 |
“Van Helsing”
was one of those movies that I dove into
with a mixture of anticipation and hesitation.
Being that I’m a huge fan of the horror
genre, but am not so much a fan of the wave
of badly done CGI that seems to have taken
precedence over plot. Films like “Godzilla”
or the newer ”Star Wars” films
all offer perfect examples of this trend.
A ton of money was spent trying to make
everything look bigger, better and more
realistic, but the films ultimately fell
short due to poor storylines and wooden
acting. My hopes for “Van Helsing”
being a movie worth watching were based
solely on Stephen Sommers abilities as a
director.
Though there were some people that didn’t
like either “The Mummy” or “The
Mummy Returns”, I was not amongst
them. I really enjoyed both of those films;
in part because they were just so rousingly
action-packed, but more so because I felt
that in Sommers’ attempt to lightly
parody the genre he instead created a perfect
blend of 1930’s horror films and pulp
serial adventures.
|
Plus, there was the added benefit of having Brendan
Fraser as the star. I consider him to be a very
underrated actor, who brings a lot of charisma
to the table when he is cast in a role.
That brings me to the subject of Sommers’
newest project, which is now making its way onto
the DVD market. “Van Helsing” stars
Hugh Jackman (“X-Men”) as the title
character. In literature, he is known as the prime
foil for the illustrious Count Dracula. Usually
portrayed as an old man, it is Van Helsing’s
destiny to do battle with the bloodthirsty count.
Here, however he is a much younger man (though
thins aren’t always what they seem) who
is more than just a vampire hunter. He is a mysterious
figure who dresses a bit like the anime character
“Vampire Hunter D”, complete with
a long black coat and wide brimmed hat. He works
directly for the Vatican, his purpose, not only
to battle Dracula, but all that is considered
evil. He is armed with futuristic, though antique
looking weapons (some of which would make Batman
envious), and fights the likes of Mr. Hyde and
Werewolves. Much like the character of Wolverine
Jackman has portrayed in the “X-Men”
films, Van Helsing’s past is unknown even
to him. He has no memory of his past and knows
only that he must fight for the forces of good.
As he had to do with the “Mummy” movies,
Sommers had to re-invent the background of the
main villain. Dracula’s (Richard Roxbugh)
main foe is the Valerius family, who had a hand
in his becoming a vampire. His quest is to destroy
the last remaining members of the family, Anna
(Kate Beckinsale) and Velkan (Will Kemp). But
he also has plans for utter and total conquest
of the world, and so is in search of Frankenstein’s
monster. It seems his life force can be used to
create an army of bat-like monstrosities, eager
to do his bidding. It is Van Helsing’s job
to stop him.
Generally, I’m not one to knock a film,
if at least the intention is there to make it
entertaining. That said, “Van Helsing”
delivers everything that your average movie-going
audience wants from a blockbuster action film.
From start to finish, the film never seems to
stop and take a breath. The camera, much like
the actors are in constant motion. It actually
moves so fast, that it feels much shorter than
its 2 hour and 12 minute running time. Everything
about the movie is big, Big, BIG. The sets, the
camera angles, even the monsters are a bit larger-than-life.
If you’re looking for entertainment unencumbered
by substance, “Van Helsing” is your
film. On the other hand, if you are NOT a part
of that average movie-going audience, but are
instead a fan of the old Universal horror classics
or prefer a little more meat with your potatoes,
you may not find “Van Helsing” quite
so satisfying.
I guess the easiest way to cover this, would be
to point out what I found to be the film’s
good points… and the bad. On the side of
good, we have the opening of the movie, which
recounts the creation of the Frankenstein’s
monster, albeit a revisionist one. It is presented
in glorious black and white, and reminds one of
the classic horror movies of old. The set pieces
and the requisite angry villagers give the film
just the right look to get viewers into the mood.
Then when the image switches to color, I’m
glad to say that it doesn’t try to dazzle
you with some modern rainbow colored scenes, instead
opting to keep the look of the film dark and gray,
making the transition a bit more subtle yet no
less striking.
The set pieces that are used throughout the film
are simply jaw-droppingly beautiful, those both
real and created in a computer. Admittedly, I
could hardly tell which was which. I consider
that a testament to the talent of the production
team. The costumes were also quite well designed,
even if some of them felt to be a bit much. Van
Helsing’s garb, as I mentioned, looked a
bit too much like Vampire Hunter D. However, that
nitpick will only bother those of us who have
seen that particular set of anime features. Most
people will pretty much just think he looks cool,
and he does.
Then there was the performance by David Wenham
as Carl, the lowly monk-in-training who is saddled
with the unenviable task of joining Van Helsing
in his Dracula crusade. Reminding everyone with
the highly anachronistic line, “But I’m
not a field agent…,” he immediately
lets us know that he is to become the comic sidekick
to the otherwise somber hero. I spent the first
hour of the movie hitting my brain files to figure
out where I had seen him before (keep in mind
I hadn’t seen his name yet, so I didn’t
know it was Wenham). Then it hit me like a shot,
he was Faramir in the two final installments of
the “Lord of the Rings” Trilogy. No
wonder I didn’t recognize him. The characters
were so geometrically opposed in look and personality.
