Van Helsing  (2004)

Starring: Hugh Jackman, Kate Beckinsale, Richard Roxburgh
Director: Stephen Sommers

Rating: PG-13

Studio: Universal

Release Date: 05.07.04

Review Posted: 05.07.04

Spoilers: None

By Sara M. Fetters

Drive a Stake Through It – "Van Helsing" Stinks

When screenings happen for new movies there are times when they unavoidably overlap. More often than not, there is only one showing for the press, especially in the cases of the bigger studio productions, and conflicts inevitably arise.

Take this week for example. I had my choice to see either the yummy Hugh Jackman in “Van Helsing” or I could have made the trek to the Olsen sisters’ big screen adventure “New York Minute.” While I really have nothing against Mary-Kate and Ashley, there was no way I was going to skip seeing Hugh in all his ultra-sexy, Beatle-haired glory. Besides, “Van Helsing” features the great triumvirate of Universal Monsters; Dracula, the Wolf Man, Frankenstein; so any chance to watch them back up on the big screen where they belong is a chance not to be missed.

In retrospect, I should have gone with the twins; “Van Helsing” stinks.

How bad is “Van Helsing?” Just let me count the ways:

1. Director Stephen Sommers (“The Mummy Returns”) directs as if he’s the most ADD person on the planet and he plum forgot his Dramamine. The whole movie is a compendium of sensory overload. Alan Silvestri’s (“Identity”) score blares incessantly, the sky swirls ominously filling with cloudbursts and lightening strikes, while everyone moves around the screen as if every sweep of their hand or tip of their hat was going to be the very last thing they were ever going to do.

2. It looks like a giant video game. For all the complaints directed at Sommer’s “Mummy” movies, the background shots and creature effects were nowhere near as annoying to look at as they are here. Nothing is believable. This is the single most computer generated film to hit screens this side of Pixar, everything from the backgrounds to the sets to the monsters themselves taking on a cartoonish sheen more appropriate for an X-Box than a feature length motion picture.

3. The whole thing is acted in an arch, over-the-top 1930’s style that would only be appropriate if the film felt the need to take itself a bit more seriously. This type of filmmaking worked when Steven Spielberg and George Lucas appropriated it for “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” but they had the guts and the honesty to treat all other aspects of their feature with a reverent seriousness that bellied the cliffhanger styling of the plot. That’s not close to being the case here, Sommers treats his characters and story as if they were a cute, cleverly cloying joke.

4. The script stinks and makes absolutely no sense. The director has pulverized these fabled creatures into a mishmash of science fiction and fantasy silliness that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny within the first ten minutes. Questions are brought up and discarded almost immediately, never to be heard from again, all leading to a resolution so unbelievably witless I started to think Sommers must have a pet monkey that wrote the picture for him. Of course, the only problem with that theory is the monkey would have written something more intelligent than anything onscreen here.

5. The characters aren’t characters, they’re cardboard cutouts only necessary to remind the audience not everything in the film was generated inside a computer – it only looks that way. It is impossible to tell if Jackman (“X-Men”) is any good as the title character, for Sommers never slows the film down enough to give the audience a glimpse as to who Van Helsing is and what makes him tick. Worse off is the talented Kate Beckinsale (“Underworld”). She’s stuck playing a woman so woodenly unbelievable and one dimensional the only thing I could remember about the actress or her performance was how much I wanted the gothically sexy boots she gallivanted around in.

I could go on and on, but then I would have to stop and ask myself, “Am I being too cruel?” Not in the slightest. You know you are in trouble with a film when the preview audience starts laughing at – not with – the picture after the first fifteen minutes. Hoots and hollers of incredulity could be heard all around, especially during fits of some of the most insipid dialogue to hit the silver screen since George Lucas picked up a pen for the new “Star Wars” prequels. In fact, the only reason I think people were staying through the whole thing was to see if “Van Helsing” was going to get any worse – better wasn’t an option – getting the picture to the point where it could be considered a modern classic of ineptitude along the lines of “Showgirls” or “Howard the Duck.”

Did it get there? Hard to tell, for I had such a headache when all was said and done it was a bit beyond me to put into perspective the pummeling I’d just endured. This wasn’t a movie, it was an endurance test, and Sommers and company strained every last fiber of my being to be sure. As much as I disliked the “Mummy” features, at least they offered something of value including a couple of intriguing characters, some nice locations and a couple of decently fleshed out performances speckled with an ounce of human emotion or two.

That’s not even remotely the case this time. The attitude and swagger alone are on such a high tilt I was ready to raise a white flag and make my retreat to the exit. I’d like to say something along the lines of how nice it would be to drive a stake deep into the heart of “Van Helsing,” forever keeping it out of the multiplexes and stopping it from seeing the light of day. Unfortunately, the only stake being driven was the one into my own heart, Sommers doing his best to pulverize me into such dumfounded submission that when ghostly specters tearfully entered into heaven all I could do was whisper, “Hakuna Matata,” and close my eyes, thankful it was all finally over.

Film Rating: 1/2ê  (out of 4)

Home | Back to Top