User reviews

I don't understand all the bad press this movie got. In a way, maybe that's for the best. Like The Avengers movie (which got similarly scathing reviews) my expectations for Van Helsing were absolutely rock bottom. So it turned out to be a very pleasant surprise when I found the film to be fun, entertaining and quite enjoyable overall. People here are complaining about the CGI monsters. What's the beef? This is the 21st century. What do you want? A very well done CGI Mr. Hyde (voiced by Robbie Coltrane, no less) or some guy in a ripped tuxedo baring his teeth a la Spencer Tracy? Fire up those computers and bring on the CGI! Actually I found the CGI effects quite good for the most part. You want bad CGI, then check out James Bond surfing down a glacier in Die Another Day.

So I'll join the minority and say that Van Helsing is well worth watching. Jackman is fine as always and the rest of the cast holds their own. The plot is just fine as well. This is a monster movie, not The Usual Suspects.

Pop yourself a big bowl of popcorn, sit back and enjoy the ride.

I can certainly reconcile myself with someone's DISLIKE of the film, and I would expect such people not to view if they have a good idea beforehand that this won't light their fire; but I can't understand those who claim to love this type of genre before watching who then precede to rip the film to shreds. The good humour mentioned in my summary isn't represented by a particular sharpness of script or a reliance on slapstick, but rather a general attitude pervading the film which smacks of those involved having a darn good time. In the case of director Sommers this manifests itself often in a threatened overdose of CGI, but when the effects are this good such profligacy where they're concerned is hardly a problem.

The manifesto is clear almost from the start - find a wafer-thin premise with which to allot your ghouls enough screen time and then just let them loose in a suitably gothic arena. As such, Jackman's Van Helsing often finds himself relegated to the role of a bystander, so perhaps the fact that the film bears his name is a bit of a misnomer; however, like I said, we're pretty much in contrivance territory as far as 'plot development' goes, so it should be seen as just another brand name to hang a silly hat on. In this regard it may pain Jackman the most, since it leaves him still searching for a leading man role in the style of Crowe's "Gladiator" to really leave his print indelibly ("X-Men" is an ensemble piece.) His best moment actually comes before the main brawls begin - testing out various items of weaponary Inspector Gadget stylee!

The lack of focus on the main character shouldn't perturb the audience too much though; if they prepare themselves for a monster royal rumble in the grandest tradition then they should find themselves leaving well satisfied.

Having watched the film (more than once)i must say that i think that the person who wrote the comment "A Stupid and Extremely Disappointing Movie" is being silghtly childish. You cannot watch a film like Van Helsing with out taking it with a pinch of salt - it is a movie with vampires, werewolves and the frankenstine monster in at all at once for goodness sake. So you cannot go in to it thinking in a literal sense. You have to accept that it is not going to be some ground breaking epic and that it is just a bit of fun - but at the end of the day that doesn't matter, because if you go in with the right attitude and you enjoy it, then what does it matter that it is a bit "off" in places. I thoroughly enjoyed the film and would definitely recommend it to any one who likes action/fantasy films and is up for a bit of fun!

Hugh Jackman and Kate Beckinsale. Were it not for these two gifted performers, this movie would be beyond silly. As it is, the plot is almost pretextual for the special effects.

The Eye Candy factor is high, though. Hugh Jackman as the tortured hero, filmed in the dark all of the time, makes us weak in the knees. Kate Beckinsale does magnificent physical feats while squeezed into a corset.

The story: Van Helsing (Jackman) is essentially a bounty hunter of supernatural monsters, a job he took on at the request of the church as apparent penitence for sins he cannot even remember. As a reward for his centuries of service, he hopes to make his way to Heaven instead of Hell.

Anna (Kate Beckinsale) is the last survivor of a family of Transylvanian vampire hunters. Her brother has become a werewolf and she is conflicted about whether he should live or die.

Naturally Anna and Van Helsing team up to rid Transylvania of the evil vampire overlord. Van Helsing has a tool kit Batman would envy, and Anna maintains an arsenal of monster-killing weapons that would make a survivalist proud. Between the two of them, the monsters don't stand a chance.

Put your mind on hold, suspend disbelief and intolerance for the occasional leap of reason, enjoy a slightly randy friar (Van Helsing's sidekick), and go along for the ride. Van Helsing is a great Sunday afternoon video.

