Continuing to make these movies, even in 2004.

Rating: Null/10 (16 May 2004)

Why do they even bother? Or more precisely, why does Stephen Sommers even bother? Because when you've got money and 'clout', you can release anything and get away with it. This film was an absolute waste of time and money. Over-the-top special effects and ridiculously far-fetched action sequences made for a punishing two-hour experience. There was no style or originality to any of the action, and computer-generated images took the place of human performances. With regards to the performances, they were as wooden as the stakes repeatedly used and referred to throughout this film, not helped at all by the awfully clichÃ©d script that somehow made its way to the final draft. Then again, the writer, director and producer are the same person, so there's the answer. This isn't even a self-indulgent movie on Sommers' part. It hasn't got enough depth for it to be. Then again, perhaps that says all we need to know about Sommers, and both a person and a filmmaker? Van Helsing feels like it belongs in the 90's, as an experiment in different ways to use special effects. The only difference is that it's 2004, and we've seen it all before. Not only that, but we've seen the special effects used better and action sequences choreographed a lot classier. This is the type of film that is so bad it doesn't even deserve a review, but the people need one so that they know not to see it!