 Well,
folks, it’s the first weekend of May, and that can only mean one
thing. That’s right, the summer movie season is finally here,
and who better to kick it off than “Van Helsing?” It’s certainly
qualified, for not only is the nearly $200 million spectacle directed
by Stephen Sommers, who launched the 1999 and 2001 summer seasons
with the “Mummy” films, but it also stars Hugh Jackman, who kicked
off the 2000 and 2003 seasons with the “X-Men” movies.
To that extent,
it makes perfect sense that Sommers and Jackman would put all
their eggs in one basket for a box office sure thing like “Van
Helsing,” but as to whether or not it’s any good, it all comes
down to a matter of taste. On paper, the prospect of giving the
classic Universal Monsters a big budget, special effects-laden
facelift may sound promising, but where my taste is concerned,
the end result is a convoluted, overloaded, uninspired and rather
exhausting cinematic experience.
I could go
on, but I’d much rather weigh in with some real experts. After
all, if you’re going to make a movie about the Universal Monsters,
why not go straight to the horse’s mouth? So, without further
ado, please welcome my special guest critics, Count Dracula, the
Wolf Man and Frankenstein’s Monster…
Scott:
Gentle-beasts, thanks for being here. Okay, Dracula, let’s start
with you. What did you think of “Van Helsing?”
Dracula:
I thought it was bloody awful.
Scott:
Ouch! Why?
Dracula:
Well, let me start off by saying that I have no problem with trying
to put a new spin on a timeless concept. After unwrapping almost
$850 million at the worldwide box office with his new take on
the “Mummy” films, director Stephen Sommers was certainly the
ideal choice to make lightning strike again with the rest of the
Universal Monsters. The problem is that if you’re going to do
something different, then put your money where your mouth is.
Sure, the special effects are impressive, but these days, that’s
to be expected. Otherwise, there’s very little that’s imaginative
and fresh about “Van Helsing.”
Scott:
Wow, Drac, I had no idea you were such a film buff!
Dracula:
Believe me, immortality consists largely of boredom, so I’ve had
plenty of time to catch up on my DVD’s.
Scott:
What about you, Wolf Man? Do you agree with the Count?
The Wolf
Man: Ow-ow-owwwwwww, I totally agree! Actually, this may be
the only time the Count and I see eye-to-eye, but the fact is,
“Van Helsing” seemed more like a rehash of old ideas rather than
a fresh spin on new ones.
Scott:
For example?
The Wolf
Man: For one thing, and correct me if I’m wrong, but in the
original story written by Bram Stoker, Van Helsing was around
60-years-old. Now, I’m all for making him young and buff for the
purposes of an action film, and Hugh Jackman certainly rises to
the occasion, but the way he’s portrayed here is almost like a
cross between The Shadow, Indiana Jones and James Bond. That’s
actually a pretty good blend for a hero, but the rest of the film
is plagued by the same problems that inflicted “The Mummy Returns.”
The plot made no sense, and none of the characters were interesting.
In the end, it reminded me of last year’s Sean Connery dud “The
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen,” which, I must say, was extraordinarily
bad.
Scott:
Wow, Wolfie, you’re a tough critic! What about you, Frankenstein’s
Monster? Do you agree with Dracula and The Wolf Man?
Frankenstein’s
Monster: (nodding his flat head) Mmm-hmm.
Scott:
Actually, I thought the film made The Monster look like a doofus!
Frankenstein’s
Monster: Mmm-hmm.
The Wolf
Man: Let me just say that while I didn’t really care for the
movie, I was impressed by the way Sommers depicted the Wolf Man’s
transformation. Yes, it looked too much like a CGI special effect,
but I did like the way that Velkan (as portrayed by Will Kemp)
ripped the skin off his body to reveal bulging muscles and fur
when he turned into the Wolf Man. In my opinion, it was the best
man-to-wolf transformation I’ve seen in a movie since “An American
Werewolf in London” back in 1981.
Scott:
What about you, Drac? Did you like the way the film depicted you?
Dracula:
Well, let’s put it this way. It’s a good thing Richard Roxburgh
was playing Dracula, because he needed those long fangs to chew
up his scenery. And that’s all I have to say about that.
Scott:
You know, I’m kind of embarrassed to even ask at this point, but
what was the film all about?
The Wolf
Man: Owwwwww, good question. Well, unlike the original character
created by Bram Stoker, this Van Helsing is a monster hunter who
works for some secret service-style agency in the basement of
the Vatican to fight the forces of evil. When he is dispatched
to Transylvania to terminate Dracula, he meets the beautiful gypsy
princess Anna Valerous (played by Kate Beckinsale). They join
forces to destroy Dracula’s army of evil once and for all, but
it doesn’t take long for them to discover a deep, dark secret
that could stop them dead in their tracks.
Scott:
Well, I’m sure the beautiful Kate Beckinsale alone is worth
the price of admission!
Dracula:
Oh, don’t get me wrong, Beckinsale is a total hottie, and
she and Hugh Jackman make a great team, but I’ll take the bad-ass
vampire hunter she played in last year’s “Underworld” over the
gypsy princess she plays here. And don’t get me started on that
accent. She sounds too much like Natasha from the “Rocky and Bullwinkle”
cartoons.
Scott:
Well, weren’t you at least impressed by the special effects?
The Wolf
Man: I know it’s a summer movie, and I know that means suspending
your disbelief and going for a cinematic ride, but a special effect
without a good story is a pretty boring thing. And “Van Helsing”
is one long special effect with a convoluted story and characters
that just aren’t very interesting. Yes, some of the action scenes
are fun, particularly the attack on the village by Dracula’s brides
and the ballroom fight at the end, but after a while, I just got
numb to the whole thing and stopped caring.
Dracula:
Look, do I think the movie’s gonna do really well? Absolutely!
It’s pretty obvious that Stephen Sommers wanted to make a lame-brained
action film for undemanding, popcorn-minded moviegoers, and to
that extent, he definitely succeeded. But just because it’s a
summer film doesn’t mean it has to be juvenile.
Scott:
Well, gents, sorry you didn’t care for the movie, but thanks
for taking the time to share your thoughts.
Dracula:
Anytime.
The Wolf
Man: My pleasure.
Frankenstein’s
Monster: Mmm.
|
