Van Helsing Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
The One Name They All Fear
Adventure lives forever.
During the late 19th century, famed monster hunter Dr. Gabriel Van Helsing (Jackman) heads to Eastern Europe to battle with Count Dracula (Roxburgh), the Wolf Man (Kemp), and Frankenstein's Monster (Hensley). By his side is the ravishing Anna (Beckinsale), a member of a family committed to ridding the world of evil.
| Kate Beckinsale | Anna Valerious |
| Richard Roxburgh | Count Vladislaus Dracula |
| David Wenham | Carl |
| Will Kemp | Velkan |
| Hugh Jackman | Van Helsing |
| Shuler Hensley | Frankenstein's Monster |
| Elena Anaya | Aleera |
| Kevin J. O'Connor | Igor |
| Alun Armstrong | Cardinal Jinette |
| Silvia Colloca | Verona |
| Josie Maran | Marishka |
| Tom Fisher | Top Hat |
| Samuel West | Dr. Victor Frankenstein |
| Robbie Coltrane | Mr. Hyde |
| Stephen Fisher | Dr. Jekyll |
| Stephen Sommers |
5.30 out of 10 (35357 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Great show. Not a Movie Experience.
posted on 29 Aug 2009I fell in love with the premise of this movie. For all you fantasy fans out there, it was taking an old cleric/scholar and turning him into a kick-butt paladin/assassin. The more I read the promos, the more I loved the idea.Then I saw the movie.I still appreciated the premise. The scripting was pretty good, minus two or three scenes. Great action movie. The overall movie experience was lacking.Its special effects were its great strength and weakness. They spent so much money and time on getting the effects right, they seemed to skimp on the little things: choreography, accent coaches, wardrobe, music, lighting, set design. These are the things that make the movie an experience rather than just a show.VAN HELSING & ANNA (Lead characters) The two main characters were very well done. I can't really complain much about them. They were well written, well acted, well directed, well wardrobed. . . I do wish they had given some character development as to why Anna was able to fight so well. But it was a long enough movie as it was, maybe they cut it out for time.Dracula Richard Roxburgh did an excellent job in his execution of his script. But he could have made his speech about having no heart a little more than one-dimensional. Let's face it, in a movie like this, we appreciate a villain that has SOME redeeming quality. His interchange with Van Helsing was much more impressive. And he handled his death rather well. Excellent method of showing a vampire's healing abilities.THE VAMPIRESSES (Dracula's brides) The vampiresses should have just been extras. Their action sequences were great. But every time they opened their mouths, I rolled my eyes and was just waiting for the next scene. They didn't really add anything to the plot or the movie except for their fights. I didn't even think they were sexy. Especially not in those campy outfits they had on. They looked like they were trying out for some psychic hotline ad.CARL ("I'm not a monk. I'm just a friar") This was a work of genius as far as character creation goes. They give you a great taste of what it would be like if James Bond had Q with him on his assignments as a sidekick. Although I feel it was a simple part for an actor, I have to give David Wendham credit for performing it well.IGOR His line,"It's what I do" pretty much sums it up. You can't have a movie like this without Igor. And he was doing exactly what we expected him to do. But someone was going to ask "why is he doing that?" So, they had Dracula ask for us. It's just what he does. Don't question it.SET DESIGN Most of the scenes were very good. But I'd think the most important set would be inside Dracula's castle. And that is where the set designer really disappointed me. Maybe it was partially the lighting and camera work. Maybe other little factors. But the cobwebs were overdone and the entire set looked too plastic. The colors were just slightly off to make it look like it was faked. Again, if I'm there to just see an action movie, OK. But the promos made it seem like it was going to be a little deeper than that.WARDROBE Van Helsing was well outfitted. As was Dracula. I could even say that the friar was done OK, but how can you go wrong with a plain brown robe? Everyone else looked really campy. Anna's wardrobe: designed well, poorly excecuted. It needed slightly different fabrics or colors that would project differently on the big screen.SPECIAL EFFECTS The battle scenes with the vampiresses and even the baby vampires were good.I never felt like I was suspending any disbelief. I just looked and felt I'd been transported. The transformation sequences were good for both Dracula and the werewolves. But when they had their final battle, they fell victim to the same problem that all heavily CG characters have. The speed and balance of the characters is always slightly off from reality. The only way I could console myself was that these were superhuman creatures able to violate some laws of physics in a fantasy movie. Even then, it was an effort to suspend my disbelief. Van Helsing's weapons were very well designed. Obviously not realistic for the era. But it was not too big a stretch for this genre of movie.EXPERIENCE This is a quality of movies that I don't see much comment on. It takes into account things like flow of the movie, emotions not only portrayed by the actors, but absorbed by the audience, the feeling that you are actually in the scene.For this quality, I'll have to give an 8 for a few scenes, but a 2 or 3 for the rest of the movie.SUMMARY If you're looking for an action movie that has someone being the superhero and kicking butt (Swarzennegger's --Commando) it's a great movie. They made some effort at being an intelligent movie as well, but only had limited success at executing that goal.If you want a movie that made you feel like you want to hear more about these characters and this world you've just been introduced to (Lord of the Rings), this was OK, but not a great movie.Cloud Castle
Good Movie!
