It seems hard to believe, but Abbott & Costello did it better.

Rating: 3/10 (2 January 2005)

It's not funny. It's not a spoof. It's not scary. They tried to make Indiana Jones meets Ghostbusters meets James Bond meets The Hulk. They missed on all counts.
Most of the action/set special effects are good. The character special effects, with the exception of Dracula's Brides and the Frankenstien monster, are not. The werewolves and Mr. Hyde are REALLY bad. The characters in Shrek are more believable than these CGI characters. This especially affects the final battle between the werewolf and the vampire. Where is the tension and drama when the biggest stunts are done by animated characters? The scripted is convoluted and silly. With a strong overlay of religion (Van Helsing is an agent of the Pope in Rome), the absurdity just continues.
Hugh Jackman is an enjoyable actor. He brings a great deal of likability to his part. Kate Bekinsale and Richard Roxburgh are not very good. Their accents are terrible. They have no screen presence. And why is Ms. Beckinsale wearing her corset outside of her clothing? Lon Chaney Jr. originated the part of the werewolf on film. Bela Lugosi originated the part of Dracula on film. In fact, he only appeared twice on film in the part. The first "Dracula" (1931) and the second time in "Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein"(1948). After viewing Van Helsing, you come to appreciate the pure honesty of Chaney's and Lugosi's performances.
It's hard to believe, but "Abbott & Costello meets Frankenstein" did a better job in bringing Universal Picture's main monster together in one film than "Van Helsing" did. And A&B even threw in the Invisible man.