Dracula wasn't the only thing that sucked

Rating: 1/10 (24 May 2004)

The first thing I can say about VAN HELSING, is that for the first time I have witnessed a side effect of vampirism  not only do they suck the blood off of you, they also suck your acting skills. What was Sommers thinking when he casted that group of community-theatre z graded actors, who cannot even maintain the same accent for more then one scene? The name of the title should be VAN HELSING  ADVENTURES IN OVER ACTING. It was the first time a fantasy movie can be accused of bigotry  the use of monsters stereotypes was borderline racism! What's wrong with some originality, why not try to, I don't know, something that wasn't done for a gazillion times? Couldn't Sommers find a new perspective for an already repeated Dracula/Frankenstein/Were-wolf story and outline? He did such a great job with THE MUMMY, why didn't he take the same great formula he had and just transferred the monster plot to it? For god sake, they didn't even a little bit of comic relief  nothing to ease the pain! You just cannot maintain a PG monster movie with absolutely no blood and gore without something for the soul! The lack of humorous relieves, combined with a bland story line that features nothing new, added to one of the most bad and ridicules acting performances (I am talking especially to you Kate Beckinsale and Richard Roxburgh), and you have one of the worst movies ever made, a stale experience at best, with a lesson to be learned for future directors  CGI is not a substitute for a plot or for acting quality. If I want to see that  I'll go play a game on my PS. I can only hope Dracula didn't see that movie, because if he saw it, I'm sure he'd want revenge.
8.5 on OMEGA DOOM Scale.