Customer Reviews

Van Helsing (Full Screen Edition)

5 star:		(215)
4 star:		(167)
3 star:		(126)
2 star:		(88)
1 star:		(166)

 

 

Why do people pan a movie so harshly when they haven't even seen it yet? I have seen VAN HELSING in an audience preview, and I will tell you that the trailer doesn't come close to describing the film. As the Universal folks said, the special effects weren't finished in time for the trailer... but the final product is absolutely stunning.

No, critics will probably not like this fun romp through Van Helsing's monster adventures. It might not win an Academy Award for its script. But if you liked The Mummy or other epic adventures of its type, you ARE going to be the right audience for VAN HELSING.

This movie is just plain fun. The story pays homage to the classic monster legacy films in Universal's vault, as well as many modern day adventures. Van Helsing is a James Bond character of dark Transylvania. And his battles against Dracula are a roller coaster ride with non-stop action and vivid, beautiful scenery.

If you're an art film snob or the type who overanalyzes everything, forget about VAN HELSING. You've missed the entire point -- badly -- and you'll spoil all the fun. If you like the occasional mindless, delicious, sit-back-and-hold-on entertainment, this is your kind of movie.

This film is a throwback to those old 50's horror films that had classic monsters doing battle with each other coupled with the wit of the 60's era all combined with the thrills and special effects of today's films.

Entertainment rarely gets better than this. Now stop laughing at my five stars for this kind of film. This isn't the five stars you would give a film like Platoon or The Painted Veil. It's more like the five stars you would you give a film like Aliens or Die Hard. This is fun, thrilling, and engaging entertainment. It's simple popcorn fun that the whole family, for the most part, can enjoy. The CGI can be a little over-the-top, but it is still excellently done and doesn't get in the way of the story.

The film has engaging actors who, while playing their roles with some seriousness, you can tell that it is all tongue-in-cheek and one expects them to wink at the camera at any time. Hugh Jackman certainly carries the film with great charm and coolness that reminds one of Ford's Indiana Jones. Kate Beckinsale is great as his reluctant partner and just looks dang sexy in this role that brings to mind her Underworld character. She just sizzles on the screen. In addition, excellent support is rendered by David Wenham, most known for his roles in 300 and The Lord of the Rings - The Motion Picture Trilogy, Richard Roxburgh of Stealth, Kevin J. O'Conner from The Mummy, and Robbie Coltrane who is best known as Hagrid in the Harry Potter films.

The direction is confidently done and unobtrusive. He combines action and horror very effectively. The photography is appropriately creepy and atmospheric. The set designs are elaborate and the score is compelling. The entire film is excellently produced and is what I call a high octane film. This film gets you running on all cylinders. Watch it and have a blast enjoying it for the kind of entertainment it is.

The film is thrilling and suspenseful with the various classic creature battling each other and at times forming uneasy alliances. This is just old fashioned witty and enjoyable entertainment. The repeat value of this film is what also makes this film worthy of a place in your DVD collection.

All said and done, this film is a tremendous amount of fun. Director Stephen Sommers takes the stuff of our favorite fictional monsters and blends them together to create a highly imaginative reconstruction of the story of Dracula. Resemblances to Bram Stoker's original tale are entirely accidental. Instead we find Dracula (Richard Roxburgh) using with Dr. Frankenstein (Samuel West) to serve some dark and nefarious purpose. Not very far in the background is a werewolf (Will Kemp) who carries part of the answer to the puzzle - when he isn't trying to chew a hole in Gabriel Van Helsing (Hugh Jackman).

Kate Beckinsale plays Anna Valerious, the last living member of her family, who have been dedicated to exterminating Dracula for some 400 years. Thanks to an oath of her forefathers, the Valerious line is condemned to purgatory as long as Dracula wanders the night. Concerned that this curse is about to become permanent, a secret order of the Catholic Church sends in their best occult assassin - Van Helsing - aided reluctantly by Friar Carl (David Wenham), who plays the mad inventor to Van Helsing's athletic efforts. Gabriel shows up to help Anna, is promptly rebuffed by the woman, whose mind is definitely her own. But the action goes ballistic, and no one gets time to be banished or stomp off.

