Van Helsing

I love image composition, cinematic artsiness, Kate Beckinsale and digital effects as long as they are used sensibly (as in Jurassic Park). Not to mention my love of classic horror movies. But I can’t love Van Helsing. I require a film to have charm and a touch of reality. It cost $150 million to make Van Helsing and yet the whole film evoked in me the same emotions and interest in the characters as its barely one-minute trailer did. The result was emotional emptiness and complete disinterest in what was happening on the screen. The digital effects haven’t progressed at all, maintaining the same unbalanced quality, and there are so many of them that we stop believing in the world that they form for us. And Richard Roxburgh is the biggest casting mistake of the year. Two stars only for the impressive prologue, the nice sets and the joke with the cow. (05.05.2004)

Stephen, Kate and Hugh made a cake that is not very palatable. It looks like a burger from McDonald’s and it tastes like that too: it’s not very juicy and too crowded with toppings. If I were to take it as laid-back popcorn entertainment, there would have to be a clearer sign that the film doesn't take itself too seriously. If I were to be afraid, Sommers would have to be able to create an atmosphere of tension. Instead, I was bored, waiting to see what kind of rubbish the director would unload on me again, and the few scares didn't save it. And when it comes to the action, well, I have nothing against a crossbow shooting arrows like a machine gun, but in a film that is supposed to be a sort of homage to old horror movies (in the words of the director), it feels like a punch in the face. And for me to have fun, there would have to be at least some funny moments. Sommers evokes lightness with exaggerated action scenes that lack wit and logic (but whatever). And Dracula? I don't understand why the Lord of Darkness has to look like the frontman of some faded pop rock band like Bon Jovi. Murnau's Nosferatu, lay your hand of vengeance on that barbaric Sommers and taste his arteries. He’s calling for it! (23.05.2004)

Nonstop shredder, exaggerated affect and absolutely unmastered narrative tone in combination with excellent action, unbeatable fighter Jackman and sufficient exaggeration. I try to avoid phrases like "popcorn entertainment" if possible, but Van Helsing is precisely the epitome of action-adventure certainty. (13.05.2006)

I dare say that there is no significant difference between the favorably received Mummy and the criticized Van Helsing. It is equally fast, skillful, and superficial without an internal story logic. The difference, expressed in my case by one star, lies in the level of self-awareness, where The Mummy follows in the footsteps of Indiana Jones with its style, while Van Helsing does not want to entertain, but rather to impress to its own detriment. As it takes itself too seriously, all the shortcomings of Sommers' directing style are more easily revealed. Overall impression 40%. (26.10.2007)

Little kids will love Van Helsing, it's cute, colourful, fast-paced, likeable, and can draw on the rich "monster-movie" mythology that they love so much, with apparently every single drop being squeezed out of it. Teens will respect Van Helsing because it stars the cool Wolverine guy, Kate Beckinsale struts around the set in tight pants, and because the plot leaves no room for any pesky emotions and merely furiously presents Sommers' most B-movie homage to a popular and nearly extinct film genre. On the other hand, adults who have seen a few fantasy flicks in their lifetime will hate and laugh at Van Helsing because it's visually overstuffed, emotionally barren, blandly acted, and has a script that was either concocted by someone on drugs or someone who needed to make a quick buck for drugs. I’m giving it three stars only because I was a little boy, or a teenager, when I watched it on VHS, and a thick whiff of nostalgia comes over me every time Hugh Jackman raises his crossbow, or when the camera hungrily takes in Kate Beckinsale's backside, or when Richard Roxburgh, playing Dracula, tries to resurrect his ugly offspring, distant relatives of the little zombie from Jackson's Braindead. Alan Silvestri deserves the biggest praise, the other stars should forget about this overpriced trip to Transylwood. 55% (28.07.2015)

We still have a VHS of Van Helsing at home (quite possibly no longer working) and I remember watching the film regularly about once a year. Now I've come back to it after some time, and I suddenly find that relatively a lot has changed, given the view of the film through the eyes of a teenager vs. an over-aged student. I know that after the first few viewings, I really dug the film because it featured both my favorite monsters – werewolves and vampires - as well as a great cast – the charismatic Hugh Jackman, the murderously seductive Kate Beckinsale, and the lovably goofy David Wenham. Together with the first two Underworlds, it was my favourite vampire-werewolf film at the time. With hindsight, however, I can see that the result is a piece of crap with a heavily overacted Dracula and annoying brides, all wrapped up in overpriced visual effects, which ironically are not very well done (Van Helsing went to the cinema a year after the The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King btw). Despite all this, I have a certain nostalgic attachment to this film that blinds me to critical reviews. I'm willing to overlook the American ignorance of European geography, the almost immortal character of Princess Anne, and the many wtf-scenes you could collect like Pokémon. It is still one of my greatest guilty pleasures – from A to Z and back again. (11.01.2019)