posted on 27 Aug 2009What a Great Movie! I personally thought that this movie was going to suck royally, but I had nothing better to watch, so I rented it anyways. It's actually a very good movie! I was impressed with the effects, and I thought they chose some pretty good actors to play the parts. The details of the vampires and the change from human to werewolf, were the best I've seen in a movie in a long time! It is also a movie that makes you think. I wont ruin it by going into it, you'll have to watch and find out if there is anything that makes you think "wow, I didn't know that". Don't miss the movie, or you'll end up regretting it.
Waste of time
posted on 27 Aug 2009Too bad the writer/director didn't pay closer attention to the great movies he was homaging in this stinker. Way too much over the top action and NO legit storyline or character development left us not caring whether anybody lived or died. There were tiresome holes in the story you could drive a team of horses through - clearly Summer trying to shoehorn suspense into his story at the expense of continuity. Just another "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen". Lots of special effects and good actors wasting their time with a lousy script. The fellow playing Dracula wasn't too great though - lots of hissing his lines venomously without any interesting inflection or nuance to make him more than a cardboard villain. But you really can't blame the actors here. I doubt they got much direction and just had to do the best they could.
Van Helsing = Intense greatness
posted on 25 Aug 2009Congratulations, Stephen Sommers! This is one of the best SF thrillers I've ever seen, maybe even the best. Van Helsing is the synonym for intensity. There is non-stop action with very good actors such as Hugh Jackman, Kate Beckinsale and David Wenham. When the film starts the viewer can see the "birth" of Frankenstein, and his escape from Count Dracula's. The first thing that Van Helsing (Hugh Jackman) does when he shows up is to kill Mr. Hyde! Then the church sends him to kill Count Dracula and his three brides. Anna Valerious (Kate Beckinsale) joins forces with Van Helsing. But, Anna's brother Velkan (Will Kemp) bitten by a werewolf, so he becomes a werewolf himself. Dracula kills him, just as he had killed his father. Van Helsing and Anna find Frankenstein, and he joins them. But, Dracula kidnaps Anna, and he offers Van Helsing a trade - Anna for Frankenstein... You must see this movie!
I completely loved it!!!!!
posted on 23 Aug 2009This action-packed movie is to cool! brilliantly cast, especially the vampires. the way the wings and weather were made were so perfect. If you say this movie is bad you must be in another world. Van Helsing may be a rip-off of the old detective, but with a young person doing the part they can make him do a back flip. if it where the old one we would be watching an old guy putting his fingers into a cross. The surprise ending with his love dying is the perfect touch of tragedy, because all great hero's lose someone. like spider man has lost 4 girls ( 3 to many ). but anyway this movie is the best. warning: this movie is not for the faint of heart or really touchy people. please don't tell your siblings the surprise ending! my sister did the same thing and i did'nt enjoy it as much as i should have. this will stand for at least the next 10-20 years.-Fletch
just when did Stephen Sommers get a lobotomy...?
