Van Helsing

Rating: 5/10 (22 May 2006)

With The Mummy (1999), Stephen Sommers showed us that he could make a film that had character, plenty of CGI, and was just plain fun. The sequel was not so good  less plot, worse CGI, and not so much fun. So a step down, then. The pitch for Van Helsing must have seemed brilliant to studio bosses: take the three biggest horror characters of the 1800's (namely Dracula, the Wolf Man, and Frankenstein's Monster) and shove them together with a hero who, whilst originally was just a mild-mannered doctor, is now a kick-ass monster hunter. What could possibly go wrong?
I'll tell you. The problem is that Van Helsing seems like a continuation of the Mummy series just with a different story: virtually no character, massive amounts of (not that great) CGI, and little fun. It's yet another step down for the director who, although has proved he's up for plenty of action, cannot put any life into it. Hugh Jackman appears to be the perfect lead for the role of Gabriel Van Helsing, but he never gets the chance to give depth to his character  as soon as he kills one set of baddies, he's off to kill some more. He can handle the action well (but we already knew this from the X-Men films), and could probably handle any real drama that should have been inserted into the film, but the director just doesn't seem to want us to know anything about any of the characters, he just wants to see them fight, which is not enough. I couldn't help but think that if things had been taken a little slower, the film could have been made that much more interesting  less would have been more in this case. It's as if Sommers is afraid to take a breath lest the audience realise how hollow the film really is.
The film was also pitched as a horror/action film, and yet there is not one moment that provides a genuine chill or cheap scare, although it is very dark (it's mostly set at night  I didn't mean atmospherically!) Admittedly some of the action scenes and sets are convincing, and the film does have good production values, but once again it seems the budget has gone towards all the CGI, and not on the script or story. With each film, Sommers seems to include more and more monsters, as if he is trying to outdo his last film in terms of effects. This is a prime example of the "quality not quantity" adage, as the more CGI there is, the less real it looks. The action scenes quickly become repetitive and although start off original and good, end up being a bit of a bore. And really, how many times to we have to see the lead characters swing on a rope in front of a castle? It's just not necessary.
Overall, it's a real shame that the film turned out this way. It really needed to be either a slower horror film, or an action film which did not feel the need to rush through at such a pace that the audience are afraid to blink lest they miss something. Stephen Sommers must learn how to do character first, action second, if he's going to keep a fan base going; relying on visual effects alone just isn't enough for us anymore.
Rated: 5/10
More reviews at: http://www.thelazylounge.net