Van Hellsing

Van Hel-sink

The most recent offering from Director Stephen Sommers of The Mummy and The Mummy Returns fame is the ludicrous Van Helsing. Helsing is about the plight of one man to learn his past by killing off the evil creatures that rule the world. Sound familiar? Hugh Jackman plays Van Helsing, the famous murderer/hunter for a secret Roman agency. He is assigned to hunt and kill the infamous Dracula. That, is where the movie begins. Throughout the movie, Helsing will find and duel with many creatures of movie and literary fame. As promising as this movie seems, it fails to work on many levels. Its use of foreshadowing ruins almost all of the twists. Cliches run rampant and can easily annoy the spectator. The plot, although as promising as it might seem, is only good for satisfying the director’s hunger of old horror lore. That and for creating amazing fight scenes, one of the few places that the movie actually succeeds.

Hugh Jackman as Helsing is a throwback to Wolverine from X-Men. Jackman proves that he is supreme at being the bad-ass. Except, Helsing is more of an early 19^th century Bond than a raving chip-on-his-shoulder mutant. Helsing works for a secret agency, uses a lot of gadgets, and has a Helsing girl, Anna Valerius. Kate Beckinsale plays Anna Valerius, the last of the Valerius family and the love interest of Helsing. After all, Kate Beckinsale is gorgeous. The entire movie the audience is allowed to see Beckinsale beaten up worse than a pane of glass by snail mail. The fact that Beckinsale is able to believably imply that she is a fierce fighting machine is a testament to her staying power. However, the kudos of the movie goes to David Wenham as Carl and Richard Roxburgh as Dracula. Wenham’s delivery of lines and portrayal as Carl the friar lets the audience laugh at what would otherwise be a way too serious clichéd film. Roxburgh’s emotional changes from calm to emotionally enthralled is gripping to watch. He adds a level of unanticipated menace to a character that many had believed to be already dead.

Sommers insistence for an epic through horror film nostalgia, there are many special effects. The good news is that the CG animation is amazing. The bad news, it can become annoying at times. The graphics of the movie are put through such depth and shown so vividly, that one can’t help but to watch in awe. The fight scenes rely heavily on graphics since most of the bad guys are monsters. Not only that, but the music and the sets for the movie are fantastic. It is hard to tell between what is CG or set and what is real in the movie. Everything blends together seamlessly, something that is very hard to do for most directors. So why is that bad? The problem is the animation is used on such a large scale that at many points throughout the film the audience is given a Brechtian jolt and spends more time oohing and aahing than watching the film or plot, even if there is very little of it.

Recap of the movie: decent acting, great fight scenes, good animation, music, and locales, and a long nostalgic run through horror land. Unfortunately, bad dialogue and cliché imagery is saturated throughout. The plot itself is an amalgamation of other ideas contrived to let Helsing run rampant. The fact that Sommers loves horror characters and lore is apparent. What isn’t apparent is any cinematic innovation.The script relies too heavily on deus-ex machina. The foreshadowing is so blatant that anyone can figure out the next step in the plot. What the movie needs is more misdirection for hints and less clichés. Not more CG. 1 out of 5

Wannabe