It's big, it's dumb, it's cheesy as hell, but I found it to be enormous fun. This was made to be a roller-coaster ride and by that token it should be judged.

Actually after the opening pastiche of the Boris Karloff Frankenstein movie, I thought this had the potential to be a 5 star movie. It was very atmospheric and had me hooked. However the film never really captures any sense of magic from there onwards.

The main body of the movie does go on a bit, and it could have done with some attempt to create engaging characters. Plot and story are not always necessary for fun movies, but you do need characters with a level of interest to capture the mind, otherwise you tend to find yourself not giving a s**t. I felt Van Helsing did verge into this territory, but for the most part it's so fast paced this doesn't matter so much. The points where it does try to introduce plot are the moments where it really does fail. In fact there is too much going on that is never really explained, and I think it would've been better not to have bothered at all, than use the nonsense Sommers resorts too. For example the attempts at backstory to Van Helsing. Better to have one of those interlude chatty scenes you have in the Indy films, where it establishes he's a dude, rather than the poor attempts at angst and pathos. Really bad was the moment he gets upset over Frankie's Monster. What the hell was that all about?

Hmm maybe I took that a bit seriously, but the movie knows what it is, why try be something else. I also thought that that masked ball sequence was a natural conclusion, the eventual finale at the castle felt like an add on, which lacked any real punch.

Far better was Van's introduction to Transylvania, with the benefit of some neat angles and panning shots, the crossbow battle with the brides was cool. The coach chase was exciting without being exhilarating, but kept the flow going, so it's a shame some more bad plot gets thrown in, especially when it was involving the underwritten Velkan. That's the film's main problem - overkill of characters, with little space given to any of them to evolve.

Finally a word on the CGI. I thought it was very good, especially the morphs that were used. The very first moment Drac starts to turn made me jump a touch, and when the vampires turns into their fanged, contorted state it looked pretty scary to me. The wolfman transformation, with the ripping flesh looked genuinely painful. At this point I was thinking the CGI was genuinely stunning. I'd have preferred the finale if it had just been Van vs Drac though, having CGI characters fight felt uninvolving, and Drac in snarly state was far better than the beast he turns into.

This is a movie to genuinely switch of the brain and enjoy. At times there's too much going on and perhaps a bit too much swinging about for my liking, but it's an adrenaline filled ride. I'd probably give it 7 out of 10.

This movie is very very very good. Screw what the critics say. This movie is very action-packed, in your face, has great effects and it's funny too.

The way the brides transform from creepy bat monsters to beautiful women is really cool.

And Richard Roxburgh is really cool as Dracula. I almost didn't recognize him as the duke from Moulin Rouge!

The only part I didn't really like was Frankenstein's monster. He looked cool, I just didn't like his character. But other than that it's no big deal.

Also, Hugh Jackman and Will Kemp are extremely hot in this movie!

For all you fans of The Mummy and The Mummy Returns, you're gonna love this one!

I'm really baffled at the hateful negative response to this film. No it's not Oscar material, it's just good campy fun. If you're a fan of old monster movies, James Bond and Indiana Jones flicks, and over-the-top humor in an action/horror movie, then you get it. I guess if you're looking for a summer action flick that takes itself too seriously, then you're out of luck with this one.

I admit that the film runs a little to long, the chemistry between Beckinsale and Jackman leaves something to be desired, and the Frankenstein "monster" (though well-intentioned to give a nod to "Young Frankenstein") is really annoying. But the entertainment spawning from the hokey fun that "Van Helsing" is all about, makes these flaws so forgivable.

For me, I'll take the over-acting screaming Brides of Dracula, the silly homages to dozens of classic action and horror movies, the cheesy one-liners, and the not-so-convincing special effects. Isn't that what monster movies are all about?

The Stephen Sommers guide to Movie-making:

(1) Ensure screenplay consists of little but a series of continual action sequences, none of which advance your story one iota

(2) Assume that your audience will be indifferent to 'character development' and 'coherence' and ensure therefore that your screenplay contains neither.

