Van Helsing

Despite the inconsistent CG, some weak performances and some dumb decisions Van Helsing is still a fun and enjoyable fantasy adventure. Hugh Jackman gives a great lead performance and Kate Beckinsale, Richard Roxburgh and David Wenham are all really good. It's well paced and well filmed and Stephen Sommer's direction is good, if a little too reliant on CG. The music by Alan Silversti is great.

This movie is very very very good. Screw what the critics say. This movie is very action-packed, in your face, has great effects and it's funny too.

The way the brides transform from creepy bat monsters to beautiful women is really cool.

And Richard Roxburgh is really cool as Dracula. I almost didn't recognize him as the duke from Moulin Rouge!

The only part I didn't really like was Frankenstein's monster. He looked cool, I just didn't like his character. But other than that it's no big deal.

Also, Hugh Jackman and Will Kemp are extremely hot in this movie!

For all you fans of The Mummy and The Mummy Returns, you're gonna love this one!

If you're a purist-any kind of purist-stay away from Van Helsing. But if you love the Universal horror films of the 30's and 40's or the Hammer films of the 50's and 60's and don't mind re-imagining them, then go. Check your brain at the door, buy a large popcorn and a soda and sit back for a fun ride.

The film is a complete reworking of everything you think you know about all the big guys. Present for your enjoyment are Dracula, the Wolf man, Frankenstein's monster and a guest appearance by Mr. Hyde. And of course, tying the whole thing together is our hero, Van Helsing (yummily played by Hugh Jackman). Named Abraham in Stoker's book but called Gabriel in the film, VH doesn't appear in any book other than Dracula, but in the more than a century since his `birth' we've become accustomed to his presence as the elder statesman of monster killers.

Completely re-imagined in this new production, VH is now young, handsome, and virile and apparently as immortal and indestructible as the creatures he chases. Don't expect great resolutions or deep explanations here, there are none. Don't expect Academy Award level acting, some of the actors apparently phoned in their performances while others decided to take up the slack. The resultant scenery chewing is uneven, but never boring. The dialogue, not to put too fine a point on it, is absurd and sometimes unintentionally, howlingly funny.

The makers of this film are clearly fans of the genre. The subject matter is treated with a loving sledgehammer. As the film progressed my companion and I made a game of naming all the classics represented. In addition to those you might expect, we were able to recognize allusions to `Young Frankenstein,' `Star Wars,' `Aliens,' `Raiders of the Lost Ark,' `Gremlins,' `Romancing the Stone,' `Lord of the Rings,' `Buffy the Vampire Slayer,' `Twister,' "Wild, Wild West" and any James Bond film you care to name among others. If you go, try it yourself.

If the producers were intending to frighten us, they failed dismally; but if they only intended to entertain us they succeeded, if not brilliantly, at least admirably. I'm uncertain if they intended quite so much humor, but both my companion and I laughed out loud most of the way through.

In addition to inside jokes, the film is filled with extraordinary visual images. From the opening encounter between VH and a startlingly oversized and athletic Edward Hyde, physicality is the order of the day. Everyone, including Van Helsing's friar sidekick is a magnificent specimen. Even Frankenstein's monster (who I nicknamed `Sparky' for the electrical discharges from his partially exposed brain) is hideously beautiful. Also, the cinematography is breathtaking. Both real scenery and CGI imagined are dazzling. I especially loved the castles Dracula and Frankenstein. Both edifices were Mad Ludwig's Neuschwanstein Castle as imagined by Tim Burton. I'd almost say that if the film had no other virtues at all, it would still be worth the price of admission for the incredible beauty of its backgrounds. However, the real star of the film is the (you guessed it) special effects.

Transformation scenes abound. At any point in the film you are only moments from watching someone turn into something. And what wonderful things they are. Vampires don't become simple bats, but snake-jawed, full size harpies. The Wolf man sprouts saber tooth fangs as he rips the human skin from his body. Frankenstein's monster's flesh partially peels from his skull and is smoothly pushed back into place and Mr. Hyde morphs from grinning giant menace to pitiful human corpse.

