Watch it twice. You have to like the classic monster films.

Rating: Null/10 (22 October 2004)

If you're old enough, and familiar with the classic monster flicks this film draws from - in addition to more contemporary ones, and can recognize what Sommers seems to be doing (giving an appreciative nod to them all) - you'll be entertained. I never had the opportunity to see it in the theatre, and honestly I was sort of put off that Van Helsing would be enlarged beyond his character in Stoker's novel.
Since the rentals were all out I went and got a copy at Target and have already watched it twice. This is almost mandatory unless you know what to expect. There are so many elements of previous monster films in the conglomeration that I'm not sure one would recognize them all in one pass. All that borrowing is just the point - when a movie so blatantly employs elements of other films, couldn't it just possibly be the director's intent? Get in this carriage and enjoy the ride. Sure there are a few cheezy moments, but even the humor is more palatable the second time around: Igor, with something akin to a cattle prod, shocks Velkan as a werewolf and Dracula queries "Igor, why you torment the creature so?" (as if Dracula would even care) to which Igor replies "It's what I do."
The borrowed elements are present from the very start: the riotous villagers and Samuel West's (who even favors Dr. Frankenstein in the original Karloff version) cry of "It's alive!" then the escaping Creation and a torched windmill mixed throughout the film with Shelley's idea of the character; the same poem from The Wolfman; all the traditional methods of retiring the monsters plus a few more; and a Dracula that like the Frankenstein monster is a blending of every portrayal from Lugosi through Cushing to Oldman.
Jackman and Beckinsale I'm sure were cast due to their respective work in X-Men and Underworld. I read that someone believed their talent was wasted. I'm not sure how acting could ever be wasted - accept on an unappreciate audience, and - as with the film - maybe they just wanted to have a little fun.
The twist on the film - Dracula's use of the monster - while possibly seeming inane, does address a subject that was just as inane in it's original conception: other than to tap the sensual aspect of the vampire for a reader or movie-goer, why would a lifeless, heartless, undead being without a soul even have wives to began with? And why would they have offspring when reproduction is a likely improbability and besides - they propagate themselves by spreading their condition via a chomp to the carotid.
The only real disappointment is the werewolf conversion and appearance. After Underworld, and the CGI of The Mummy(s) one would think they would have been better. Their appearance is almost stupid. Maybe again it was intended.
If you enjoy action films and know all the old classics, grab some popcorn and give this thing a spin. And unlike the prune juice-guzzling critics who forget about entertainment - enjoy yourself.