Soulless

Rating: 5/10 (10 May 2004)

SPOILERS AHEAD - Although I left the theater feeling entertained, it was a hollow feeling. It got even hollower as I explained to my family (which, by and large, liked the movie) about the original myths of the vampires, werewolves, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and even Frankenstein. I don't understand how Stephen Sommers can sit there and say he is paying homage to the old classic Universal monsters when all he did was twist the myths to suit his movie. A Mr. Hyde that was far more monstrous that the original story intended? A vampire that can morph into some demonic being and be killed only by a werewolf? A vampire hunter that was nearly immortal? Vampires than can breed (come on!)? Although on the surface the movie is very entertaining, Van Helsing is a soulless, CGI-driven cartoon that should not even be mentioned in the same breath as the classic Universal monsters. Maybe Sommers could have sacrificed some of the CGI in order to develop the characters a little more - to maybe reveal a little of what Van Helsing's secret is, to learn a little more about the family being torn apart by Dracula. About the only thing Sommers seemed to do right is the Frankenstein monster, which was a lot closer to what Mary Shelley had depicted (except for the electrical circuits and whatnot in his head, which was a cool touch). You can have Van Helsing, give me Dracula with Bela Lugosi, Frankenstein with Boris Karloff, and The Wolf Man with Lon Chaney Jr anytime.