Not to put too fine a point on it, everyone-vampires, villagers, heroes, even horses and cattle go airborne sometime during the film. Dracula's three brides take the prize for most hang time. These ladies would be a wonderful asset to the Transylvanian Air Force with their dizzying dives, spins and barrel rolls. The camera gives us a bat's eye view of their deadly aerobatic ballet. When not in full flight Dracula and his wives walk up walls, across ceilings and carry on family quarrels while hanging from the rafters by their toes. Those characters that do not fly on their own power are lifted aloft and usually dropped soon after. The rest are climbers, scrambling up and down castle architecture like houseflies on speed. Interestingly, no one is ever seriously hurt or even has a hairstyle mussed.

The scenes shift so rapidly that it becomes difficult at times to follow the story. Fortunately, the gossamer plot is as deep as a kiddie's backyard swimming pool, so it isn't too much of a problem. Only the barest bones are needed to carry us from one action sequence to the next. Although there is no nudity and not a cussword is uttered, the film is violent. Well, of course it's violent--and about as traumatic as a Road Runner cartoon. Still, it earns its PG-13 rating. Leave the little 'uns home. The throbbing, pounding soundtrack keeps the attention even when not very much is happening.

Is Van Helsing a great film? No. Absolutely not. Is it a good film? No, not really. Is it entertaining? Yes. And maybe, just maybe, that's enough.

I don't understand all the bad press this movie got. In a way, maybe that's for the best. Like The Avengers movie (which got similarly scathing reviews) my expectations for Van Helsing were absolutely rock bottom. So it turned out to be a very pleasant surprise when I found the film to be fun, entertaining and quite enjoyable overall. People here are complaining about the CGI monsters. What's the beef? This is the 21st century. What do you want? A very well done CGI Mr. Hyde (voiced by Robbie Coltrane, no less) or some guy in a ripped tuxedo baring his teeth a la Spencer Tracy? Fire up those computers and bring on the CGI! Actually I found the CGI effects quite good for the most part. You want bad CGI, then check out James Bond surfing down a glacier in Die Another Day.

So I'll join the minority and say that Van Helsing is well worth watching. Jackman is fine as always and the rest of the cast holds their own. The plot is just fine as well. This is a monster movie, not The Usual Suspects.

Pop yourself a big bowl of popcorn, sit back and enjoy the ride.

It's big, it's dumb, it's cheesy as hell, but I found it to be enormous fun. This was made to be a roller-coaster ride and by that token it should be judged.

Actually after the opening pastiche of the Boris Karloff Frankenstein movie, I thought this had the potential to be a 5 star movie. It was very atmospheric and had me hooked. However the film never really captures any sense of magic from there onwards.

The main body of the movie does go on a bit, and it could have done with some attempt to create engaging characters. Plot and story are not always necessary for fun movies, but you do need characters with a level of interest to capture the mind, otherwise you tend to find yourself not giving a s**t. I felt Van Helsing did verge into this territory, but for the most part it's so fast paced this doesn't matter so much. The points where it does try to introduce plot are the moments where it really does fail. In fact there is too much going on that is never really explained, and I think it would've been better not to have bothered at all, than use the nonsense Sommers resorts too. For example the attempts at backstory to Van Helsing. Better to have one of those interlude chatty scenes you have in the Indy films, where it establishes he's a dude, rather than the poor attempts at angst and pathos. Really bad was the moment he gets upset over Frankie's Monster. What the hell was that all about?

Hmm maybe I took that a bit seriously, but the movie knows what it is, why try be something else. I also thought that that masked ball sequence was a natural conclusion, the eventual finale at the castle felt like an add on, which lacked any real punch.

Far better was Van's introduction to Transylvania, with the benefit of some neat angles and panning shots, the crossbow battle with the brides was cool. The coach chase was exciting without being exhilarating, but kept the flow going, so it's a shame some more bad plot gets thrown in, especially when it was involving the underwritten Velkan. That's the film's main problem - overkill of characters, with little space given to any of them to evolve.

Finally a word on the CGI. I thought it was very good, especially the morphs that were used. The very first moment Drac starts to turn made me jump a touch, and when the vampires turns into their fanged, contorted state it looked pretty scary to me. The wolfman transformation, with the ripping flesh looked genuinely painful. At this point I was thinking the CGI was genuinely stunning. I'd have preferred the finale if it had just been Van vs Drac though, having CGI characters fight felt uninvolving, and Drac in snarly state was far better than the beast he turns into.

This is a movie to genuinely switch of the brain and enjoy. At times there's too much going on and perhaps a bit too much swinging about for my liking, but it's an adrenaline filled ride. I'd probably give it 7 out of 10.