A fun ride, but flawed.

Rating: 6/10 (25 May 2004)

Let me first say that I'm a huge fan of the old 1930's and 40's Universal monsters. My dad, who grew up on those films, introduced them to me when I was pretty young. Bela Lugosi's Dracula, Boris Karloff's Frankenstein monster, and Lon Chaney Jr.'s Wolf Man were some of my favorites (along with the Invisible Man and The Mummy).
So when I heard about Van Helsing, and saw the previews, I was excited. I knew Steve Sommers loved those old movies. And judging from what we got with his "Mummy" flicks a few years back, I was expecting Van Helsing to be the same kind of film: An updated version of old monsters with a roller-coaster ride plot. Well that's what we got, but it wasn't as good as Sommer's Mummy films.
First of all, their were some plot problems. There's a scene where Van Helsing's horse carriage with six horses pulling it along jumps a broken bridge over a huge ravine that they never would've made it over if actual laws of gravity were applied. It almost looked like the horses were flying like Santa's reindeer. It reminded me of when the bus jumped an incomplete highway in "Speed." Never would happen. OK, the carriage didn't quite make it over. It crashed onto the edge of the other side of the ravine. But neither the horses nor Van Helsing should've made it across. Not only that, but they were a decoy, so ANOTHER six horse carriage was behind them carrying the passengers they were trying to save, while Van Helsing was actually a diversion for possible vampires on the road. So they must have ALSO jumped the same impossible jump as Van Helsing did! And their carriage DID make it! Either that, or there was another complete bridge somewhere else. But even then, the timing would be near impossible for the real carriage to end up pretty much right behind Van Helsing's carriage to help him out.
Second, Van Helsing gets bitten by a the Wolf Man, thus he has to become a werewolf himself during the next full moon at midnight. OK cool. However, a plot point that's never really established well is that supposedly the only way to kill Dracula (not vampires in general, but just Dracula) is by a werewolf killing him. This is something new in Vampire lore, since usually Dracula (as well as any other vampire) could be killed by driving a steak through his heart and chopping his head off, or by burning his coffin. So since in this movie it's established that the only way is by a werewolf, they need to tell us WHY. Whenever introducing a new plot point, it must be defined. If it was the usual steak through the heart thing, I'd buy it since that's been in Vampire lore forever. But alas, this is not the case. I can buy that Dracula has to be killed a different way than other vampires because he's the most powerful of them all. He gave his soul directly to the devil to make himself a vampire, whereas all others are just turned into one by being bitten by another vampire. But giving no explanation for a new method of killing him was a mistake.
Another minor flaw was that when Dracula confronts Van Helsing for a duel, it conveniently turns midnight and the full moon comes into view. It would be fine if we were given more of a countdown during scenes. But the way the movie portrays it, it's by happy chance that it conveniently turns midnight just as Dracula confronts Van Helsing for a duel.
Lastly, the CGI. Now, I'm a firm supporter of CGI, and I think it's a great tool. So it really takes a lot for me to actually criticize it. Steven Sommers tends to use CGI in unnecessary places. And in this movie, not only does he do that, but the CGI itself is rendered poorly. The Mr. Hyde character at the beginning suffered from what the "Hulk" suffered from as a CGI character. It just looked fake and cartoony. I hate saying that, because a lot of CGI in films like Lord of the Rings, the Jurassic Park series and the Star Wars films look great and are very convincing. But in "Van Helsing," the Mr. Hyde character just didn't look real. His character was done better in "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" (which I thought was cool), because they used actual prosthetics and just blue screened him onto the frames with other characters to make him look huge. Much more convincing. This is the way he should've been done for Van Helsing. CGI should only be used when there's no other convincing way to do the effect one is trying to achieve. And if it's used, it should be given the same care that was given to Gollum in LOTR, the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, or the CGI aliens in the Star Wars films. Those creatures and effects were convincing. Hyde was not.
Well, enough of the flaws. This movie was fun. The overall plot was cool. David Wenham's friar character was great comic relief. The CGI for the Wolf Man and the vampire effects was done pretty well. The atmosphere was very dark and moody. The Frankenstein monster was done right. He was the best character in the film. Thankfully, his character was created with prosthetic make-up. If he was done in CGI and only given the amount of care that was given to Mr. Hyde, he would've suffered the same fate of looking fake. Dracula's character was cool. I loved how him and his brides walked on the walls and the ceilings. He even had the romanian accent, which was a nice touch. I also like the ballroom scene. It's filled with people, and we see Dracula dancing with Anna Valerious amidst the crowd. There's a big mirror they look into while dancing, and she's the only one visible. Suddenly we realize that the room is filled with vampires since no one else casts a reflection! That was a nice touch. Lastly, I loved the opening scene with Dr. Frankenstein screaming "It's alive, ALIVE!" That scene was filmed in black and white, and it even had the monster rushing up into a windmill with angry villagers with torches burning it down just like the old classics!
So overall, I give this film a 6 out of 10. It was fun, but definitely flawed.