|
| |
|
Van Helsing 2004 |
Review by Jonathan Cornwell |
Directed by Stephen Sommers
PG-13, 145 min. (nonstop creature violence, frightening images) |
 |
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Kate Beckinsale, Richard Roxburgh, David Wenham, Shuler Hensley, Elena Anaya, Will Kemp, Kevin J. O'Connor, Samuel West, Robbie Coltrane
Producers: Stephen Sommers, Bob Ducsay
Screenplay: Stephen Sommers
Cinematography: Allen Daviau
Distributor: Universal Pictures
Released: 5.07.04 (Wide) |
Rating:
  (out of ) |
Monster movies have fascinated filmmakers for decades, ever since Mary Shelley's novel "Frankenstein" inspired films
by J. Searle Dawley in 1910 and James Whale in the 1931 classic. In the 1930s the monster film reached its apex, garnering
huge interest and inspiring other creature tales. Since then the stories of Frankenstein, Dracula, and The Wolf Man have
been recounted many times, most recently in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994) and Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992). Even
last year's uneven Underworld touched upon the rivalry between werewolves and vampires.
Now comes Van Helsing, written and directed by Stephen Sommers (The Mummy, The Mummy Returns),
a film that is driven to be known as the loudest, most bombastic, overblown piece of big budget nonsense ever seen in the
summer blockbuster market. On a critical level, Van Helsing is an embarassing bit of tedious drivel, hammered together
with unending stupidity and a bludgeoning sense of subtlety; but it is also wildly tongue-in-cheek, irreverent and constructed
as an amusement park ride that never ceases to entertain. Sommers bet the farm (about $150 million of Universal money)
that the film would stuff enough teenagers and testosterone-driven adults in the theater, and it appears that it will indeed make
a handsome profit, if only to remind us that kids still rule the Hollywood agenda.
Sommers is fond of elaborately staged set pieces and a go-for-broke attitude, something that is entirely a hit-or-miss strategy;
unfortunately for him, he's 0 for 3 in that category. His Mummy films were entertaining but clumsily directed, and his goal here
was to splash as much CGI action sequences onto the screen as possible. The inherent problem with this approach is that
such superfluous action soon becomes a casualty of the law of diminishing returns, which states that too much of a good thing
eventually turns sour. His film is overlong, boring, and too silly to take seriously; his characters all search for admitted
self-realization amidst the chaos, rendering their existence pointless. When the picture has finally come to a close, the viewer
is too numb to recall the plot or anything resembling a poignant purpose to the preceeding noise. This is one dumb motion
picture.
Hugh Jackman plays Van Helsing, the Vatican enabled monster-killer with and oversized hat (probably to shield himself from
the accute embarassment he must feel), sent to Transylvania to dispatch of the infamous Count Dracula (Richard Roxburgh)
and his evil harpy brides. He is accompanied by a humorous friar, Carl (David Wenham), and a vampire hunter Anna Valerious (Kate Beckinsale),
whose nearly extinct family has been burdened with the difficult task of destroying Dracula. They must first enlist the
help of Frankenstein's Monster (Shuler Hensley), who holds the key to Dracula's vision of a world full of his offspring.
There are other characters, including Dracula's servant, Igor (Kevin J. O'Connor), and a Wolf Man who was once
Anna's brother, Velkan (Will Kemp). They intersect at various points along Van Helsing's arduous journey to his eventual
showdown with Dracula.
Despite its grandiose idiocy, there are moments in the film that are truly inspired, most notably an effective opening black-and-white
montage to Frankenstein and his monster creation, which is driven to the local windmill and burned to the ground amidst his
cries for mercy. I also appreciated the set design and realistic sense of 19th century lore, complete with fantastic castles and
meticulous atmosphere. However, all the background in the world will not save a picture if the story and characters are
not worth studying.
I must admit that some moviegoers will find Van Helsing exhilarating, noting the frenetic pacing and multitude of action
sequences, especially the coach chase, which is the highlight of the film. But everyone outside the teenage boy will soon
grow tired of the monotonous proceedings long before the film's midpoint, and that's not good considering its running length.
A tighter script and better editing could have helped narrow its focus, but when you have an enormous budget to play with,
why not splurge? That is exactly why Van Helsing falters before it has a chance to succeed.
The performances are routine and uninspired, as if the cast knew that their presence wasn't necessary to elevate the
special effects extravaganza. Jackman and Beckinsale are stale, and Roxburgh's Dracula comes across as campy
fodder for its numerous CGI transformations. Indeed, the final showdown is all computer-generated. Only Wenham provides
an inkling of personality as the friar who is given the script's best punchlines.
It would be interesting to know what the early filmmakers of monster movies would think of an effort like Van Helsing.
On one hand they might appreciate the attention to detail and some of the action pieces, but on the other hand they'd
probably be appalled at the complete lack of characterization in the creatures and those that hunt them. After enduring
something like Van Helsing, one yearns for the simple sophistication of The Bride of Frankenstein, a film
that uses effects as only necessary to further its message. It would seem fitting here that Frankenstein's Monster is
seen carried away by vampires while mumbling the 23rd Psalm, which is more or less what viewers may be mumbling
throughout this cacophony of a motion picture.
© 2004 Jonathan Cornwell
|
|
 |
 | Masterpiece - Film perfection |
| Excellent - A Must See |
| Good - Highly Recommended |
| Fair - Worth seeing |
| Average - Viewable, but not recommended |
| Below average - View at own risk |
| Poor - Avoid at all costs |
| Very poor - An embarassment to the film industry |
| Zero | Awful - One of the worst films ever made |
© 2000 - present ReelCriticReviews
All movie pictures are registered trademarks and/or copyrights of their respective holders
Their use on this site is for informational purposes only and does not imply ownership
|
