Ahoy, squirts. Quint here with my look at VAN HELSING, the big monster summer blockbuster flick starring Hugh Jackman, Kate ("I have bitch stamped on my forehead")Beckinsale, Richard Roxburgh and Faramir. I'll keep this short as there are a boat-load of reviews below mine, some more positive, some more negative.
To start with, I do admit to going into this film expecting it to be really shitty. All the negative reviews and Stephen Sommers' history of near-misses got to me. That's not to say I went in HOPING it'd be bad. I had hoped I was going to be proven wrong.
And at the beginning, I thought I was wrong. The opening with Frankenstein creating his monster in black and white was alright despite the very beginning of Richard Roxburgh's terrible overacting, but the real surprise to me was the introduction of Van Helsing himself. His introduction has him stalking, then finding Mr. Hyde (of Jekyll and Hyde, of course) in an old church. His dialogue with Hyde serves well to introduce us to this hero, his history of being a badass and also even makes Hyde the most interesting of all the monsters that follow later. There's a spark to this scene. Jackman was shining, the CG work on Hyde wasn't terribly distracting and the two had an odd sort of enemy on enemy chemistry.
The resulting fight has VAN HELSING using his weapons for the first time and curiously enough it seems to be the last time any of his weapons actually do anything for the rest of the film. Unlike everything that follows, you also get a sense that Van Helsing is not only smart, but clever... he thinks outside the box and gets the upper hand in the battle because of it.
That got me a bit excited. I was happy to be proven wrong... until the movie changes its mind and proves my weariness correct, mostly due to the vampires. Oh, my God... The Brides of Dracula... excruciating line delivery and posing. Roxburgh's Dracula isn't any better... matter of fact, he's much, much worse. Roxburgh's performance deserves a place on a shelf next to John Travolta's in BATTLEFIELD EARTH or that blue-lipped dude in DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS. Actually, I take that back. I had a helluva time laughing at both the blue-lipped dude and Travolta. I just groaned during Roxburgh's Dracula.
Kate Beckinsale on the other hand... She gave me the giggles in a few spots where her dialogue and delivery was unintentionally funny... If you decide to see this film take notice to a scene when she's swinging through the air (near the end) and grabs the hypo... then stays in a ridiculous glamour pose for about 5 seconds... I don't think I've laughed that hard in a long while.
I'm upset at Sommers... While I shouldn't have it in my mind that this film would be anything but a shallow popcorn flick that always aims for the lowest common denominator, I just couldn't help but imagine he'd mix the popcorn fun of THE MUMMY RETURNS and the atmosphere and black humor of DEEP RISING for an out and out MONSTER MOVIE! Instead, he's made the most ridiculous, over-the-top retarded flick of his career. And this is coming from someone who LIKED Mummy Returns! It's funny... that kid in MUMMY RETURNS is smarter and more charismatic than anyone in VAN HELSING. But that's not to insult Hugh Jackman. He really tries and some of the times even succeeds despite the terrible script.
I don't know... I just didn't feel any sort of love for the original Universal Monsters... I know in reality Sommers loves them, but with the exception of a few nice nods back to FRANKENSTEIN and the immortal "Even a man who is pure at heart..." line from THE WOLF MAN you couldn't tell based on the movie. Where it counted I didn't feel any real respect to the classic movies.
Sommers creates his own mythos surrounding these creatures... and it appears that the most magical weapon in his world are clouds. Yes, clouds. Clouds not only shield vampires during the day time so they don't burn into crispy-critters, but if they float across a full moon the werewolf will return to man-form. So, a werewolf can be indoors on a full moon completely out of its light, but that won't change him back... But if the moon light is blocked by clouds, then back to man he goes... I'd say the only creature they got close to right was FRANKENSTEIN'S MONSTER... but even then Mel Brooks and Peter Boyle puts this one to shame... and that's in an almost 30 year old spoof!
To compare VAN HELSING to another like movie, let me just say that VAN HELSING isn't a pimple on the ass of MONSTER SQUAD. That's right, a cheesy '80s kids movie had more true emotion, more well drawn characters, more RESPECT for the original monsters and more thrills. It makes me sad that a $200 million attempt at a big monster movie fails so miserably in comparison to a low budget kids film from the '80s. Even the make-up looks better in MONSTER SQUAD!
All in all, the film didn't hurt me to watch it, but I can't recommend it, either. It's bad, but I didn't find it offensively bad, even with its many problems and wasted potential. Poor Hugh Jackman. He gave it his best. I'm not sure what else to say besides Long Live MONSTER SQUAD!