(3) Instruct sound people to turn all sound-effects up to 11, no make that 12

(4) Tell effects people to lay on the CGI with a trowel and to make it look as cartoonish as possible

(5) Ensure sound effects and CGI combine to guarantee Dramamine sales rocket

(6) Employ an epileptic woodpecker to edit your movie

(7) Refer sound people, CGI people and editor to 'The Mummy Returns' to give them an idea of what you're looking for

(8) Laugh darkly and malevolently at the filmgoers who forked out hard-earned cash to have their taste and intelligence insulted by you.

First a word of warning. There are a number of people who would be best advised to avoid Van Helsing. If you dislike cgi, if you're a purist, if you're looking for something "realistic", or if you're looking for a slower-moving, understated film that's a deep character study, you'll more than likely hate this film.

Set around the turn of the 20th Century, Van Helsing features the titular hero (Hugh Jackman) taking a break from his usual "monster slayer" activities, which are commissioned by the Catholic Church, to pursue a grand plot initiated by Dracula (Richard Roxburg) involving the Frankenstein Monster (Shuler Hensley), the Wolf Man (Will Kemp), and the two last surviving members of a Transylvanian family that has long been battling the vampire.

Van Helsing is a fast-paced, computer graphics-laden horror/adventure/fantasy film wherein Universal re-imagines its core stable of classic horror characters. I actually like cgi, I'm not a purist, I love the genres--I'm not looking for realism, and I love fast-paced action-oriented thrill rides as much if not more than I love character studies.

As for the character remakes, Van Helsing becomes a slick retro-Matrix-styled macho action hero, part James Bond/007, part Indiana Jones, part Buffy the Vampire Slayer with a secret Catholic Church order filling in for the Watcher's Council and the Bond "Q Branch" combined. Dracula becomes a suave, scheming, mad scientist who looks like a romance novel hero. Frankenstein's Monster becomes much closer to Mary Shelley's depiction of an intelligent, loquacious, tormented, slapdash victim of a misguided doctor. And the Wolf Man, when wolf, becomes a cgi generated over-sized, super-agile, hyperactive beast. That should already turn off all of the purists.

The look of the film is lush, with lots of unusual point of view shots, exotic locations and computer-generated environments. CGI is used extensively for the human characters in the film as well as the monsters--it's frequently employed to enable physics defying stunts and amazing, far-ranging "computer camera" transitions. Van Helsing provides a good argument for such extensive digital assistance, as many of the visuals would be simply impossible to achieve through any other means and substituting some of the creatures with mechanicals, animatronics, special effects makeup and the like would have caused the film to go far over its already outrageous estimated budget of 160 million.

The plot, while not deep on characterization, couldn't be more full of events and action. Combined with the extravagant visuals and quickly changing, sprawling locations, the result is epic in scope. Director/writer Stephen Sommers, who was also responsible for remaking the image of another classic Universal character in The Mummy (1999) and The Mummy Returns (2001) (probably the reason the Mummy is not present in here), begins Van Helsing in a black and white scene that wonderfully recreates the feel of the James Whale-lensed Frankenstein films, including referencing a number of shots, scenes and characters from those classics.

After the titles, we move into a color-filled world ala The Wizard of Oz while we're treated to a brief character-establishing scene of Van Helsing battling Mr. Hyde in the bell tower of Notre Dame. Sommers then quickly whisks us away to the Vatican, where Van Helsing receives his orders.

This whirlwind beginning can be almost overwhelming--it certainly is visually--and it takes a moment to get up to speed and catch our breath, but once we settle into the town square of Transylvania, we're enraptured by the story and the pacing reaches a more sustainable level. Although fantastical at heart, the performances from the principle cast members help anchor the film in "reality". Jackman, Kate Beckinsale, Roxburgh, Henley and David Wenham all turn in nuanced performances that imply the depth of character that the film does not have the time to fully explore.

The intense action throughout the film combined with the cgi and spectacular sweeping camera moves often gives Van Helsing a feel somewhere between a comic book film and a video game. That fact might turn some viewers off, but as innovative, suspenseful, exciting filmic art, this is years ahead of most other recent releases. In fact, the sophisticated technological wizardry and entrancing epic storytelling is somewhat reminiscent of the Lord of the Rings films, which makes me wonder just what other viewers see in those to enable them to consistently sit high on the IMDb Top 250 list while Van Helsing struggles to attain a slightly above average rating. Perhaps Van Helsing deserves a more tempered first or second viewing from those who have summarily dismissed it due to unjustified expectations/preconceptions. This really is an outstanding film that at least deserves to be appreciated on a technical level, and should be easy enough to enjoy for its action-oriented storytelling prowess as well.