posted on 19 Aug 2009Watching The Mummy again after sitting through Van Helsing really makes you wonder exactly what Stephen Sommers is thinking these days... How on earth could someone responsible for an imaginative, witty script and sympathetic characters 5 years ago have descended to the level of Van Helsing today?The answer, I'd imagine, is that he's had obscene amounts of money thrown at him to make Van Helsing, so the dire end result shouldn't really be surprising. What is surprising is that the huge budget couldn't stretch to making the CGI even as good as the 1999 original... that's worrying, more than anything, considering that most of the film is computer generated.What we're left with is Hugh Jackman suffering a sudden charisma bypass (didn't see that one coming!) the moment he got those stupid hair extensions. Kate Beckinsdale, meanwhile, had a chance to prove that Underworld was no one-off - she has now lost any acting ability she once had, and I spent most of the film wondering how she could breathe in that ridiculous corset. Does she even read the scripts herself these days? Amazing how a cursed Rumanian gypsy princess manages to be a less exciting character than Rachel Weisz's daffy librarian, but the difference is that Evie had brains and a cute grudge against the Benbridge Scholars. Anna has a creaky 'concept', an extremely dodgy accent, a rather unconvincing way with a sword and by all rights should get killed off within 5 minutes of her character being introduced. Shame.The script is banal at best - David Wenham's lapsed friar, Carl, gets all the best lines, and very slim pickings they are. The days of Sommer's wisecracking hero seem awfully long ago, as Jackman just sleepwalks his way through the unfunny moments he does have. Added to the zero chemistry between him and Kate Beckinsdale and I was wanting to either fall asleep or walk out (it was a late showing!) every time either of them was onscreen. That would be nearly every scene, then...The plot doesn't even bear thinking about - it certainly owed nothing to logic, reason or good storytelling. Aside from the camp black and white prologue - which raises a faint smile - and a sumptuously produced ballroom scene (choreographed a la Cirque du Soleil), there a no 'wow' moments. Not at all. The film has been CGI'd to death at heart - which was sadly the way The Mummy Returns was headed, but at least that inherited decent characters to buoy it up.It's hard to convey exactly how mind-numbingly awful Van Helsing is. Unfunny, tedious and essentially heartless, not even the added pathos of Frankenstein's monster can redeem it. It would seem Sommers has followed the Wachowskis and George Lucas down the road of forgetting how to write, direct or cast convincingly the moment they hit the big time.
a seriously dopey movie
posted on 19 Aug 2009Taking a very, very dumb page from Sleepy Hollow (in which a famous textual schoolteacher was somehow changed into a cop), van Helsing the occasional vampire killer is now the full-time enforcement arm of the living against all things dead and evil, James Bond c.1889 if you will... If you stir in some of the moribund over-dramatics of Interview with a Vampire you get this frantic, loud, stupid movie.Things are off to bad start with two unnecessary introductory sequences which eat up twenty minutes at the beginning that serve no purpose except to confirm for viewers that, yes this is the dumb fx movie you have been waiting for. The second of the two involves an absurd Shrek-like Mr Hyde. whom would scarcely fit into Edwardian London as a ten foot tall giant with acromegaly. If a sequel is made, presumably van Helsing will kill a nine-foot tall Lizzie Borden or Jack the Ripper with 4 arms.The plot is one long bad joke. The beautiful princess Dexatrim (Kate Beckinsale) gets her brother killed and mayhem follows with all the Universal monsters except the Mummy. The euro-trash Dracula is grating and unsexy in everyway. He looks like a slightly uglier, more feminine k.d. Lang and unless you're a goth-nerd, his ponytail is about fifteen years late to offer even an ounce of hipness. The Frankenstein monster is excruciating. It's like he reimagined as a nerd/accountant. The "romance-novel" grade script requires that all the men have long hair. This is best suited for sugar-impelled viewers for whom the current scene needs to be an overstimulating distraction because the last twenty weren't enough.The last time this extravaganza was filmed it was called Hudson Hawk. This time it's more excessive. It's too long, too boring, too annoying, way too stupid and simply not enough fun. I know it's just escapism, but I have no need for any movie that makes my brain hurt as much as this.Note: This decades film-work is being marred (and will be recalled historically as marred) by the tendency of fx film directors to ruin movies by shooting even simple no-fx-required shots with green-screen, because it's cheaper, easier, and they're lazy. Another film revolution will occur when Hollywood realizes when filming a simple shot of a guy with a torch in a field looks really amazing when you just shoot the damn guy in a field.If you want to smirk while watching a piece of silly, campy crap, rent the grade-Z movie Frankenstein Unbound. "Camp" is when you have ten thousand bucks to make a movie and you let the movie have some fun by acknowleging that. It isn't spending millions on a loud, stupid movie because you lack taste. This movie is an exhausting drag.
