Simply, amazingly...terrible.

Rating: 5/10 (27 August 2004)

I really, really wanted to like this film. I love Stephen Sommers' earlier work and the relative simplicity of complicated films. He brings a fun, energetic approach as evidenced by the Mummy movies. That was a formula that really worked with good performances by all involved, with comedy and suspense at the right moments.
Van Helsing was unfortunately a big, cheesy bore with painful one-line dialogue born from the Schwarzenegger school of screenwriting. I gave it a 5/10 rating, but it only gets the 5 stars because of the amazing effects and cool creatures that have never been done before on film. Bravo to the visual effects team, but that's about it.
SPOILERS AHEAD
There were several plot holes in the film that I won't go into...plus the "rules" of the world created in the film were violated on several occasions. Example - in the very end Frankenstein is chained to the roof and one more lightning strike will set off the tragic chain of events. All that's preventing him from getting off the lightning rod is one chain-link around his ankle. But, he can't break the chain, despite being incredibly strong (as proven earlier in the film). Yes, this is perhaps a stupid example for those die-hard VH vans, but it violates Screenwriting 101. Set your rules and then live by them, otherwise the logic fails and the viewer doesn't believe in the tale.
Would I recommend seeing the film if you're looking for a visually entertaining movie with the surround-sound cranked up at home and you really like "tent pole" action films? Absolutely. Just don't set your hopes up for greatness and you should have a moderately enjoyable 2 hours. If, however, you don't cringe at a dozen or so ridiculous moments and wonder why the film took that path or the actor spoke those sophomoric words...I'll either be really surprised or I'll glady wish you a happy 13th birthday.
ebhp