Despite the inconsistent CG, some weak performances and some dumb decisions Van Helsing is still a fun and enjoyable fantasy adventure. Hugh Jackman gives a great lead performance and Kate Beckinsale, Richard Roxburgh and David Wenham are all really good. It's well paced and well filmed and Stephen Sommer's direction is good, if a little too reliant on CG. The music by Alan Silversti is great.

It is amazing to me how much of an enormous waste this film is. The art design is phenomenal, the shots are well placed and excellent use of lighting and color and some of the best horror characters of all time. Yet, the script, acting and special effects are all equally horrible. There are two modes of this film:

Standing around over explaining the plot Or engaging in clichéd action sequences with no decent payoff.

Don't bother with this title. Or any other Stephen Sommers title for that matter. He has proved to be one of the most inept directors of all time.

Yeah, I know this isn't a masterpiece of cinema and I can already tell half this nation's populace hates it despite a good run at the box office last summer. But still I went into this movie just looking for a good time (that and am a huge fan of old school monster films) and thats what I got. For the uptight and so called expert critics, let me spell it out for you: ITS A POPCORN MOVIE! OF COURSE EVERYTHING GOING TO BLOWN UP TO THE MAX AND GO OVER THE TOP! IF YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS, THEN DON'T CLAIM YOU DO AND BASH A FILM BECAUSE OF IT! *Ahem* alright on to my review.

Plot: Helsing and his assistant, a frair named Carl, are sent to Translvaynia to protect the last of a gypsy family from being stuck in purgatory due to a curse Dracula put on them. In the process however Helsing must also stop Drac's plan of engulfing the world in darkness all the while battling his minions. Throw in a plot device involving Frankenstein's monster and you have a pretty cool adventure brewing.

I'll admit for a movie that suppose to be about Helsing. They kinda dropped the ball on the story. There's way too much emphasis on the gypsy girl rather him and they don't flesh out his back story about his lost memory and his supposed history with Dracula. Also the movie has a few nonsense parts (the talk with the creepy undertaker) which kinda slows down the film a bit. But still the movie stays on a linear path and the set-ups up to confrontations are well done. Not to mention the confrontation themselves even if some are a little silly (ballroom scene (though a good homage to the Fearless Vampire Killers), the fight with the last bride, Igor and Dracula himself). Yes their CGI laden but I don't care, its a supernatural movie after all. So what better way to do them.

The actors seem very comfortable with their roles and looks to be having a great time. Extra props go out to the dude who played Frankenstien's monster, I was really feeling for him. Easily one of the best characters in the movie.

Add to that some excellent backdrops and clothes to which the film really draws you into its 19th century world. Yes the movie is full of flaws but it only for fun and only wants to entertain to which it success in spades. If you don't like it, well fine. But for all who love a good popcorn flick or a fan of old school monsters, you can look no further. Van Helsing is just the ticket for a simple good time.

I think it fairest to watch a movie more in terms of what it means to be, than in terms of what I think it should be. (For an example of how wrong you can go by violating this, see Roger Ebert's review of The Fellowship of the Ring, which should have been titled "How I Would Have Shot the Book" [and thank God he didn't].)

But I digress.

Stephen Sommers wanted to ramp up the action, the looks, the story, and the plain old zing-bang-pow. In that, he succeeded admirably. The action sequences are fast and fun, the movie's got bags of eye-candy, the actors do just what they're supposed to do.

You want creepy? See Alien again. You want atmosphere? See Mimic, or Sixth Sense, or Halloween.

But if you want a sort of Indiana Jones Digs Up Three Cool Monsters... well, here you go.

Yes, I wish it had had some more humor. (See Hellboy.) I could have lived, happily, without the friar's hypocrisy. And the makeup on Igor was so incongruous, so 70's-throwback, that I thought it would end up as a plot-point. It didn't; just incongruously bad makeup.