So bad its comically sound
posted on 17 Aug 2009I liked the Mummy, I thought it was an entertaining movie. I hated The Mummy Returns with a passion but that looks like one of the greatest movies of all time compared to Van Helsing.Not only does this movie have a script that appears to have been thrown together by drawing words out of a hat, Stephen Sommers also appears to have drawn movie cliche's out of a hat and thrown them into his film wherever he gets the chance! This movie is really that bad that I was in stitches laughing. Kate Beckinsale is her usually awful self, Hugh Jackman does all he can with the stupid script and "that guy who plays Dracula" has a good look, but cannot pull off a Romanian Accent.With Dracula being perhaps the coolest bad guy in movie history, why can nobody ever produce a good film involving him? If you found Underworld to be entertaining or even good, God help you, then this movie is for you.
However if you have seen more than a few films, you will realise how incredibly cheesy and stupid this film is. All it needed was the Stars and Stripes at the end to round it off as being Van Cliche.
This was a COMEDY Thriller!
posted on 17 Aug 2009And worth watching if for nothing else but the tongue in cheek repartee between the characters. The costumes were outlandish and the weapons unbelievable but this is to be expected in an updated comic book-like storytelling of the legend of Dracula. Only someone with a seriously fractured funny bone could possibly fail to grasp that the action of exaggerated falls, flips and aerial acrobatics was anything but comedy! Come on guys, get a grip! This is a movie designed to be campy and entertaining, like the Batman or Starwars movies of past decades.Simply put, I liked it! And I also found it amusing to see so many character actors from other recently popular movies having a good time in this one. Look for the recognizable and not so recognizable actors from: Lord of the Rings, The Mummy, The X-Men and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. And watch for the lighthearted takeoff on the James Bond and Major Boothrow relationship. Try to guess who was who in what movie while you watch, and compare the actors performance in this movie to their other offerings. And note how Richard Roxburgh almost completely steals the show as the mesmerizing Old Count. To summarize, the movie is a delight for the young at heart, the fans of make believe and devourers of comic books. Folks, see it for yourself and judge! Have some fun! Get a bowl of hot buttered popcorn and a big cold drink and lean back for a rollicking good time and a goodly number of belly laughs at the antics of our heroes, Van Helsing, Anna and Carl vs. the villains, Count Dracula, Igor and The Brides.
Come on people...
posted on 15 Aug 2009I don't know what people have against this movie. First off, critics always hate movies that turn out to be good or enjoyable, it's just a fact. So I never listen to movie critics, I only go off of what my friends tell me about stuff. But I seriously loved this movie. Same thing happened with The Punisher, terrible reviews but I thought it was awesome. Anyways, I'm not going to summarize the entire movie, just some characters. Hugh Jackman (whom I love as an actor) as Van Helsing is awesome. I read reviews comparing him to Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones and saying that he wasn't as memorable. That's just plain dumb, because it wasn't until after at least the 2nd Indiana Jones movie that people found Indiana Jones to be a one of a kind character. Anyways, I thought he did a great job, and he brought a lot of fun and excitement to the screen. David Wenham as Carl was great, he was awesome as Faramir in the Lord of the Rings, and he was great in Van Helsing. He provides some comic relief as Carl, and I loved it. Now for my favorite part: Kate Beckinsale. Ok, to begin with Kate Beckinsale is pretty easily one of the most gorgeous women I've ever seen between those I've met/seen in real life and in movies and television. But in this movie in particular, everything about her makes me drool. The outfit, the hair, the make up, and especially the accent, all just, wow. I seriously cannot stop thinking of it. But anyways, even though she'll likely receive little to no credit for her role as Anna Valerious, she did an incredible job. Anyways, I've seen this twice now, and I still love it. So for those of you who are looking to see a fun and enjoyable movie, see this one. If you're looking for a George Lucas or Peter Jackson masterpiece, you're going to be disappointed. But this movie serves it's purpose in my mind.