And of action, special effects, stunts. and computer graphics there is a great muchness. Most of which looks just believable enough to keep the audience staring open mouthed at the screen. An outstanding job is done with Dracula's wives (Elena Anaya, Silvia Colloca, and Josie Maran) and the Frankenstein monster (Shuler Hensley). So good that these characters very nearly steal the entire show. Sets are equally carefully crafted, with a marvelous medieval town and two whole gothic castles. The visual impression of the film often completely overwhelms the story.

The acting is bright, with a slightly crude, sarcastic style of interplay between the characters. The overall touch is comedic, despite the inevitable sour grapes of the ending. Don't look for greatness here. The point is to create an exciting, fun experience, not to recreate the dark and brooding spirit behind the originals. Sommers does well with this tongue-in-cheek, cut-and-run style and Van Helsing proves this once again

My father is a huge fan of the Universal Studios monsters. He really enjoyed the remake of The Mummy, so the return of several onscreen monster staples simultaneously (the Wolfman, Frankenstein's Monster, and Dracula) was a must-see. We were not disappointed.

Van Helsing is not by any means a GOOD movie. It is pulp action fun, in the same vein as League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, The Shadow, and the Indiana Jones series. Too many people confuse pulp-action movies for poorly directed films - one is on purpose, the other is unintentional.

The term "pulp" is derived from the paperback books that were made of pulpy paper. Cheap and filled with lurid tales of sex and violence, pulp was sort of porn for the action-minded: not much talk, lots of fighting. In fact, it's not unusual for the fights to actually string together so that the hero doesn't get to say or do much of anything. A lot of reviews emphasize, "Van Helsing never lets up." Yep, that's pulp.

Another surefire way to identify a pulp-type style is the hero. Heroes in pulp stories are ridiculously well rounded. Pulp heroes are scientists and master pugilists, excellent pilots and crack shots. While modern heroes pride themselves on their flaws, pulp heroes have none. Van Helsing displays all signs of being nearly indestructible.

Now that we've gotten the definition of pulp out of the way and established that the director's (Sommers) intent was to create a pulp film, we can ignore many of the basic weaknesses inherent to a film of this genre and focus on the other aspects.

This is one, gigantic homage. The film makes that homage very overt by filming the opening sequence in black-and-white. Dr. Frankenstein and Dracula talk, act, and ultimately get attacked by villagers with pitchforks and torches. The sequence ends with the appearance of Frankenstein's Monster, who goes out with a bang.

Flash forward to the Victorian age. Van Helsing is tracking none other than Mr. Hyde. Yes, THAT Hyde. Curiously, Mr. Hyde looks very similar to the heroic Hyde of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, including the fact that he's all CGI and rather ape-like. No matter, here it works - Hyde is rendered beautifully in Gollum-like detail, and he is a frightening sight to behold. We get to see Van Helsing in action without being distracted by all the movie monster hoopla.

What we learn about Van Helsing is that he is a combination of several characters. He dresses like Vampire Hunter D (Sommers knows his anime). He swings along rooftops from his grappling hook like Batman. He is backed by a super-secret organization dedicated to monster hunting that supplies him with bleeding edge gadgets, just like James Bond. In fact, he even has his own Q (David Wenham, playing a friar named Carl). If Van Helsing sounds like he's a superhero, see my comments about pulp heroes above.

Oh yeah, the plot. The movie revolves around Dracula's quest to bring his undead progeny (the union of Dracula and his three brides) to life. "Vampires are the walking undead. It only makes sense that their children would be born dead." I'll let that sink in for a bit...got it? Sure you do. Throw in some nonsense about werewolves being controlled by Dracula and Frankenstein's Monster being key to said progeny's resurrection, and you've pretty much got the plot down.

The special effects are amazing. Dracula's brides get far more screen time than any other version of the movie and here they can transform into bat-winged harpies as well as their typically attractive forms. The werewolves are very much the werewolves of Underworld, including the ape-like ability to scale walls. Surprisingly, Frankenstein's Monster is not the shambling moron so many people are accustomed to. In physical form, he is a true monster, complete with flapping braincase and steam-powered leg. He's also a well-spoken person with a heart. Frankenstein's Monster has the best dialogue, and that's saying something.

The parallels to Underworld continue with Kate Bekinsale who is in both films. Kate plays the gypsy Anna Valerious, dedicated to destroying Dracula. Kate looks great in this film but doesn't have a whole lot to do but be the love interest. She also apparently sleeps in her corset, which must be awfully uncomfortable.