But my oldest son and I had a great time... and that's generally why we go to movies!

Five minutes into this film I was already squirming in my seat. I've never walked out of a movie before, I think it's foolish to judge a film unless you have seen it in its entirety. Van Helsing almost had me running for the door. Many people have pointed out that this was only intended as a summer blockbuster, a no brainer with big SFX, lots of one liners and plenty of merchandising possibilities. That's no excuse for this pile of poo...

"Oooo, you cynical folk are being too hard on it" I hear some of you deranged individuals cry...

The Mummy had the same pitch as this movie, including the use of an old Universal monster. I liked the Mummy. The Mummy was good. The Mummy was fun. The Mummy was a well put together movie, its characters were pretty much one dimensional but everybody liked them. It had none of Van Helsing's frankly sloppy plot devices. A couple of cases in point:

"Ooo, we're all going on a werewolf hunt"

"Right lets plan this all real careful, like. We got the cage we got the bait we got our rifles. Anything else?"

"Silver bullets?"

"Good idea. But I tell you what, lets not put silver bullets in all of our rifles, lets just put them in one measly little revolver so that Beckinsale can almost get crushed by the falling cage as she runs to grab it."

Dracula. He's Romanian. The Gypsies come from Romania. Lets be really clever and give the count Gypsy earrings and a pony tail! Wow that'll be really authentic and won't make him look like a god damned idiot in any way shape or form!

These are just two criticisms out of the many that I could level at this film but frankly i don't want to spend any more time discussing it! Please save your money don't go to this movie and don't give them an excuse to make a sequel. It would be a terrible terrible thing to inflict on the world.

If you're a purist-any kind of purist-stay away from Van Helsing. But if you love the Universal horror films of the 30's and 40's or the Hammer films of the 50's and 60's and don't mind re-imagining them, then go. Check your brain at the door, buy a large popcorn and a soda and sit back for a fun ride.

The film is a complete reworking of everything you think you know about all the big guys. Present for your enjoyment are Dracula, the Wolf man, Frankenstein's monster and a guest appearance by Mr. Hyde. And of course, tying the whole thing together is our hero, Van Helsing (yummily played by Hugh Jackman). Named Abraham in Stoker's book but called Gabriel in the film, VH doesn't appear in any book other than Dracula, but in the more than a century since his `birth' we've become accustomed to his presence as the elder statesman of monster killers.

Completely re-imagined in this new production, VH is now young, handsome, and virile and apparently as immortal and indestructible as the creatures he chases. Don't expect great resolutions or deep explanations here, there are none. Don't expect Academy Award level acting, some of the actors apparently phoned in their performances while others decided to take up the slack. The resultant scenery chewing is uneven, but never boring. The dialogue, not to put too fine a point on it, is absurd and sometimes unintentionally, howlingly funny.

The makers of this film are clearly fans of the genre. The subject matter is treated with a loving sledgehammer. As the film progressed my companion and I made a game of naming all the classics represented. In addition to those you might expect, we were able to recognize allusions to `Young Frankenstein,' `Star Wars,' `Aliens,' `Raiders of the Lost Ark,' `Gremlins,' `Romancing the Stone,' `Lord of the Rings,' `Buffy the Vampire Slayer,' `Twister,' "Wild, Wild West" and any James Bond film you care to name among others. If you go, try it yourself.

If the producers were intending to frighten us, they failed dismally; but if they only intended to entertain us they succeeded, if not brilliantly, at least admirably. I'm uncertain if they intended quite so much humor, but both my companion and I laughed out loud most of the way through.

In addition to inside jokes, the film is filled with extraordinary visual images. From the opening encounter between VH and a startlingly oversized and athletic Edward Hyde, physicality is the order of the day. Everyone, including Van Helsing's friar sidekick is a magnificent specimen. Even Frankenstein's monster (who I nicknamed `Sparky' for the electrical discharges from his partially exposed brain) is hideously beautiful. Also, the cinematography is breathtaking. Both real scenery and CGI imagined are dazzling. I especially loved the castles Dracula and Frankenstein. Both edifices were Mad Ludwig's Neuschwanstein Castle as imagined by Tim Burton. I'd almost say that if the film had no other virtues at all, it would still be worth the price of admission for the incredible beauty of its backgrounds. However, the real star of the film is the (you guessed it) special effects.

