A movie that could have been, but wasn't.

Rating: Null/10 (7 May 2004)

Van Helsing is a movie about a demon hunter without a memory, working for the Vatican, sent in to protect the last heirs of an old Romanian family from being destroyed and to kill Dracula.
So there. End of story.
The rest is eye candy. Frankenstein's monster, werewolves, Jekyll and Hyde, and every other vaguely gothic character all make appearances. It feels like "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" in that respect.
Fundamentally, the movie is OK, not great. It suffers from some serious problems: Stephen Sommers just isn't a good writer. If he does exposition, you get five minutes of someone giving a "as you know" monologue to a nodding Van Helsing. If he does romance, you get George-Lucas style quotes. If he does literature, you get literal quotes from Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, oddly out of place in this lightweight movie. The bad writing isn't helped by a flawed storyline: The Vatican deploys Helsing to protect the family of some fool who, 400 years ago, swore that neither him nor his descendants would enter heaven unless Dracula was dead. Hello? Does anyone care, if the guy was such a fool? Finally, the writing struggles with a definite flaw: The franchise-aspirations. The movie hints at certain things, but does not explain the history, leaving the door wide open for a prequel.

The second main problem is the soundtrack: It isn't bad. But to have the Van Helsing theme tune playing in full action mode while the character leisurely walks around is ridiculous. He isn't exploding! He idn't being shot at! He isn't even driving a sexy car (something which often warrants a theme tune in James Bond)! His horse isn't impressive! All he has is his funny hat!
So, film makers: Learn subtlety. Learn to write exposition in less painful ways (or at least name the character "Basil Exposition" in self-referring humour). Don't overuse CGI (I was hoping Robbie Coltrane would be Mr Hyde, not the voice of Mr animated-Hyde).
Brilliant eye candy, half-ruined by poor writing and lack of subtlety.

5/10