'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.