Transformation scenes abound. At any point in the film you are only moments from watching someone turn into something. And what wonderful things they are. Vampires don't become simple bats, but snake-jawed, full size harpies. The Wolf man sprouts saber tooth fangs as he rips the human skin from his body. Frankenstein's monster's flesh partially peels from his skull and is smoothly pushed back into place and Mr. Hyde morphs from grinning giant menace to pitiful human corpse.

Not to put too fine a point on it, everyone-vampires, villagers, heroes, even horses and cattle go airborne sometime during the film. Dracula's three brides take the prize for most hang time. These ladies would be a wonderful asset to the Transylvanian Air Force with their dizzying dives, spins and barrel rolls. The camera gives us a bat's eye view of their deadly aerobatic ballet. When not in full flight Dracula and his wives walk up walls, across ceilings and carry on family quarrels while hanging from the rafters by their toes. Those characters that do not fly on their own power are lifted aloft and usually dropped soon after. The rest are climbers, scrambling up and down castle architecture like houseflies on speed. Interestingly, no one is ever seriously hurt or even has a hairstyle mussed.

The scenes shift so rapidly that it becomes difficult at times to follow the story. Fortunately, the gossamer plot is as deep as a kiddie's backyard swimming pool, so it isn't too much of a problem. Only the barest bones are needed to carry us from one action sequence to the next. Although there is no nudity and not a cussword is uttered, the film is violent. Well, of course it's violent--and about as traumatic as a Road Runner cartoon. Still, it earns its PG-13 rating. Leave the little 'uns home. The throbbing, pounding soundtrack keeps the attention even when not very much is happening.

Is Van Helsing a great film? No. Absolutely not. Is it a good film? No, not really. Is it entertaining? Yes. And maybe, just maybe, that's enough.

'Van Helsing' has always been a bit of an enigma to me. I own it and have watched it every so often and I can never quite put my finger on what exactly is wrong with it. Obviously, I quite like it, but it always leaves me with the feeling that it should have - somehow - been so much better.

The film was practically made for me - I love Hugh Jackman and he makes a great 'monster hunter.' Kate Beckinsale is naturally sexy as his kick-a$$ love interest. David Wenham adds some comic relief as Van Helsing and Richard Roxborough is brilliantly campy as Count Dracula. Then there are more monsters crammed into this film than Jabba the Hutt's palace. What more could I want? Um, I don't exactly know, but I'm not alone in my confusion. Van Helsing was supposed to be the start of some sort of action/horror franchise. It was certainly given the budget and star-power to launch such a venture. However, it was - almost - a financial flop. It was sort of successful, but not enough to get a proper sequel (there is a lower budget animated one, but that wasn't the original intention).

Perhaps it's the overuse of CGI? Sometimes everything on screen starts to blur into one mass of animation. Perhaps it's that the characters are a little too indestructible to be believable. Seriously... these (supposedly totally human) characters get dropped from great heights again and again and just get up like nothing has happened - a minor gripe, but it always bugged me.

If you're a fan of 'old school' horror, i.e. you know about the Dracula/Frankenstein myths then you might like this, because it certainly pays homage to the classics. It has a lot of charm (kudos to Frankenstein's monster and Drac himself), but somehow falls slightly short of being the modern day classic it was meant to be.

http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/

The film is a monstrous cocktail : Dr. Jekill and Mr.Hyde , Frankestein, werewolf , Dracula ,Igor.

The starring is Van Helsing (Hugh Jackman) , the monster hunter . The first fight with Mr. Hyde (Robbie Coltrane)in the Cathedral Notre Dame of Paris is breathtaking .

After that , he is assigned by Vatican to track down Dracula . He's helped by an action woman (Kate Beckinsale) and an assistant friar (David Wedham) who provides him anything gadgets as "Q" in James Bond's serials . He will have to confront werewolf , Frankestein (Shular Hensley) and specially Dracula (Richard Roxbough) and his brides (Elena Anaya, Silvia Colloca and Joshie Marian) .

The film is spectacular , the action-packed is fascinating and computer generator effects specials (FX) are overwhelming though excessive .