The movie plays fast and loose with its own logic, something that the pulp-theme cannot justify. Werewolves shift in and out of human form when the full moon is VISIBLE. The definition of visible is rather flexible. In fact, the full moon seems to be in effect for an entire week. Transylvanian horses can really leap tall bridges in a single bound. And apparently silver stakes work on everybody, including Dracula.

On the other hand, the movie makes some winking allusions to history. Van Helsing "fought against the Romans at Masada." The monster hunter's background, which I won't give away here, owes as much to biblical history as it does to Vampire Hunter D. And Mr. Faramir is hysterical as the funny man.

My dad really enjoyed Van Helsing. My wife thought it was stupid. I thought the movie was intentionally stupid and thus enjoyed it. And oh yeah, it had Kate Beckinsale.

Just one question: Where's the Creature from the Black Lagoon?

After writing and directing the empty blockbusters of the Mummy and the Mummy Returns, Van Helsing finds him looting Universal's monster vault once again, this time featuring the Frankenstein monster (Shuler Hensley), the Wolfman (Will Kemp), and of course, Dracula (Richard Roxburgh). Hugh Jackman stars as the monster hunter Van Helsing, teamed up with a princess (Kate Beckinsale) and a loyal friar (David Wenham from Lord of the Rings), sent to Transylvania to stop the count from unleashing a horde of bloodsucking offspring. Some spots of the film are deliciously campy, while others stick out as plain dull. The opening is a wonderful homage to the classic Universal monster films, and buffs of classic horror will find plenty of references and homages in the film. The special effects are some of the best CGI seen today, and Van Helsing is more satisfying than Sommers' Mummy films, although underneath the break neck pace and special effects there isn't much left to it. It's still worth seeing and it has a bit of a surprising ending, and a sequel is almost virtually inevitable.

Don't let the negative comments scare you away from this film; most of these viewers totally missed the point of the film. This is a actually a parody of the horror genre (like Polanski's "The Fearless Vampire Killers"). So if you don't appreciate parody don't watch it and I'm not guaranteeing that you will find it good parody, just don't dismiss the film because somebody thought it was serious and said or wrote something negative about it-they are probably clueless.

Parody/satire of horror films has a long tradition and ranges from the obvious (see Abbott & Costello, Mel Brooks, and "Redneck Zombies") to the subtle (see "The Fearless Vampire Killers" and "Evil Dead"). Before reading many of the comments I would have grouped "Van Helsing" closer to the obvious, after all the film depicts a Vatican Department modeled on James Bond's Special Weapons "Q" Section. But apparently even something so obvious is not registering with many people, if the true measure of a 'subtle' satire is how many people just don't get it, then "Van Helsing" certainly qualifies.

They went into this project saying something like: "let's use digital effects and a large budget to create the most interesting sets in horror movie history, and then use these as a backdrop for a parody of the "horror genre". When concerns were raised about the expense for just a comedy, they pitched it as a sophisticated parody that would not get in the way of the average viewer's desire to see a traditional vampire movie. Such a dichotomy allows the movie to generate big bucks at the box office while still providing its makers with an outlet for their creativity. But such a dichotomy means there will be a third group of viewers who cannot suspend disbelief enough to enjoy it as a horror film and yet will totally miss the parody angle (the only question is whether they too humorless to find enjoyment in such frivolity or are just a little too dim to appreciate it).

The movie opens with a visually awesome scene of the villagers storming a huge castle and burning a windmill; the sets and the music are great. Except for the overacting and the presence of an assistant named 'Egor' or "Igor" (see Mel Brooks reference), you would not suspect that this is anything but a serious horror film.

The film plays homage to the Karloff/Chaney films, to Abbott and Costello, Mel Brooks, James Bond and The Wild, Wild West. There is a little Phantom of the Opera and even Eli Wallach's best line from 'The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly' (if you're going to shoot, shoot don't talk). In fact they even lift the vampire ballroom scene from "The Fearless Vampire Killers".

The individual performances are from the William Shatner School of Over-Acting with Dracula's brides totally stealing each scene in which they are featured. I particularly liked Josie Maran (who had that great scene as the cigarette girl in "The Aviator") as Marishka. The costumes are almost as good as the sets. The computer-generated action sequences illustrate all the problems with digital effects, but work fine as satirical devices.