Things I would rather do, or have done to me instead of watching Van Helsing again!!!!!
posted on 11 Aug 20091. Be a passenger on the Titanic.2. Have an alien burst out of my chest.3. Be piloting the space shuttle Columbia on it last flight.4. Have all my teeth pulled with no Novocaine.5. Be the 4th backpacker in Hostel.6. Slipped the date-rape drug in a gay bar.7. Jump into an active volcano.8. Watch King Kong again...really 9. Give Hillary Clinton a Gynecological exam.10. Have a 25-foot shark swallow me whole.This comment is dedicated to Laura............
uninvolving, juvenille
posted on 07 Aug 2009Van Helsing 1/5After the film, my friend turned to me and said `Aren't you sick of the over-use of computer animation in movies these days?' With Van Helsing, the answer is a resounding YES! This is yet another film that proves that
special effects alone cannot make up for a lousy script. The best special effects are still the ones you don't know are special effects.With VH going after vampires and werewolves at the same time, you just knew this was going to be a compromise.There's nothing particularly scary in the film. The best monster of all happens to be Dr Frankenstein's monster, who actually does have a heart and a mind. Hommage is paid to James Bond Q department and maybe a bit of Indiana Jones and Spiderman. Unlike Indiana Jones, the Van Helsing character is humourless, flat and uninvolving. The first Spiderman film had a heart. This film has virtually no pulse.With a rating of PG-14, you knew Van Helsing was going to be a juvenile, silly affair, and it hits the mark precisely. There's got to be a video game version coming soon. Is it worth seeing again or buying on DVD? I don't think so. Let's hope there won't be a sequel.Review by Triniman
The first good film *about* postmodernism - funny as hell, and cleverer than 'Foucault's Pendulum'.
posted on 05 Aug 2009There are 2 kinds of people who'll understand this film.1-) Sane, unpretentious people with real lives who understand that most people go to the cinema *to be amused*. The kind of person who enjoys early Jackie Chan films.If you're one of these people you can stop reading now, just go and watch Van Helsing - it's like 2 hours of watching early bugs bunny cartoons, it's fun and it's a damn sight smarter than anything you can read in a college text book.2-) Really, really pretentious people like me who have seen all the old films this references, and have read the extraordinary league of gentlemen, and borges, and various bluffer's guides to beaudrillard (post matrix, obviously).The only people who *won't* like this film are wannabe-intellectuals who HAVE NO SENSE OF HUMOUR.Attacking this film for its vacuity is exactly the same as attacking 'Airplane' for being unrealistic. It's a silly thing to say.Despite the fact that every second of this film involves a blatant pastiche, it is not simply some lame 'Scream' stylee postmodern film - *it is a postmodern film ABOUT postmodernism*. And a very, very witty and erudite one: frankenstein's creature QUOTES NIETZSCHE to the slayer-hero for heaven's sake {it should be obvious which famous quote he says... See? it's funny AND smart}The use of Mr Hyde, stolen straight from 'the league'?Well, that's not the real trope being referenced in that scene.The real reference is to Alan Moore's trope of overt misappropriation of tropes (in this case Hyde is the hunchback of notre dame, in the same way that in extraordinary league volume 2 Dr Moreau kills the Martians).The whole film is a set of arch references to the very idea of arch referencing, which is, from a pretentious theory point of view, a lot more interesting than the usual arch references to other arch references.This film is a master piece. There's a conversation in it that goes something like this:"How did your father try to find Dracula's lair?""He spent years staring and staring at the map..."That would be Borges' map they're talking about.If you do not like this film, you are wrong, and not as smart as you think you are.
