Van Helsing (2004) | REVIEW

Wow, it's been a long, busy week. Apologies for the lack of reviews.

I was going through some of my old DVDs the other day and came across Van Helsing from way back in 2004, starring Hugh 'Wolverine' Jackman and Kate 'Underworld' Beckinsale. Seriously, it's weird seeing Kate in this flick after you've watched Underworld because it just feels like she's gonna' pull out those guns, rip off that medieval outfit, reveal the skintight black leather underneath, and start firing away at those flying undead b*tches! But in all seriousness, I've decided to review Van Helsing today because I enjoyed the movie to the point that I picked up the DVD and I still love it as a fun film. I'm part of a minority, I know, 'cause critics and filmbuffs had very harsh things to say about Helsing and I remember thinking to myself, "It wasn't really thaaat bad!"

This Movie Is About...
_________________________________________
The year is 1887. A monster hunter working for the secretive 'Knights Of The Holy Order', Van Helsing (Hugh Jackman) is sent out on his most challenging mission ever; to face the epitome of all evil in the form of Count Dracula in the unholy land of Transylvania. But Helsing finds himself up against more than just one foe when he comes to terms with Dracula's undead brides and the Wolfman. His only allies are Carl (David Wenham), his weapons inventor, and the newly-met Anna Valerious (Kate Beckinsale). Anna is one of the last of the Valerious family, along with her brother, Velkan (Will Kemp). Their family has been trying to kill Dracula since their ancestor swore to God that their family would never enter heaven until Dracula was dead.
___________________________________________

Pretty decent storyline, isn't it? A lil' corny, maybe, but makes for an overall thrilling ride, doesn't it? I'm not a fan of director Stephen Sommers and I admit, I expected something grittier or at least somewhat darker in tone when I first saw the trailers for Van Helsing. Seeing as the movie was more of an action /adventure gig than a horror / thriller thing, I'm surprised I wasn't disappointed in the end. In fact, I remember walking out of the cinema feeling good about the movie. I actually wanted to watch it again and hence, the DVD. In all my times watching it, I've never been bored by the scenes or the overall length of the movie which spans a little over 120minutes. To me, Van Helsing is the kind of movie that is watchable a number of times and then some, simply because it delivers a lotta' fun and fast action scenes with a lot of adventure to it. There are battles with the wolfman, with Dracula's brides, meetings with Frankenstein, so on and so forth, and although the CGI was only decent and nothing special, it's an enjoyable ride in the end.

Speaking of CGI, let me elaborate on that a bit. When it comes to making a sci-fi horror show, there's a fine line between seeming realistic and looking obviously artificial. Some directors compromise on visual effects due to financial constraints and fail to realize that once something in a scene looks fake-ish and the audience recognizes it, the whole effect of the scene is lost and the feeling of a 'movie' comes to mind. And that's bad. If there's one thing I've learnt as a film student / editing student / moviebuff... CGI, edits, transitions, and Matchmoving work best when they are invisible to the viewers' eyes. And when I say invisible CGI I don't mean the object itself has to be transparent, but the audience must never think of how the CGI was done or notice cuts in between shots. Unfortunately for Van Helsing, the CGI is obvious if not downright bad. It's clear that more preference was given to the Wolfman because it / he looks pretty decent in the film, and I'll let Frankenstein's monster pass too, but the vampiresses and Dracula's beastly side have a very rubbery texture on them. There's no roughness ala real skin and the color could use more shading to make it blend with the real world.

What I like a lot about Van Helsing is the soundtrack. Alan Silvestri does a great job composing a sort-of medievel theme blended with the right instruments that just fits in so well with the movie. Heck, the soundtrack accounts for 30% of why I liked the movie in the first place!

When it comes to flicks like Van Helsing, nothing much can be said about the acting skills. I'm a huge fan of Hugh Jackman and he's one of the few who have taken the time and effort to study a comic character (in his case Wolverine) and then do justice for that character on screen. Jackman's great in Swordfish, The Prestige, The Fountain, and he doesn't fail to give Van Helsing his best as well. The good thing about Jackman is that you never tend to interrelate his characters. I don't know about you but I don't see Wolverine in Helsing or Helsing in Robert Angier (The Prestige). Still, I wouldn't say that Jackman gives a stellar performance in Van Helsing simply because movies like Van Helsing don't demand incredible acting skills and people like Hugh Jackman know that well enough to not overdo his roles.

If you haven't watched Van Helsing or just never cared to do so because of all the negative reviews, I assure you, it's not all that bad. Rent it out on a lazy weekend maybe. It's one of those films that don't need your full attention or concentration. It delivers a very simple storyline about good versus evil and how vampireesses always look so damn hot in their skimpy attire. Why is that, anyway? Why do filmmakers make female vampires look so hot with their cleavages and revealing outfits, when they know that people (especially men) are going to have a hard time admiring them because we all know that underneath that incredibly gorgeous bod is a hideous, bloodsucking beast that has fangs, claws, and likes to shriek! Why, damnit, why?! Also, just because I still like Van Helsing doesn't mean it doesn't have its downsides. CGI is one of them. The other is multiple uber-corny scenes. Some are just downright mediocre and ultimately cliche'. And the trio that play Dracula's brides aren't good actors. They couldn't act if their lives (no pun intended) depended on it. And to be honest, Frankenstein can get annoying sometimes because he's pathetic. No really, as in naturally, his character is pathetic. Like I said, don't set your bar too high for this flick. It's fun, enjoyable, and Van Helsing's weaponry is so effin' sweet, but if you expect too much you're gonna' end up very pissed and 130minutes-less in the end.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : I give Van Helsing a 3.1 out of 5.0. It's a very cool adventure movie that goes well on those days when you just crave something casual to watch without the depressing, heavy drama. I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel to this, but that's highly unlikely due to the poor response this flick received. *Sigh* Too bad, then. A TV series called Transylvania was planned and actually had Stephen Sommers direct six episodes before studios decided to pull the plug on production. There was also the rumor of a direct-to-DVD sequel but that rumor has been debunked as well. I'm happy for the last two statements I just made. Transylvania?! Who's bright idea was that?!