So if you want to see a fun film with unparalleled visuals this is the one. Others who can suspend disbelief and ignore a few campy elements will enjoy it as a straight vampire picture. But if you are can't, are just humorless, or don't know the horror genre you should stay away.

Because there are really two movies here, the first viewing withholds most of the viewing pleasure; once you understand what is happening repeated viewings are even more fun. I suggest getting the "Ultimate Edition" DVD because of all the extras it contains.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

All right now, this movie has gotten a lot of bad reviews. With good reason some say, I'm not one of these. Let me start by saying this: The movie is a campy crossover style tale that throws Dracula, the Wolfman, Frankenstien's monster, and several other notable horror creatures together for about two hours of CGI action. Stop. Read that again. Now consider this: What kind of plot, characterizations, and entertainment factor is something like this going to provide?

If you are expecting some sort of masterpiece, a triumph in action filming... This movie just isn't for you. If you are looking for a movie with a solid, sensical plot... This movie isn't really for you. Because honestly, when Frankenstien's monster is the key to some evil plot schemed by Dracula, can you really expect all that much?

However! I'd like to state that if you are just a horror loving person that's not afraid to operate under the "it doesn't have to make sense" rule... If you get excited at the mere mention of vampires or werewolves... If you just love hours of top notch special effects with a plot you don't have to think about to have fun with... Then this is the movie for you.

So yes, while the hard core, Bram Stoker's Dracula loving, film reviewer in me weeps at such a horrible mush of cliches and over-the-top acting... The part of me that is compelled to watch the SciFi Channel's weekend "originals" drools at the thought of being able to sit down for a fun movie featuring some of my favorite monsters duking it out.

VAN HELSING, though a tadbit weak in storyline, is a great popcorn fun fest that is sure to please action/adventure fans.

Full of hair-raising special effects, Van Helsing is fast-paced and fun to watch. But the weaknesses were mainly semi-weak plot with Dracula being portrayed by a B-movie actor.

But I'll be buying it mainly because I dig Hugh Jackman and Stephen Sommer's style of movie making. I hope he just get's grittier stuff than the Mummy type movies. I liked Van Helsing better than the Mummy movies myself, because the look of this film and it's pacing were excellent.

Great mix of horror characters. I will be looking forward to his next endeavor in films...

I was at the screening of Van Helsing last Tuesday and my first impression is that the movie is quite amazing.
The CGI stuff looks like it needs more work (pygmy bats look quite silly), but the werwolf and the brides are fantastic.
As far as the actors, my praise goes to Mr Richrad Roxburgh who created a new Dracula, whose sadness and hollowness is rather touching.
Kevin O' connor is great as usual, hidden in the heaviest make up you would imagine.
Kate and Hugh team up very well even though Kate's beauty is challenged by the three stunning vampire brides, especially by the charm of the dark head vixen ( Sylvia Colloca, I think).
On the whole, a very good job that will hit the box office!

Although one may be inclined to cast Van Helsing as a knock off of Hollywood Classics, based on the previews, once you've seen the movie it's easy to see that it's not so. They have taken cinematic legends such as Dracula, the Wolf Man and Frankenstein and given them new dimensions and linking plot lines.
The movie, at nearly two and a half hours long, has enough fight (or if you will in the case of Dracula's brides, flight) scenes, and enough mystery that it only suffers from slow moments in a scene or two. The high points are that while the plot is interesting, it is not too complex to follow, and the cinematography is visually stunning (although a bit dreary at times, but what do you expect given the subject matter.) Also, while it is a movie that brings in horror classics there is very little of the associated blood and gore that goes along with the genre, a good point in my book.
The low points of the movies are that the charatacters are not always very fleshed out, particularly Beckensale's "Anna Valeria" but again, with the speed of the plot it is easy to forgive that; and that the soundtrack's instistant volume occassionaly makes it hard to understand the dialouge.
A point that could be both good and bad is the reliance on CGI to make the movie more visually spectacular but at the same time does take away from some of the realism (again though, with the subject matter what does what expect, documentary?)
Don't discard this movie based on what professional critics are saying or by the admittedly hard to understand previews. See it and judge for yourself.