Anyway, here's a review of VAN HELSING from Singapore. I personally think Mr. Fern is smoking crack (especially about Richard Roxburgh's performance), but for the sake of fairness, here it is:
Hi Harry,
as the name suggeststhis is one of two glowing reviews from a reasonably hard ass reviewer here in the "caning" country (incidentally, it's exactly 10 years ago on this day Michael Fay got his ass whooped here). Personally, I felt the film was just one monster screaming to the next for 2 hrs straight. Anyway, go figure this reviewer out.
Seany
Pure entertainment. Jam-packed with marvellous characters, superb computer-generated effects and good acting, Stephen Sommers' Van Helsing is a thrilling rollercoaster ride
By Ong Sor Fern
WHO'S AFRAID OF MONSTERS? : Certainly not Van Helsing, played by the ever reliable Hugh Jackman.
SINCE remaking one monster in The Mummy (1999) made him a success, writer-director Stephen Sommers' follow-up multiplies the formula by three.
Van Helsing contains werewolves, vampires and Frankenstein's monster, oh my. Just in case that is not sufficient, he throws in an opening interlude with Dr Jekyll's monstrous alter-ego, Mr Hyde, as well.
What Sommers proves in this agreeably action-packed romp is that he is, unapologetically, the popcorn version of Quentin Tarantino. While Tarantino transmutes B-grade pop culture into A-grade arthouse, Sommers is content to simply repackage C-grade schlock classics into shamelessly entertaining B-grade cineplex fare.
Hence the hilariously old-fashioned black-and -white opening sequence which dusts off all the old cliches of Universal's old horror flicks with steroid-pumped glee.
There is a mob wielding flaming torches and storming Dr Victor Frankenstein's (Samuel West) castle on a dark and stormy night, no less. The icing on this premium slice of cheesecake is a close-up shot of Frankenstein himself howling triumphantly: 'It's alive!'
Enter Count Dracula, played by Richard Roxburgh, rolling his r's with sonorous, luscious glee in a magnificently gauged performance that skates the thin edge of camp.
Dracula wants to steal Frankenstein's secret to life so that he can revive the thousands of vampire eggs he has sired with his three brides.
It is up to renowned vampire hunter Van Helsing (the ever reliable Hugh Jackman, who emanates understated calm and action man efficiency amidst the avalanche of CGI madness) to stop this nefarious plan.
Aid comes in the curvaceous form of gypsy princess Anna Valerious (Kate Beckinsale, showing more signs of life here than in that other disastrous vampires-and-werewolves flick, Underworld).
There is also the obligatory comic sidekick, the geeky Carl (David Wenham), a mediaeval monk version of James Bond's Q, who gets dragged into Van Helsing's mission despite protesting: 'I'm not a field agent.'
This movie is not so much a narrative as a series of action set pieces strung together by numerous wisecracks and occasional film geek jokes.
Sommers makes no bones (no pun intended) about the fact that all he wants to do is entertain.
His love of matinee fare is evident in the way he has updated Van Helsing into a supernatural Indiana Jones-meets-James Bond type, complete with fedora and swishing trenchcoat. And the way he lovingly films the relationship between Dracula and his brides as a sort of baroque Gothic opera.
His movie is propelled by his need to make the 13-year-olds go: 'Cool!'
The level of appreciation here is limited to marvelling at the director shooting from the vampiresses' point of view as they swoop down on hapless Transylvanian villagers. Not that this is bad if you are in the mood for a mindless, rollercoaster action thrill.
Unabashedly entertaining, Van Helsing is the official announcement
that summer blockbuster silliness has arrived. Let the monster mash
begin.
And here's a review from a Belgian!
Hey Harry,
It's not often that us Belgians get to see movies - even if it's just a little - before you guys. So here's my first review for your site.
Van Helsing could have been the best of blockbusters, but it turns out one of the dullest. There are no scares - ok, maybe one or two when some dreadful CGI pops up on the screen. There is no fun. There is no nothing. I sometimes get the weird feeling that many recent action adventures contain so much that they in fact contain zilch. I do have to admit that the movie was a ride. There was not one scene in the movie in which the action slows down, but I do not know if this is a good thing.
Three comparisons come to mind when I think of this picure, one with LXG, one with the Batman movies and one with LOTR:
As much as i hated LXG, I hate Van Helsing even more, but how do I compare the two? Well, in way of having so much opportunities and doing nothing with them. Is it a coincidence that both movies had horrible minions that in fact do nothing? Is it a coincidence that some of the most terrible scenes in both movies take place in the docks? And what about Richard Roxburgh in both movies playing some of the most contrived villains in recent movie history? But the thing that struck me the most in both movies is the lack emotional attachment I had with the leads. Just as Quatermain was a boring old dick to me, Van Helsing comes off as a one dimensional action machine.
