Review: Van Helsing

Average:

Your Views: Responses

Poison Pixie on May 26th, 2004
Well ...kind of worth it for the last 10 minutes of Hugh in a loincloth! For the blokes, there are bosoms a-plenty and lots of action. The plot is pretty dire as it's nothing that hasn't been done before - it's Indiana Jones in Castle Dracula . He even has the hat!

Ian on May 25th, 2004
On the "Cabin Fever" scale, where "Cabin Fever" scores 10 and a truly awful film scores 0, I rate "Van Helsing" as a 6. Cabin fever is the worst film I have seen for decades.

Michael on May 24th, 2004
The myself/wife and 2 children 9 & 11 went to see this, like most hollywood films i tend to park my brain on the seat beside me and just sit back and let it wash over me or fall asleep but wait.. after reading the reviews it was a horror/action flick ? I must have gone into the wrong screening, as i was under the impression it was a comedy/action flim, ok the SFX were good but the script and come to that the accents were decidely dodgy. To cap it all just a little way from us was a mum with her 2 daughters who could have been no older then 6 /7 yrs old; not a peep from either just the odd yawn (even at that age they know rubbish when they see it)

Angela on May 24th, 2004
I would rather eat my own arm than watch this again. Definitely in my personal top 10 of the Worst Films Ever. There was no rhyme or reason to the plot or the actions of the characters, everything in it just happened "for some reason" as Homer Simpson would say. Characters randomly turned into werewolves or inanimate objects burst into flames whenever things started flagging. The amount of stained glass totalled must surely be an in-joke: is there a 24-hr glazier in Hollywood called Van Helsing? Especially risible was the "satanic mills" view of a dark Paris with a half-built Eiffel Tower looming beneath black clouds. What was THAT about? What a waste of cinematography and special effects. The threat of a Van Helsing II fills me with dread - there's already a computer game. The world would be a better place without this movie.

SteveK on May 21st, 2004
Dear God, why did they release this pile of contemptuous junk? Admittedly I went with slightly elevated expectations and why not, on paper it should have been a winning formula – in the end, the only paper this was fit for was the type that gets flushed away. Awful cramped dialogue leading to uncomfortable pauses, lame 2 dimensional characters, predictable dull action sequences, no plot to speak of (well I couldn’t find one) dreadful direction and production overly dependent on CGI. I persuaded a friend to accompany me and after about 10 minutes was embarrassed to be there, in fact after 20 mins I had lost the will to live. They (directors, producers) messed up big time and turned a potentially good film into a monumental cockup rivaling the Avengers. Avoid like the plague, in fact avoid even when the DVD is in the bargain bin section. My only question is -- did the people giving favourable reviews see the same film?

Suzi on May 21st, 2004
I think expectation is so important when it comes to films like this. Van Helsing lived up to my expectations and I enjoyed every moment. Well, nearly every moment - I was on the verge of being moved at the poignant (though predictable) ending, when it was suddenly and horrifically ruined. The film is certainly more action than horror, although there is a fair bit of 'angst' if you're into that sort of thing. The plot isn't as thin on the ground as it first appears; in fact, there's plenty to speculate upon and it's wide open for a sequel. The vampire babies were, if I'm honest, the most cringeworthy aspect of the film (if we pretend that the terrible ending doesn't exist for a moment), but tolerable. It's important to discard one's preconceived ideas of the myths explored in Van Helsing, as they really yank them around. Finally, I made the mistake of taking a friend who's really into Werewolf: The Apocalypse and Vampire: The Masquerade. I had to beat him with my drinking straw in order to get him to stop identifying the 'gifts' and 'disciplines' used by the supernaturals in the movie. In terms of fun, action and snappy one-liners, this film is great. But if you're looking for a well developed horror story, or a gore fest, you won't find it here. 10/10

Dicey on May 19th, 2004
It's got to be the worst film I've ever seen. God awful, I agree with everything Dave said. The sidekick was especially awful. Horrible, awful film.

Petra on May 19th, 2004
Deeply disappointing film. My expectations weren't that high to begin with, but I was still let down. Totally unoriginal, which in itself isn't a major problem, but it was frankly pretty boring as well. Could Kate Beckinsale be any more annoying? The only thing that made me happy was the fact that I didn't pay any money to see it by going to a preview screening.

Joe B on May 18th, 2004
I am so tired of people comparing this movie to the old black and white horror films of the past, IT IS AN ACTION FLICK not horror if it was horror it would have been R rated. I admit I was hoping the first time I saw it that the depth would be there underneath the action but I was not disappointed with the lack of reasoning for some of it. A lot of people told me the movie had no real plot and now that I have seen the move twice I say you’re full of it. The plot was simple yes and a bit comic book style but the movie is called Van Helsing not incredibly realistic monster movie where you have every thing explained to finite detail. I mean come on why does the werewolf attack people? I don’t now maybe it’s because he is a werewolf!!! The Dracula in the film is not Bramsrokers version for two reasons. 1. In Bramstokers your soupposed to feel sorry for him and he becomes the tragic bad guy, Van Helsing he is the evil bad guy period. 2. This reason applies to all the monsters in the film not just Dracula. In the old novels which several people keep pointing out you get to under stand the monsters and get there motivations. Van Helsing is what says it with me now “MONSTER HUNTER??? so he is not going to drop the crossbow pull out his psychology note book and ask Dracula how he is feeling. A lot of people have said that it was a special effects barrage and it was and you know what I like it that way. I mean we no longer have to see guys running around in latex mask with fur on them. If you want to show me a werewolf or transforming vampires into a bat thing then do it. I would much rather see it then some guy on wires. Ok one more thing and I’m done defending this movie the weapons come on people you got to like the weapons. I mean the physics and ideas all work for the time period and how many times in a monster movie have we seen the guy just hit the monster with a lamp or chair and then get thrown to the wall. If you hunt monsters for a living would you use a crappy one shot, two minute reload cross bow? Hey at least Van Helsing had to reload during battle, which is more then I can say about the infinite clips from under world. Also the pump Saws those were just cool so their. The silver steak I believe the reason for that is simple multipurpose weapon. Kill a vampire with a steak and a werewolf with silver. The truth is the wood was just more available so that is what most stakes were made of. Over all I had no problem with this movie because I wanted to see Werewolfs and Vampires vs. A Hunter and that is what you get plus a little comedy and a horrible accent from Katie beckensale. So I rate Van helsing 9/10 and hope they make a sequal just so I can watch Jackman take down more mosters.

