![]() The hardest part of reviewing "Van Helsing" is deciding
how many stars to give it because it looked good. The CGI was
nothing special, but passable for the most part (save a fairly
important transformation sequence at the end that looked like it was
from "The Lawnmower Man). The sets were beautiful and gothic, seeing
Dracula's Castle and Dr. Frankenstein's laboratory on such an
elaborate budget was spectacular, and it was shot with the
appropriate low-angle hero-worship necessary for the suspension of
disbelief to become enjoyable.
The rest of the movie, of
course, was horrible.
Bad, to worse, to Frankenstein's
monster quoting the psalms and the guy who played Faramir fighting
with Igor (who looked strikingly like Radu from the "Subspecies"
series) on a bridge with a cattle prod. The dialog was like
something Roland Emmerich rejected and then flushed down David
Mamet's toilet. I'm aware of the snarkiness of the previous
sentence, but that's just the sort of response this terrible movie
has evoked in me.
If you must know, the plot centers on Van
Helsing (Hugh Jackman) and his sidekick friar Carl (David Wenham of
"Lord of the Rings") heading to Transylvania to dispose of Count
Dracula (Richard Roxburgh) and his vampire brides at the behest of a
shadowy Vatican order. Dracula, flanked by a few werewolves for good
measure, is in search of the Frankenstein Monster so he can bring
his dead vampire fetuses to life. Lest you think you misread that,
it is indeed about Dracula using the monster for fertility
purposes.
"Van Helsing" was written and directed by Stephen
Sommers, the man behind both "The Mummy" and "The Mummy Returns,"
and really that's about all you need to know. The man has a light
touch for visuals, and even when the CGI isn't up to par, it's still
fun to watch. However, "Van Helsing" is no where near as much fun as
either "Mummy" films, and instead of playing like a second-rate
Indiana Jones, it feels as if Universal and Sommers are taking
themselves too seriously. These classic monsters have been around a
long time, but they are inherently supposed to be fun. Roxburgh's
Dracula seems so iconic he seems to forget what makes Dracula so
interesting in the first place. Roxburgh, a stage actor, seems to
forget that he needn't play the role so the people in the back rows
know what's going on. I can't believe I'm saying this about a movie
like Van Helsing, but if Roxburgh had just toned things down a
little bit, the movie may have been more fun. I highly doubt anyone
remembers Jeremy Irons in "Dungeons and Dragons," but if you're
unlucky enough to, this performance is almost as bad. Jackman and
Kate Beckinsale as, well, the girl, do what they can in poorly
written parts. Jackman looks cool in his billowing cape and
giant-brimmed hat, but only about an eighth as cool as his
Wolverine. But if you go see this flick you're not going for the
acting, or the directing, or the story, or blah blah blah. You're
going for the special effects, and if you like what you see in the
commercials or trailers, you'll like what you see in the movie.
Simple as that. Bottom line, Van Helsing is dumb, but the titular
creatures have survived worse than this ("Love at First Bite," "Teen
Wolf, Too," etc.) and if you must go to the movies to kill time
before the real brainless summer stuff comes out and you're looking
for some fun special effects, go see "Hellboy." Seriously.
| |
Come one come all Mortals who are willing to stick their neck out for a vampire to feed upon. We will be willing to share our Dark Gift to you mortals if you pass our test.
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor |
ADVERTISEMENT
![click here]() | |
![]() |
Yahoo! Groups Links
|