At that point, as much as I admired Wenham’s
performance in “LOTR”, I was even
more appreciative of his range as an actor. In
“Van Helsing”, he plays the comic
foil very well without ever really going over
the edge into just plain being silly. Of all the
performances in the film, his is by far the best.
It’s for most of these reasons that I didn’t
find “Van Helsing” to be a total waste
of time. It is for these reasons that I actually
enjoyed (to some extent) a good portion of the
movie. However, here’s where I have to point
out some of the problems that kept me from getting
totally immersed in the experience. It’s
most blatant failing I feel, was in the tone of
the screenplay. In “The Mummy”, when
the plot took a serious turn, it was pretty much
still played for laughs. In “Van Helsing”,
the dialogue was often too campy, yet it was still
delivered as if it were Shakespeare. And most
of the actors, most notably Jackman and Beckinsale
never really appeared to have any fun with roles.
They were always very grim, with only a hint of
the tongue-in-cheek attitude that the script seemed
to be calling for. Even Roxburgh, as Dracula seems
to play his role with restraint, where being a
little more over the top might have given the
character of Dracula a little more life (uh…
or death, whichever the case may be).
My next big nitpick was the overuse of CGI. This
in itself might not have been so bad, except that
the quality of the CGI work, good as it was, simply
wasn’t good enough to make me believe what
I was seeing. With the exception of Frankenstein’s
monster, every other creature was the product
of 1’s and 0’s, and it shows. The
way they moved was completely unnatural, and the
texture of the rendering made most of them feel
like they weren’t really there. I felt a
little like I was watching “Who Framed Roger
Rabbit” every time a CGI ‘cartoon’
monster leapt into the scene. And whenever Dracula
or one of his brides would morph into giant bat-creatures,
I kept waiting for that one time they would accidentally
morph into Mickey Mouse. Even during the big fight
between Dracula (as a vampire) and a Werewolf,
I kept thinking to myself, “Laaaadies and
gentlemen… welcome to World Class CGI Wrestling!!!”
The only way I can really defend these nitpicks,
would be to view the movie as a comic book come
to life. But it took itself way too seriously
and never really marketed itself as such. Not
that it was marketed as anything other than a
big-budget popcorn flick, but there was general
feeling that there should have been some depth
to the story, or at least more three dimensionally
drawn characters.
Now that “Van Helsing” is entering
the DVD arena, it is going to be available in
two versions, a single disc release that contains
the movie and a goodly portion of extra features.
The other is a three disc set that offers not
only a lot more extra features, but also the original
Universal films “Frankenstein”, “Dracula”
and “The Wolfman.” If you don’t
already own Universal’s Legacy Collections
of these movies (and shame on you if you don’t)
then this edition is the one to get. I can’t
really comment of this edition, though or it’s
other extra features. What I can tell you a little
about are the extra features on the single disc
version.
With so much work going into this film, I wasn’t
surprised to find two separate commentaries. The
first is by writer/director Stephen Sommers and
producer/editor Bob Ducsay. The second offers
up actors Richard Roxburgh, Shuler Hensley (Frankensein’s
Monster), and Will Kemp. Both are actually very
good commentaries, the only problem is having
to sit through the movie two more times to hear
them both. (The problem arising from the length
of the film, not the quality.)
There is a pretty cool feature that allows you
to take a 360 degree tour through Dracula’s
castle, as well as bit of a history of the character
of Van Helsing as he has been presented in films.
You’ll also find a featurette that shows
how the guys at ILM created the digital monsters.
In spite of my feelings about the finished product,
it was still very interesting to see the process.
My favorite feature was the outtakes. There’s
nothing I enjoy more than seeing the actors screw
up. It’s both amusing and humbling. The
most unusual feature uses miniature cameras to
put you directly into the movie as you get to
see what the actors saw while filming certain
scenes. And finally, for all you gamers, if you
put the DVD into your Xbox, you can play the first
level of the “Van Helsing” video game.
(My wife claims she likes the game more than the
movie…)
I’m sure based on my comments you may be
wondering whether or not I would recommend picking
it up. Actually, I still would. As I mentioned,
I didn’t find the movie to be a total waste.
There were a lot of problems with it, to be sure,
but I still found some entertainment value in
the better points of the film. And again, there
is also an audience out there who require no more
than a lot of visual stimulation and “Van
Helsing” delivers it in spades.
Directed by: Stephen Sommers
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Kate Beckinsale, Richard
Roxburgh, David Wenham, Will Kemp, Kevin J. O’Connor,
Shuler Hensley
Extras: Explore Dracula’s Castle, Bringing
the Monsters to Life, You Are in the Movie, The
Legend of Van Helsing, Feature Commentaries by
Director Stephen Sommers, Bob Ducsay, Richard
Roxburgh, Shuler Hensley and Will Kemp, The First
Level of the Van Helsing Game, Outtakes
Specifications: Widescreen (1.85:1) Enhanced for
16x9 Televisions, Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound
Studio: Universal
Release Date: 10/19/2004
Region 1
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (Nonstop Creature Action Violence
and Frightening Images, and for Sensuality)
Website
Website
We'll give Van Helsing a C.
|