James on May 17th, 2004
Good for an action film but i wouldn't class this as the same type of horror these characters come from. Saying that I quite liked Roxburgh as Dracula but thought Frankenstein was underused. 7.5/10

Jon on May 16th, 2004
I was looking forward to this, but if I hadn't been with friends I would have walked out half way through. Some great effects but a boring film with a paper thin plot. The female vampires were impressive but even they got too much in the end. Avoid!

Shaun Steer on May 16th, 2004
There's a scene half way through Van Helsing where the lead character, speaking to the love interest thrusts his fist into a glutinous pod, supposedly containing pupating vampires, uttering the immortal lines: " So this is what happens when vampires mate" No, this is what happens when 98% of a film's budget is spent on CGI and only the spare change on screenplay and script. Having been excited by the trailers and a fan of the earlier 1920s Universal productions, I was looking forward to this updating of the legends. This however was a total waste of celluloid. A more pitiful, weak and risible version of these classic Victorian novels I have yet to come across. Bram Stoker, Mary Shelly and the other gothic novelists who preceeded this special effects hotch potch must be spinning in their graves. I'm ashamed to say (albeit I walked out 20 minutes from the end) that I've paid good money to see this excrement. Avoid at all costs - Please don't encourage them to make more of this unwatchable drivel!

Taro on May 16th, 2004
Well I got dragged kicking and screaming to see this last night against my better judgement but in a way I'm a actually glad I did. I have never had an experience quite like going to see this movie. It was so bad it was actually really funny. The script and direction is abysmal - it's almost as if they wanted to make Leauge of Extraodinary gentlemen but someone had already optioned it so they ripped off the idea but applyied it to the horror genre. For a start completely forget about all the mythology that these characters have, they are only similar in name; the makers obviously haven't read Stoker or Shelley, I mean using silver steaks on vampires? It seems to take its entire basis for the horror genre from Bela Lugosi. The only person I would say that comes out of this movie with there dignity mildly intact is the friar played by the guy that was Farimir in LOTR (I think) . He was a geuinely amusing sidekick, and had all the better lines but the guy sitting next to me wouldn't know that as he walked out after 40 minutes. various action sequences seem to be taken direct from The Mummy which is just lazy in my opinion. To sum up I'll tell how the last ten minutes effected the audience, everyone was howling with laughter and believe me it wasn't meant to be funny. It was just really that bad and overly sentimal along with some terrible lines and acting from Hugh Jackman. It's the first time I've seen a movie that bad and the whole cinema have been so vocal in agreeing with me.

Bob on May 15th, 2004
One of the worst films I have ever seen. No really it is... Boring, unoriginal and with terrible acting resulting in a painful two hour experience. I URGE YOU TO AVOID THIS FILM!

dvd on May 14th, 2004
Van Helsing had the possibilities to be a very good film. Good cast and storyline. However, all that money was wasted on a film which didn't really entertain as it should have. Some cool special effects, but that's about it. Van Helsing is just one of those films where you wait for something decent to happen and continue to look at your watch, anticipating the finish. Sorry Hugh, I preferred you as Wolverine. Much more original.

Dave on May 14th, 2004
Worst film I've seen at the cinema ever.. Awful plot, bad script, too much CGI, unfunny sidekick, some of the worst dialogue ever committed to screen. Makes some of the lines in Pearl Harbor seen oscar winning. Visually the sets looked good but i thought i was watching a cartoon as near enough every set piece involved so much CGI. Someone said about leaving your brain at the door, they must have done that a few films back and forgot to put it back in.. 0/10

Chris on May 14th, 2004
I really liked this movie. Just one small problem: Dracula was more funny than scary. Hugh Jackman was great as Van Helsing; he really looked the part and I liked his sidkeick Carl (David Wenham). There were a few moments when I jumped and lots of moments when I laughed. The special effects were amazing, particularly the fight scene at the end. Great stuff. I would definitely go see it again. 10 out 10

alexde jonghe on May 13th, 2004
If you like LOTR and other related fantasy epics, then this will be right up your street. If not, then the action sequences (which are stunning) will keep others entertained. The film kind of ran on a bit... and battles were frequent, becoming tiresome, however this is a film I would recommend, although not memorable. It's not a 'like it or hate it' experience, a middle ground exists for all to enjoy. 6-7/10

Corinne Brown. on May 12th, 2004
I watched this movie only last night, it was wonderful, amazing special effects, brilliant acting from every one, but Richard Roxburgh (Dracula) was amazing and gorgeous and it also had a super weird storyline. Worth every penny of the cinema ticket. 10/10

Doug on May 12th, 2004
Horrible 19th century 007 ripoff with monsters instead of spies and Vatican versions of M and Q. Jackman plays the same character he does in X-Men, a broody mystery man with a dark past he can't remember. *yawn* I've seen better film on teeth. 0/10