Awesome adventure, great monster movie!
posted on 05 Aug 2009When the credits rolled on this one, I nearly couldn't contain myself. This is a fabulous film with fantastic special effects, good acting, a strong story, and a first rate soundtrack! Hugh Jackman's portrayal of Gabriel Van Helsing is fantastic, as is Roxburgh's part as Count Dracula. Van Helsing's search to find Dracula and complete his mission is not only bold daring, but full of great creature moments and awesome action. David Wenham (Lord of the Rings) does a great job as the comic relief Friar who aids Van Helsing and Anna in their fight against Dracula and the other creatures they face. The only thing that I didn't care for was the fact that Frankenstein's monster seemed too human, and able to carry on conversations. He actually seemed to care. But that wasn't such a big deal. I found the film completely entertaining and loads of fun!
The Classic Creatures are Reborn in this Action-Packed Adventure!
posted on 03 Aug 2009If you like Action-Packed Summer movies that get you excited, then Van Helsing is for you. Also, if you are a fan of Steven Sommers's The Mummy and The Mummy Returns this is defenitley for you. While I would still rather The Mummy, this is ten times better then The Mummy Returns.Don't listen to what the critics are saying about this movie, they obviously do not know how to have a good time at the movies. I just have to say, that if you inititally wanted to see it but are afraid to see it now because of the critics, still go see it.SPOILERS!The Opening sequence, which was in black and white, is a great tribute to the ending of the 1941 Frankenstien movie. The villager's with the picthforks and the burning on the windmill, really got me excited to see how they incorporated the orignal Frankenstien movie.The best scene in the movie is the final battle between Dracula and Van Helsing(who at this point is a Wolf Man). Richard Roxburgh does a terrific job as Count Vladislaus Dracula.End of SPOILERS!The only problem I had with this movie(all movies have there problems even the very best movies), was the length. I do think it was probably 15-20 minutes to long. Other then that, this is going to be a Summer movie that will be very hard to top. Go see this movie, and I think you will be plesentley surprised.
Thoroughly Trite but Entertaining
posted on 03 Aug 2009Previous responses, good and bad, covered the gist of the movie fairly well.That being said, all I can say, is that, somehow, although this flick uses every contrived and hackneyed action/plot technique in the history of film, it comes across as fun and fast paced, unlike say, League of Extraordinary Gentleman, which was nearly the same movie, but for some reason was very slow and boring. Add in amazing scenery, decent but not great use of foreshadowing, attractive actors and actresses, and you have a pleasant way to pass 2 hours on a rainy Sunday. I disagree that this is a good rental. The viewer would lose the benefit of the awesome special effects, unless of course they have a 50" surround sound entertainment extravaganza at home. Nah, even then, see it the movies, but definitely see it. Just expect to be entertained, nothing more, nothing less.
Don't look too hard...
posted on 01 Aug 2009WARNING, SPOILERS - Continue at your own discretionWhat do you get when you take one part Vampire Hunter D, one part Young Frankenstein, a little Castlevaynia, sight-gags, CGI action sequences, and then hand it all over to the guy who pumped out The Mummy series?Nothing terribly outstanding, actually.That said, it's an entertaining movie with a few good jokes, a couple of decent scares (more like intense startles brought about by loud noise), fairly good action sequences, semi-hip and vaguely humorous dialogue, and a passion for people falling down (try counting the number of times you see people falling and or swinging in this film - you'll run out of fingers to count on in the first ten minutes).The problem is that it's a summer blockbuster, which doesn't mean it's a throwaway, but it's not meant to be anything. It's not someone's personal vision, which I think we can all understand and forgive, but even for a bit of entertainment, it's pretty shallow. The plot (rather decent, considering) moves at a breakneck pace, but not in the good way. Rather than being designed to keep you on the edge of your seat in suspense and have your knuckles white in anxiety, the film seems to offer an apologia for it's lack of substance by hurtling the film forward so as to keep the audience from looking too hard.Another problem is that it tries to present the movie from too many different angles. It attempts to pay tribute to the classic horror films and stories, and at the same time make a halfhearted attempt at Indiana Jones-esque comedy, while simultaneously trying to eche out a place in the overflowing world of action films. The