Review of Van Helsing (2004) by Timothy S — 29 Sep 2012

In the early 1990's. there was a resurgence of interest in the classic Universal monsters with terrific new versions of "Frankenstein" and "Dracula", so I was initially excited when the new "Van Helsing" was announced. Then it was divulged that Stephen Sommers would be the writer/director, and all hope instantly faded away.

The opening sequence is shot in beautiful black and white, and pays homage to this long-ago classics until it is interrupted by the jarring CGI and the tone is then set for the entire mess that would follow. The plot is thin, but Sommers overloads the film with those mind-numbing computer generated effects that there's not much time for a story. Unlike those classics, this was made to please today's more "modern" moviegoers, the people who need constant stimulation and distraction, and this is distracting to the max.

For example, take a look at the climactic showdown between Van Helsing and Dracula. It has all of the heart and soul of watching a video game because you are essentially watching two pixelated video game characters doing battle. There's no emotion here, and the casting is also disappointing.

Hugh Jackman hams it up in the title role, and Shuler Hensley as Frankenstein's monster seems to have wandered in off the set of a Mel Brook's film. And considering the actors who have played Dracula in the past, Richard Roxburgh is tedious, bland and not up to the challenge. This expensive dud is devoid of imagination. "Van Helsing" owes more to "The Matrix" or "Underworld" that the films of its alleged heritage. There's a lot of noise and fury but little else.