This was Somers' fault

Rating: 6/10 (13 August 2004)

It was obvious from the start that Van Helsing was never going to be Oscar material, but it was Stephen Somers' overconfidence in himself that caused it to tank.
Let's face it: Somers is no writer. After the mummy series, he has proved himself to be an inadequate director, (although I was quite disappointed with his attempt at directing Van Helsing) and talented enough at dealing with CGI, but when he tries to put pen to paper he just ends up hurting himself, and all others concerned. The script for Van Helsing was abominable - there were only a few lines in the entire movie that I considered well written, and they were all given to Carl. I wish some directors would just stick to what they're good at, which is directing, as opposed to trying to write as well - there are many skilled screenwriters out there, why try to put them out of a job?
Also, the editors seem to have fallen asleep at the wheel of this one, and the result is a head on collision. There is no sense of continuity at all in Van Helsing: it goes from having the mood of a tense action thriller to having the mood of a campy comedy. Nothing really seemed to fit together, as if they tore fragments from three different movies, mashed them together, stamped a title on it and shipped it to the theaters. I would love to know if production was rushed on this film, or if they had to move up the release date, because there are so many things that should have been changed that look like they were left in because there was no time to change them.
For example, the character of Frankenstein's monster was ridiculously portrayed, with a leg squirting out steam, and the top half of his head falling off to expose his glowing, sparking blue brain. The creature is barely able to walk, and yet he swings crazily on a rope from building to building. He howls out his lines like an opera singer, which I found quite funny when I looked up Shuler Hensley who played him, and found out that he is, in fact, a singer. Was this an intentional joke? I also found it amusing that Van Helsing, a supposedly serious 'monster hunter' kept referring to Frankenstein's creation as 'Frankenstein'. This character belonged in a comedy, not a movie that was attempting to be a serious thriller.
It's true that the plot is a ludicrous attempt to fit virtually every horror movie character into one story, but again, I believe that with a better director and a better script, it could have turned out passable. As it is, the movie is cringe worthy at parts, and unsatisfying for the rest. There's kind of a failed love plot between Valerious and Van Helsing, which is hinted at, but never really takes off, which gets really confusing.
As well, the movie relied much too heavily on CGI, which was definitely a downside. I'm fine with characters like the werewolf or the vampires in monster form being computer generated, but it seems most Hollywood producers have forgotten the virtues of makeup. There was absolutely no need for the vampires to form those ridiculously enormous fanged mouths when they bit their victims - a vampire bite is supposed to leave two tiny holes in the neck, not tear someone's head off! And Mr Hyde, one of my favorite Horror characters, was not only completely computer generated, but also turned into a gibbering baboon! WHY CAN'T MODERN Hollywood PRODUCERS DO HYDE JUSTICE?! In League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, he was transformed into an absurdly muscled stupid guy, and in Van Helsing, they've turned him into an ape. What they should have done, is had Robbie Coltrane play the part himself with some makeup on, instead of just providing his voice, and kept Hyde more as a real person rather than a green baboon, jumping off the walls and ceiling. That would have done a lot to keep the film more grounded.
The acting wasn't nearly as bad as it could have been in Van Helsing. It was David Wenham as the belligerent friar Carl who really saved the movie, taking every Lord of the Rings fan by surprise by playing a character the polar opposite of his valiant Prince Faramir. The funny voiced, bumbling and ultimately very funny Carl was definitely the highlight of the movie. Hugh Jackman did what he could with the title role, (despite his fluctuating accent: I caught some American, British, Australian, Italian and Transylvanian throughout the film. Where was Van Helsing supposed to be from, and why couldn't he keep his accent steady? This is another thing a good director would have caught) but his part was so badly written that he had to battle to make the character believable. Richard Roxburgh was campy and very over-the-top as Dracula, but good fun nonetheless. If he had toned his seemingly relentless energy down, (and with a competent director, he probably would have) and focused more on being sly and cunning, I think he could have made an excellent Dracula. Kate Beckinsale as Anna Valerious was all right, but she and Jackman shared very little chemistry, and she was stuck with some of the worst lines in the movie, so it was hard to properly rate her performance.
Despite all my criticism, I actually enjoyed this movie. It accomplished what it wanted to be, which was an exciting action film where Van Helsing gets to go blow up a whole bunch of monsters. I just think it could have been done a whole lot better, if Somers had stayed far away from the project, which would have made it a lot more enjoyable. My rating of 6/10 isn't because the movie wasn't entertaining, but because I thought it was badly done, and could have been better.
-6/10