A Disappointing Monster Mash

Rating: 5/10 (5 June 2012)

Writer/director Stephen Sommers rides the line between popcorn fun and mindless crap, and his 2004 "homage" to the classic Universal monsters of early cinema leans a little too close to the later. The premise of the movie is a sound one, and an idea I wouldn't have minded seeing land in the hands of a more capable director. Instead, VAN HELSING was one of the most regrettable summer films released that year and a waste of a potentially interesting new franchise. How this movie went on the gross $300 million boggles my mind, as it's nothing but throwaway entertainment in my opinion. There is no depth, no decent characters, and I don't think it does the classic Universal monsters any sort of justice. As over-the-top as it all is, I'd consider it closer to a parody. The movie follows Gabriel Van Helsing (a relation to the original Abraham, I suppose), a monster-hunter with a mysterious past that follows orders for the Vatican in disposing of the world's most evil creatures. He is sent on a mission to Transylvania with the aid of a cowardly friar to rid the land of its vampire menace, Count Vladislaus Dracula and his three brides. The princess daughter of an ancient gypsy lineage must destroy the creature if her family is to escape an eternity in Purgatory, but Dracula has his own plans. He hopes to use the life-giving technology of Dr. Frankenstein to bring his hundreds of offspring to life andthat's it, I guess.
There is a lot of wasted potential here, and it's a shame. Everything about this movie is below average, from the CG to the performances. This movie only really has one thing working in its favor: beautiful women. Unfortunately, eye candy isn't enough to build a good movie. It helps, sure, but you need more: excitement, a gripping story, strong characterssomething! Instead, VAN HELSING is forgettable at best. I watch the movie again every couple years because I see it sitting on the shelf and wonder if it's really as lame as I remember and the answer is always a resounding "YES". The CG effects are only slightly better than your average direct-to-cable SyFy movie. It stands out like a sore thumb and rips you out of the action, especially the cartoon vampire spawn. The dialogue in the movie is horrendous, with one of Dracula's brides (I don't remember which one, none of them were fleshed out enough to be distinguishable) even busting out with "Too bad. So sad." Seriously. That's the level of genius we're watching here. The story is lame and makes little to no sense. Since when do vampires procreate like living beings? And how effective is it from an evolutionary standpoint if Dracula needs Frankenstein's technology to bring them to life? Did anyone think this storyline through? The action in the movie is your usual tame PG-13 fare: bloodless violence and loads of rope-swinging. Nothing fantastic. Enough to distract you but hollow enough not to leave a lasting impression.
No one in this movie seems to care. Hugh Jackman, fresh off his initial successes with the X- MEN franchise, is phoning it in. He spouts his one-liners and gives a half-hearted attempt at appearing mysterious, but you can tell he's not giving this role any effort. Kate Beckinsale is Anna, the last surviving member of the cursed gypsy family. She's hot and she's tough, and at least she seems like she's trying. The characters in the movie that get the short end of the stick in this movie are, again, the Universal monsters. Richard Roxburgh chews the scenery with over-acting that rivals Jeremy Irons in DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. He is easily the worst depiction of Dracula I've ever seen, but not to be outdone as Shuler Hensley gives him a run for his money as Frankenstein's monster. I'm cool with Frankenstein's monster having the power of speech and an exceptional vocabulary (I've never read Shelley's original novel, but I believe it was an intelligent creature), but I'm not sure why he felt the need to literally yell the majority of his lines. No joke, he delivers most of his dialogue at the top of his lungs. And the Wolfman, well, he was underused as Dracula's unwilling henchman and a poorly realized CGI creation. The movie has a few redeeming qualities in its production design and the hope it inspires that it can't possibly be bad with such an awesome premise. Alas, if you're in the mood for a monster mash-up you're probably better off turning to the classics HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN or HOUSE OF Dracula.