What a turkey!

Rating: 1/10 (6 May 2004)

Van Helsing is a popular character from literature, and indeed the movies. The arch-nemesis of Count Dracula, he has always been portrayed as a middle aged gentleman, with a few eccentricities (none more so than in Coppola's Dracula film when Anthony Hopkins played him as a total loon.) Now, the character has been stolen and changed by Mummy writer and director, Stephen Sommers, to be portrayed as a younger action hero, who hunts not only the legendary Count but also every other supernatural monster which stalks the earth. Much in the same way that other famous characters from literature were altered for The league of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
Every now and again, a film comes along which is designed to just be a popcorn' movie, putting bums on seats, and throwing action and adventure at you. This, I think, is one of them. If this wasn't the intention of Sommers, then he has made one heck of a turkey of a film! The plot is weak at the best of times, being that Dracula is using werewolves to hunt his enemies, whom he wants to use in Frankenstein type of experiments. Van Helsing is sent by the Vatican to sort him out. The dire-logue (sic) is awful, with really forced exposition done in a pantomime style (I resisted the urge to shout `He's behind you' on a few occasions), and this shows that Sommers is perhaps only slightly better at script writing than a certain George Lucas. Sommers' last two films, Mummy and Mummy Returns, both suffered from the same sloppy writing, so the pattern is starting to show. However, Van Helsing isn't really a total disaster. Despite the ropey acting and the terrible script, it is a success, in a `leave your brain, common sense, and desire for a good story at the door' kind of way. Indeed the action comes so thick and fast that just as the tedious talky bits start to drag, BANGaction kicks in and you just sit back and accept it.
Effects wise (because at the end of the day, that is all a Sommers film is about) it treads the line between impressive (castles, scenery, wolfmen), and dreadful CGI (people swinging from castles, bat-creatures, cows) This lack of consistency in the effects is, perhaps, the one thing which lets the action down at times as it becomes harder to suspend disbelief (which is bad enough when people can fall great heights without breaking limbs, or even a sweat!) Visually superb, but overall let down by some rushed effects.
Overall, it wasn't a completely wasted 2 hours. The film was marginally more enjoyable than Tomb Raider, and Torque. I will no doubt buy it sometime down the line on DVD (probably when it is in a 3 for £20 offer at HMV). But I can't really be bothered watching it again on the big screen, despite having plenty of opportunity, which I think speaks volumes about the film.