The movie mingles monsters action , suspense, terror , gore , rip-roaring, tongue-in-cheek , a little bit of humor and is amount bemusing but the plot is ridiculous .

Direction by Stephen Sommers is average , Alan Daviau's cinematography , set design by Alan Cameron and Alan Silvestri's musical score is outstanding.

Rating 6/10 . Passable .

This is an action adventure horror thriller. Van Helsing is the stylish vampire hunter. Hugh Jackman has very little to do here apart from looking good and saying one-liners. The movie has too much action and a very loud background score. The background score and the yells from the demonic characters get irritating after the point. It does not scare you and the CGI looked very cartoonish to me. It did not look real at all. It did not convince me to believe in the storyline and I kept watching a CGI led action fest on screen and got bored terribly towards the end. I was waiting for the movie to get over

I'll begin with the good things about the movie. ... ...

Okay now to the bad. Where could i begin? You have a movie with three of the greatest monsters ever created and things some how go horribly wrong. If i may for a moment say that this movie should've been Castlevania the movie but i'm extremely glad it wasn't as it would've been an insult to the series of video games which had deeper, stronger plots than this thing. Its obnoxiously loud, makes no effort for a little character development and makes some horrible use of the aforementioned monsters, including some sorry excuses for CG. Luckily for Mr. Jackman that he has the XMen franchise to live off of and lucky for Kate Beckinsale that she is a hottie because neither of these two have offered much of anything else in any of their other movies and offer even less in this one(what is up with that accent Kate?). Van Helsing makes quick work of getting its characters into situations where they look cool and say cool things. Unfortunately they end up not looking so cool and saying things that are irritating. Its as if the characters know they are in a movie and know that they can't be stopped because the script says so!

I'll finish off with this last thing. I subject myself to all kinds of movies. I enjoy great, timeless dramas as much as do dumb summer fair so its not as if i'm a pretentious film student who can't turn off the brain and enjoy some eye candy. There is room for all kinds of films in my mind and neither is more or less important. Anywho, I DO NOT walk out of a movie for any reason, not even to pee. I'm there, i'm giving two hours of my time for the movie. This is my philosophy and for 20 plus years of movie watching i've NEVER once walked out. For Van Helsing i not only took a trip to the bathroom but i went for a cigarette too! I could care less about what was happening which is a sign that not one character was interesting. Not one character seemed genuine nor interesting. So welcome in the summer crop of Hollywood crap with open arms and blank stares, its going to be one long summer movie season!

When the credits rolled on this one, I nearly couldn't contain myself. This is a fabulous film with fantastic special effects, good acting, a strong story, and a first rate soundtrack! Hugh Jackman's portrayal of Gabriel Van Helsing is fantastic, as is Roxburgh's part as Count Dracula. Van Helsing's search to find Dracula and complete his mission is not only bold daring, but full of great creature moments and awesome action. David Wenham (Lord of the Rings) does a great job as the comic relief Friar who aids Van Helsing and Anna in their fight against Dracula and the other creatures they face. The only thing that I didn't care for was the fact that Frankenstein's monster seemed too human, and able to carry on conversations. He actually seemed to care. But that wasn't such a big deal. I found the film completely entertaining and loads of fun!

Partly because I'd heard in so many reviews that this movie was awful, and party just because it was one of the biggest flops of the year, I didn't have very high expectations of this one. Perhaps that's why I enjoyed it so damn much.

This movie follows the story of Doctor Gabriel Van Helsing, who we all know from Bram Stoker's Dracula as an ageing professor who takes on the evil count. Here, however, he is a young and handsome demon hunter / acrobatics expert with an array of cool weapons. In the opening scene of the movie we see Doctor Frankenstein, under the supervision of Dracula, bringing his monster to life while the torch-wielding peasants are already storming his castle. Meanwhile, Van Helsing takes on Mr Hyde in the Notre Dame Cathedral. These scenes pretty much set the tone of the whole thing. The plot has absolutely no internal consistency, but when the film looks this good, how much does it really matter? ... yes, it's stupid, but if you can get in the right frame of mind it can also be a lot of fun.

