Dracula Isn't the Only Thing That Sucks!

Rating: Null/10 (7 November 2004)

I'm a classic horror/monster fan. I grew up with Frankenstein's monster, Dracula, the wolfman, the mummy, and all those fondly remembered others. I have learned through the years that film makers cannot cater to an older crowd and their nostalgic images of what some particular thing should be like. That's fine. I can live with that. But when something is as perverted as this and tries to seem like it is something from the past. That bothers me. Supposedly Van Helsing in the late 1800's has weapons we have not dreamed of here. He has super human skills such as great agility and strength. Those are explained later in the film for the few that still might care after the mindless barrage of CGI effects and one-liners. This isn't a horror film. This is another action film like what Stephen Sommers did in The Mummy films only done with less integrity to the source material and with lesser talents working toward greater expectations. I remember distinctly saying after seeing the Mr. Hyde segment early in the film that"This movie sucks big time!" That said after less than ten to fifteen minutes into the film. From there things only got worse. Sure I could go on and on about the ridiculous script, the one dimensional acting, Kate Beckinsdale's accent(at least she is a treat to look at!), the over-used CGI effects for action scenes and settings, the Van Helsing poor man Indiana Jones mixed with supernatural powers creation, and so much more. What could be said for the film? Like all of Sommers work, it is watchable if nothing else. Most of the dialogue is inane but never seems to take itself too seriously. Of all the creatures, the Frankenstein's monster(here unbelievably called Frankenstein!)had the truest sense of what the character was suppose to be. David Wendham shined as a monk with technology that would make James Bond's Q pale in comparison. And Sommers obviously tries to pay homage to the great Universal movie monsters - rather unsuccessfully I think - but tries nonetheless. He also pays homage to Roman Polanski's The Fearless Vampire Killers with a nice ballroom scene reminiscent of that film. When all is said and done; however, I really felt bad having seen the film. Not because it wasn't entertaining. It was to a degree, but more because of what it could have been, what it should have been, and what it would have been if Sommers and Universal had had the guts and backbone to not cater to 15 year-olds exclusively.