It's a little bit Bram Stoker's Dracula, a little bit League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

Rating: Null/10 (27 November 2004)

Spoilers contained here.
Upon viewing this film, I couldn't help but think of both Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) and the film version of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Van Helsing is like an overly and romantically Gothic steampunk film that borrows heavily from both movies.
This film apparently was first going to be a sequel to Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) staring Anthony Hopkins in the Van Helsing role. Instead Van Helsing is turned more into a hip hero of sorts, complete with Fields of the Nephilim outfit (someone will hopefully get this joke). The map inserts of Eastern Europe, along with the carriage chase scene, really remind me of the same style used in Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992), almost too much so. It still has its roots firmly planned as a sequel.
Van Helsing seems to also rip a bit off of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, with its Hyde chase scene and secret society hunting monsters, using religious men instead of League's Victorian heroes. But Van Helsing would fit great along in the League and it shows. My suspension of disbelief was the idea of all religions bonding together in a brotherhood. That is a bit sketchy. Also sketchy is the fact that Van Helsing has his memory erased and is called "Gabriel" by Dracula, leaving a lot of unanswered questions I will get to later.
Dracula in this movie seemed almost whipped by his wives in this one, who wish to see their dead children live. What happened to Dracula here? The actor playing him (Richard Roxburgh) seems very much like Gary Oldman in both looks and manner, except the old Dracula would have kicked out his complaining wives and got three other ones. I suppose that is the difference between a R and a PG-13 rating. Dracula seems lame. A werewolf can kill him. I didn't quite understand why the werewolves he had as servants were actually serving him if they could kill him. The film gives the idea the werewolves have no will, which is weird. I also didn't understand why Dracula controlled all these little German tolls which looked like HR Geiger rejects. Mean buggers...so why were they slaves again?
Despite the claims of the writer in the commentary of the DVD who lives by the "monster movie rules," Van Helsing falls short of a few plot points. Presenting a younger Van Helsing can be a problem. First off, Frankenstein was written in the early 1800's and Dracula in the late 1800's, so it is hard to believe that Igor survived all that time from the early 1800s until the late 1800's. I know that is nitpicking, but I like my Gothic Victorian literature. Second, I was getting confused because it seems silver stakes were being used instead of wooden ones, which kill vampires. Plus the vampire's offspring were being killed by bullets. The vampires attacked by day and I didn't see any scenes other than one, of them sleeping in coffins. Werewolves too, suffer from the lack of adhering to the movie monster rules. They appear during the day in a scene as well. There are a few other rules broken, but I would like to get to the meat of the story and what I thought of it.
The plot line of this movie is that Dracula wants to give a jump of life via lightning bolts and monster sacrifice (want an answer to why he has to use a monster for it...you won't find one) in order to please his nagging dramatic wives who want their children to live. In the meantime, we see Van Helsing, young and apparently not Dutch (why is he always shown as German, English or American?) living it up superhero Vampire Hunter D style, chasing a very League of Extraordinary Gentlemen looking Hyde (of Jekyll and Hyde fame) around a digital Paris. The Vatican soon has Van Helsing reporting for duty to kill Dracula in order to save a dying line of gypsies who have gave their lives dying for the Vatican's secret religious buddy boy Templar clubhouse. The gypsies can't get into heaven unless Dracula is killed. So Van Helsing, with the always added funny sidekick of a friar from the secret society head out to kill Dracula.
When they get to Romania, they aren't welcome until Anna Valerious, played by Kate Beckinsale with off and on gypsy accent and riveted corset recognizes him. Her outfit really bothered me. It was so wrong. She pretty much serves as eye candy with non- period clothing to exist as a plot point. Her brother is assumed missing but is bitten by a werewolf unaware to her. At this point, the very well made Dracula's brides attack. The mix of digital and actor here are wonderful. If I had to give you a reason to see this, it would be for the brides alone, though I was wondering how they went from monster skin and wings to formal wear so quickly in mid-transformation. The brides are my favorite part of the film.
Along the way (as to not explain the whole plot) Anna and Van Helsing encounter the Frankenstein monster and try to protect him from being captured by Dracula and used to bring his babies (who are in alien like pods, yeah, I don't know why either) alive. He tries first to use Anna's brother as the power. It was never explained why a monster was needed to fuel the machine, Victor Frankenstein did well with just lightning and a nice lab. I would have really liked an answer to this question.
Frankenstein's monster gets caught and is strapped to the machine and the bat babies come alive a 2nd time. This is when Van Helsing, bitten by Anna's brother and Dracula have a confrontation. Dracula says Van Helsing killed murdered him when he has a human. But they never tell you why. Nor do they tell you why the Vatican erased Van Helsing's memory. All is well though, because at the end of it all, Van Helsing doesn't want to know. That's convenient! All those visions of him in Roman times don't mean a darn. I thought this was a wonderful point that was never explained and then throw away once Van Helsing says he doesn't want to know. It almost hurt not to know. It was like all this storyline was hidden from me, the whole point of the movie, why did Van Helsing murder the human Dracula? That is the motivation of the movie and it is never explained. That is such a letdown.
Then of course, Dracula and Van Helsing as werewolf, have a showdown via the movie Underworld, minus the guns, but heck, Kate Beckinsale is there anyway! The werewolf kills Dracula very easy, almost too easy. By then we know Dracula has a cure for being a werewolf and Anna gets it just in time to save the day.
Of course in the Gothic style, she pumps him with the needle and he lives but she dies somewhere in the whole brouhaha. It is never explained if the werewolf Van Helsing killed her, her corset was too tight, she wanted to not be in the sequel, nothing is shown of how she died. She is posed as a necrophile's dream on a sofa made of red velvet and spine bones. What the heck is that doing in Frankenstein's/Dracula's lab? She is dead, but no one knows how.
But you see, Anna had to die, even unrealistically, to move the plot along. This way Van Helsing doesn't have anything to tie him down and Anna can be reunited with her family in heaven, a family who couldn't be let into heaven until Dracula died.
I probably give the impression I didn't like this film, but I did. This is a great monster film and well acted. The effects are amazing. The pace is quick and the action is done for a reason, not just because it is an action film. It stays true to the monster film tradition, as far as emotion and shivers go. The whole steampunk bent to the film was very likable. And monsters, monsters and more monsters. I did enjoy when the friar found the panel which had the poem from the Universal classic, The Wolf Man on it. I was glad that was included and I loved the painting coming to life. Dracula's ball was fantastic too. Also, the commentary by the director and writer on the DVD had a lot to offer.
I do wish there was more fleshing out of the plot, more questions about Van Helsing answered. I got the idea that maybe Van Helsing had lived for 1,000 years and indeed was the left hand of God or very close to it. I didn't know if his name was Gabriel or Abraham, because the latter name is never mentioned. There is also that pesky memory wiping plot point that was never answered and made me yell an operatic "Why?" much like Frankenstein's monster did. Didn't that Frankenstein's monster have an almost singsong voice at times? Wasn't that almost laughable?
Overall, it is a great watch. I watched Van Helsing with Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning as part of the full moon fright fest last night and it was great! I highly recommended watching those two films together for a howl and a scream.