallville” dumps him. That night at the graduate party, we find out that Fiona has been sleeping with every guy in Scott's high school. In fact, the band at the party has a theme song called "Scotty Doesn't Know" - one of the funniest scenes in the film. Anyway, Scott has a German pen pal named Mike. One night in a drunken stupor Scott finds out that Mike wants to meet him and becomes scared, thinking that Mike could be a sexual predator. Scott emails Mike and says to leave him alone. We later learn that Mike is actually Mieke (pronounced "Meeka") and she is a very attractive girl that wants to meet Scott. Therefore, Scott sets off with his friend Cooper (played by Jacob Pitts in the common Stifler-like role) to Europe to find Mieke. While there, they meet up with Jamie and Jenny, fraternal twins who are "the worst twins ever".

It is a funny premise; however, "Eurotrip" has its faults. Its main fault is that it is too disjointed. The characters seem to be jumping from one gag scene to another, without "flowing". Although funny, most of those gags are pointless. Such examples are, a scene where Scotty has a fight with a man doing the robot in front of the Leuvre. Perhaps the most gratuitous and pointless scene is one in which Cooper tricks a topless girl into massaging her own breasts in front of him. This scene is not only pointless, but also insulting to the girl because she not only has her breasts on screen for about 5 minutes, but her character is made out to be stupid. She becomes embarrassed and enraged at Cooper AFTER showing her breasts to Cooper for 5 minutes or more. It is as if someone turned on a light switch in the girls' head making her realize "Hey, I'm naked!"

Eurotrip's characters are likeable and, at times charming and entertaining. Despite this, most of their misfortunes they encounter are their own faults. For example, there is a scene where the group of friends is on a train and they meet a creepy Italian man who proceeds to molest them with little consequence. Everyone I asked about this scene said that the man would have been beaten if it had have been them on the train. There is another scene where Jamie is robbed of everything he owns because he is receiving oral sex from a German girl and is in too much bliss to care. Now, receiving oral sex could distract someone from many things, but enough to not care that they are being robbed. I do not find that believable.

Now, because Jamie was robbed of all their possessions, the group is stuck with no tickets, passports, or money and they desperately have to get to Berlin and they only have a little under $2 in American cash. However, thanks to the incredible exchange rate, the group is able to go on a swanky rich adventure. It never occurs to them that if the exchange rate is so great, they could buy tickets directly to Berlin. Instead, the rich adventure is a segue to another disjointed scene involving a rave and Absinthe which leads to the twins making out with one another.

The writers of "Eurotrip" seem to have been influenced heavily by "Road Trip". Both films have very similar plots and stories and even characters. The problem is that all those things were better in "Road Trip". The writers would have been well advised to give their script the same characters from "Road Trip" and call it "Road Trip 2: Eurotrip!" and it actually would have been better and perhaps more believable because we know that the characters in "Road Trip" have done this sort of thing before.

"Eurotrip" is not a complete waste of time. I know it sounds as if I am trashing it quite a bit, and I am. However, I give it 2 and a half out of 4 stars because as a mindless comedy, it seems to work. Not as well as others have, but it still does. That is the redeeming fact of "Eurotrip"; it does not pretend to be something it is not. It does not pretend to be smart when it is not. It is what it is, and that is a dirty teenage sex romp. It doesn't show us what looks like a dirty teen sex romp on the trailers, with exposure to sex, but then the sex is toned way down in the film, as other films have in the past. This film has an R rating, deserves an R rating and makes no qualms about having an R rating. In fact, it celebrates it.