The acting unfortunately isn't that great ... Hugh Jackman isn't really given a whole lot to work with as far as his Van Helsing character is concerned, and for the most part he simply gives his 'Wolverine' performance all over again, especially towards the end. Kate Beckinsale is a fine actress and has the perfect face for Gothic horror, as best shown in Underworld, but here with her silly Transylvanian accent and looking like Catherine Zeta Jones, it just doesn't work. Probably the most memorable performance comes from David 'Faramir' Wenham, who provides most of the comic relief as Van Helsing's bible-bashing sidekick.

In terms of special effects it's pretty amazing -- this movie did, after all, have a ludicrous amount of money thrown at it ($160 million), but perhaps relying so heavily on CGI was a mistake. Many directors have said that if an effect can be achieved physically, often that's the best route to take. And here, the computer-generated stuff is at times very distracting as rather than being involved in the plot you're sitting there thinking, "Oo, doesn't that creature look good?" The soundtrack is also very cool (even the bits stolen from "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade").

It's unfortunate that this wasn't the box-office hit it was clearly intended to be, but if you're in the mood for a big, stupid, fun action movie that makes no sense and has absolutely no point to it, this one is as good as any.

What in the world were they trying to do with this movie. It was a great idea, and good action, but the dialog was absolutely horrendous. "But you're suppossed to Die" "But I want to Live" "Okay." It was either a 6 year old wrote this script or they didn't bother to write a script at all. I won't even get started on the incredible amount of errors in this movie. The writer/director might have well smack the viewer across the face with some of the mistakes they let slide. Needless to say I was extremely disappointed in this movie after looking forward to seeing it for some time. I can only hope that we will not see a sequal to this mistake. Or at least get a new writer and director who can actually do this good idea justice.

Many, many people have seen "Van Helsing" and said it is trash, a waste of time, etc, etc. But what they don't understand is that sometimes, with so much happening in the world, people need to let it all go so they can get some thrills from movies.

The plot of Van Helsing is somewhere between simple and complex. The back story is that Count Dracula and his three brides have given birth to countless offspring throughout the hundreds of years they've been living as vampires. They themselves were created from the living, but their children were not. They were born of the undead, and have never had the chance to come to life... or the afterlife vampires live. They simply are dead.

Then, Dracula comes upon a mad scientist named Dr. Frankenstein, whom wants to discover the secret of creating life. He helps the doctor in his sort-of admirable task of creating life, hoping to use his creation to bring life to his children. But it is not to be. As the film opens, Dr. Frankenstein is killed by Dracula, who no longer needs him, and his monster, whom Dracula needs to give the essence of life to his children, appears to perish in a fire.

A year later, Gabriel Van Helsing, a tortured man without a past is sent to Transylvania by the "Holy Order"... An organization of all of the religions of the world. With the assistance of a trusty sidekick, the still living monster of Frankenstein and a beautiful young woman, he must hunt down and destroy Dracula before he can give life to his thousands of children.

The reason I gave this movie a 9 out of 10 is that is never seems to get the recognition it deserves. It has great action, great actors, and a great story. (At least for a summer film) It's not the type of movie to be taken seriously, it's the type to sit down with some friends, have some popcorn, and get ready for a silly, scary, fun ride. I love it!. 9/10

I watched this film in cinema when it was first released. I enjoyed it but it wasn't until ten years later when I rewatched it that I thought this is a good Vampire Movie for the time it was made and is very action oriented unlike most vampire movies which are usually slow burners. This movie changed the pace for once and gave the action it promised I would recommend watching this movie to anyone who enjoys Monster movies heavy on the action and low on the dialogue. Sometimes it's nice to watch a movie and not think for a while so enjoy.

This movie was absolutely awful. When Hollywood is set to invest 160 million dollars in a project one would imagine some small fraction of that would be spent on a decent script....evidently not. Everthing...the look, characters, and plot points of this film are lifted from other, better movies. The director seemed to feel that no exposition was necessary, we would all go along with whatever preposterous premise he chose to splash on screen. So the fact that Van Helsing is part of a secret organization headquartered at the Vatican which employs Buddhist monks and Muslim mullahs didn't need any explaining, it passes by with barely a mention so that we can get to the next chase scene. It all went down hill from there. YAWN!!!

I left the theater feeling I had been duped by the Hollywood spin machine into spending my hard-earned money on drivel.