Curse you, Steven Sommers!

Rating: 4/10 (26 October 2005)

I can't say, hand on heart, that Van Helsing is a good movie. However, it's not a total disaster either. It's one of those films that exists in the grey area in-between, alongside the not bad, the okay, the passable.
Van Helsing finds writer and director Steven Sommers locked into the one-damn-thing-after-another type narrative that he displayed in the dreadful The Mummy Returns, and while Van Helsing never quite stoops to the depths of that movie, you do wish that Sommers would realise that visual spectacle and constant events are insufficient substitutes for a decent story and characterisation.
Sommers's script has several major weaknesses. First, despite all the pre-release hype about this movie featuring Dracula, Frankenstein plus his Monster, and the Wolf Man, in actuality the latter creature does not appear. Universal's Wolf Man was Lawrence Talbot, played by Lon Chaney Junior in five movies during the 40s (the character also turned up in a Lovecraftian graphic novel written a few years ago by Neil Gaiman). There are several werewolves in Van Helsing, but none of them are Talbot. Sorry if it seems I'm being a bit nit-picky about this, but it's like going to see a James Bond movie only to find that the hero isn't 007 but a stand-in called Ken Smith. It's just not the same.
As for those aforementioned werewolves, there isn't any real reason for either them or Frankenstein's Monster to be in the movie. They do actually turn out to be of vital importance to the story, but only because Sommers's script is so contrived. I get the impression he was hellbent on cramming as many monsters as he could into this film, and came up with any reason he could to explain their presence in the story, no matter how half-baked. The result is that Frankenstein's Creature and the werewolves can't even be considered proper characters in this movie - they're just walking plot devices.
In fact, the entire film is full of such plot devices. Time and again, characters display certain abilities, suddenly know important information, or are revealed to be in possession of something vital to the story, and the why, how, or where of any of it is never addressed. We're just supposed to take it as read. Sommers seems to assume that as long as something is pushing the story forward, then it doesn't need explaining.
The movie contains almost non-stop CGI (no surprises there), but this isn't quite as annoying as I thought it would be. The Mr. Hyde that Van Helsing battles at the beginning of the film is surprisingly passable, with gorilla-like swinging movements that emphasise Hyde's primeval nature. In fact there's so much swinging from ropes and cables in this movie that Sommers could use it as a show reel to audition for the job of directing future Spider Man sequels or Tarzan flicks.
As for the cast, Hugh Jackman and Kate Beckinsale struggle to do much with their extremely underwritten characters. Their roles can be summed up in a single sentence each: Van Helsing (Jackman) is brave, fights monsters, and can't remember his past. Anna Valerious (Beckinsale) is brave, fights monsters, and is the last of her gypsy/warrior bloodline. And that's it.
Some reviewers have criticised Robert Roxburgh's performance as Dracula, but personally I thought he was fine. That said, the character was lacking something, but I can't decide if that's due to Roxburgh or the script: both Dracula and his grand scheme never really feel like much of a threat (unlike Roxburgh's Moriarty in the under-rated League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, who seemed quite capable of conquering the world).
I've always thought that the Three Brides were one of the most interesting aspects of the Dracula story, sadly overlooked in the majority of movies featuring the Count. Therefore I'm pleased to report that the Brides get more screen time here than in any other Dracula film I can think of (with the notable exception of Dracula 2000). However, having cast three truly stunning, gorgeous & beautiful actresses as the Brides, Sommers inexplicably succumbs to his CGI addiction and has the characters portrayed by computer generated winged harpies most of the time. It's a crime against nature (Just ask Roxburgh: he's gotten engaged to one of the Brides. Now that's method acting.).
Amongst the rest of the supporting cast, David Wenham shines as Van Helsing's sidekick, and gets the film's best (only?) catchphrase: "I'm not a monk. I'm a friar." Meanwhile, Kevin O'Connor - a regular fixture in Sommers movies - plays Dracula's turncoat henchman Igor, but is hampered by unconvincing latex makeup.
Van Helsing contains all the usual flaws that we've come to expect in a Sommers movie - or any modern big budget Hollywood movie, come to that. But it's reasonably entertaining, and these days we tend to take from these kinds of studio movies any crumbs that we can. It's just a shame that we have to satisfy ourselves with such meagre offerings.