Review of Van Helsing (2004) by Andrew A — 28 Aug 2014

2 1/2 stars. This film tries to be a reboot/tribute to classic monsters, but it mostly succeeds as a send-up. Sure, the folklore and mythology and even some history details are on display. But, mostly, this film is just non-stop. Non-stop fun, non-stop action, non-stop CGI, non-stop cliches, and non-stop references to both classic monster movies and books. The whole thing about Frankenstein's monster's feelings about just wanting to be noticed made me happy to realize they were using the novel as reference more than the movie.

However, we must get through the rest of the movie's points, so let's get to it. The plot is actually quite complicated, and is fairly original, if poorly executed. Of course, plot is not the point of this movie, but at least it exists (unlike, say, Transformers 2 & 3). The acting is not that bad, with most of the actors putting on a pretty convincing accent, even if they are obviously struggling to keep it at times. The real pitfall here is that character development is non-existent. Of course, all you really need to know is who's good and who's bad. Speaking of bad, Roxburgh plays Dracula nearly perfectly. I watched this film just now with AMC story notes, and it said that he played Dracula like the movie was a comedy. That makes no sense, but I guess it worked for him. Those story notes also gave me a greater appreciation for the real sets and wardrobes, which, upon noticing them, are stunning. If you are watching this film and find yourself bored (which quite a few people will), just look at the background.

This film is way overstuffed, with a 2 hour and 25 minute runtime, and about 2 hours of it spent on action and CGI, it can be a bit much at times. However, if you are a fan of monster horror/action, but not a big enough fan to get mad at the film's shamelessly re-upping plot, you may find this to be fun, passable entertainment.