film seems almost confused as to which direction it's heading at any given time. Kind of like The Mummy, but with less effort.The biggest problem is a lack of sympathy for the characters. I couldn't find it in me to feel anything for Van Helsing - an introspective, wry, ominous hero played by Jackman, a man who's fast becoming well known for playing just such a character. Forget trying to equate this Van Helsing with the academic Van Helsing from Stoker's work. It'll make your head hurt and possibly make your eyes cross from the effort. You also have his token comic relief assistant, Carl (another category with almost limitless and unvarying examples) who actually does have a few good funny moments. Then there's Count Dracula, a character I knew I wouldn't care about for one reason - there are more Dracula films running around in this world than there are grains of sand, and most of them are about as indistinguishable.The only two characters I found myself interested in were those of Anna, played by the almost incapacitatingly gorgeous Kate Beckinsdale (she seems to have found a niche in flicks where vampires fight werewolves), and that of Igor played by Kevin O'Conner (any similarity between Igor and Beni from The Mummy is entirely...obvious?). Still, and here comes the spoiler part, when Anna dies at the end of the film, it really didn't matter to me.The rest of the cast is pretty throw away, along with the characters they play. Frankenstein's monster is in it. Not really important. We never really get why anything is going on or how it's happening. Many plots are dealt with very briefly and then dropped. Like Van Helsing's origins - presumably he's the angel Gabriel and he's been fighting for hundreds upon hundreds of years? Who knows!? They never even bother to entice you with the knowledge of the truth!On a plus side, there's a guy in this flick who looks and acts so much like Riff Raff from Rocky Horror Picture Show that it's disturbing! I kept waiting for the entire cast to break into the Time Warp! And then I would've been angry. Mostly disturbed.In summation, take your chick to this film. Otherwise just watch the trailer and realize that you've just seen the entire film. Not a BAD film, but...well you know.
Not a scathing review
posted on 30 Jul 2009SOME SPOILERS INCLUDED:Ok, I admit it. I liked Van Helsing. I wasn't expecting tons of plot. I had a feeling it was going to be a summer tentpole blockbuster. Maybe that's why I'm not severely disappointed by the film. I thought the effects were great. I didn't have many problems with the overall plot. The one scene I HATE was at the end, the faces in the sky...that was a bit much. I guess it was to show that Kate Beckinsale was reunited with her family. I was kind of surprised by the fact that she in fact died at the end, but then again, Van Helsing shouldn't live life happily ever after. The final battle between Van Helsing and Dracula was a tad anticlimactic...so it's good that there was the struggle between the werewolf Van Helsing and Beckinsale.All in all, I can't say I was disappointed.
Wild Wild East
posted on 30 Jul 2009This is a comic book movie. If you are the sort of person who cares about the integrity of literary characters, you will have trouble with this movie.On the other hand, the movie is a hoot. There are plenty of funny lines. ( Igor is torturing a chained werewolf- "It's what I do") There were plenty of funny scenes. I liked the Q branch of the Vatican. The action was imposible for anything BUT a comic book.The only downside for me was some scenes were over long. I like action scenes as much as anybody but after a while even a fight scene with three flying female vampires gets a little tiring.All in all a 6.5 out of 10
Worst film I have seen.
posted on 31 Aug 2009I thought Richard Gere's "Dr.T and the Women" was bad, but Van Helsing was unbearable. I am a big fan of Hugh Jackman but he was wrong to star in this movie. I am so glad I only wasted a couple of dollars renting it instead of buying the DVD or having seen it in the theater. One critic (that I read "after" watching) said "This isn't a film, it's a cinematic headache...", I wish I had taken the time to search out reviews before renting. The movie started with Dr Jeckyl, changed into his alter ego Mr. Hyde but inexplicably 3 times as large as a normal human and so obviously digitized it was laughable. The whole movie is supposed to be set in the 1800s yet they've got weapons right out from Bond movies and an underground, high tech lab made to look old in Rome run by the church. It's like they threw in every monster and grim looking Transylvanian they could find into this movie and still failed. As with all poor movies only the trailer scenes were engaging. I am so surprised to find any positive comments on this dreadful movie. Last two words of advice for those thinking to rent or buy: "Don't bother."