My comparison with the Batman series might be a little vague, because I stopped paying real attention after Batman Returns but here I go. The main problem with the Batman sequels, I always thought, was the sheer abundance of characters. I don't know in which one it was, the Riddler one I think, there was so much going on with so many characters that nothing made any sense at all in the end. The same goes for Van Helsing: it has the absurd baby vampire plot, which isn't a half bad way to link Frankenstein's monster and Dracula. And I was even able to deal with the adding of the werewolf mystery, but Sommers chose to put all exposition in crummy dialogue the characters have to shout whilst fighting.
LOTR - easily one of my favorite series of cinema experiences in the last few years - comes to mind one time too many in a negative way. Jackson tried hist best to integrate CGI with real characters, this didn't always work, but at least he tried. Sommers, to me, just messes around. There's the horrible scene with Mr. Hyde (another element to be found in LXG) which was just embarrasing, but the scene in which the last vampire bride dies and how they put the real actress' head on the decaying body must have been the worst CGI I have seen in years. When the movie comes to an end and we see a burial I also thought of LOTR and how the passing of characters in it always put me in tears. Whilst viewing the aforementioned scene in Van Helsing I felt absolutely nothing (and I'm not even mentioning the heaven scene). Did anyone else notice how Silvestri's score all of a sudden sounded like third rate Shore work during this scene?
You probably know by now that I didn't enjoy the movie, but what I find the most frustrating is the potential Sommer had with this film and has himself. I admit that I looked forward to this movie, the idea sounded pretty cool to me. A messy script, some odd directorial choices and a lack of humor seemed to have ruined everything. I loved Deep Rising and The Mummy Returns. Both movies didn't take themselves too seriously but in the end did a decent job at entertainging me. With Van Helsing I feel that Sommers decided to make a halfhearted attempt at a bleaker movie. There is some comic relief but it's almost hidden, like Sommers was ashamed that he put it in.
One thing I did love about the movie though: Frankenstein's creature. Isn't it ironic that the only man-made monster in Van Helsing is the thing that I enjoyed the most?
Love,
Possum.
And here's one final review, this one also on the negative side...
Hey There…
I just had to throw my oar in on VAN HELSING, because it’s been getting a lot of coverage on your site, and there’s the worrying possibility people are going to think “Well, it can’t possibly be that bad!”
Speaking as someone who’s still trying to rid himself of tinnitus in the ears thanks to the deafening soundtrack of the film I finished watching just over 90 minutes ago… the answer is, quite frankly, yes. It can be that bad. VAN HELSING is bad blockbuster movie-making writ large, taking all the mistakes that Steven Somners made with THE MUMMY RETURNS and magnifying them to the factor of 1,000. It’s a movie where characterisation is that fleeting, annoyingly boring stuff that goes on in the fractions of a second between the action sequences, where the only thing the director seems capable of doing is pacing the film like a Runaway Train- just aiming it down the tracks, letting his foot off the brake, and any time anyone looks in danger of losing interest, just making it go faster and louder. Make no mistake- there’s a whole heap of cool stuff in this movie, and it’s not as if it ever gets boring (it’s far too magnificently awful for that), but it’s ruining classic horror characters, and the equivalent of spending 135 minutes on a roller coaster- it might be fun for the first twenty minutes, but soon you’re just begging for the whole thing to stop. An injunction needs to be taken out on Richard Roxburgh before he slaughters any more classic roles- he’s already screwed up Sherlock Holmes, Moriarty, and now he’s transformed Dracula into a camp, bellowing Eurotrash hairdresser. It’s a truly painful performance, cranked up to eleven by Somners simply so he can get the whole thing louder and faster… but never better. Diminishing returns in action, and the attempts at pathos or serious characterisation just come across as absolutely hilarious. It’s hard to believe that nobody at any point during production raised their hand and said “Excuse me… isn’t this a bit too much?” We deserve better films than this. Monkeys could make better films than this- but it’s trading on the treasures of the past, and it’s been marketed so efficiently that everyone’s going to see it anyway. And no doubt, the sequel will be along in a couple of years, with Somners once again trying to make eardrums bleed across the land.
It’s not worth it, you mark my words…
If you use this- my name is Kingboy D. I answer to no other
Well, three negatives (including my own) and one positive. I know most in my group felt the movie disrespected its source material, but Harry seemed to like it... So, which side will you fall on?
-Quint
email: Email Quint here, bandaid breath!!!
