Van Helsing
“Van Helsing” is a movie in what I would call a critical “no man’s land.” There’s too much good- great even- to tell people to avoid it altogether, but there’s so much bad it can’t be easily recommended. So here’s how it’ll work- should you see “Van Helsing?” Yes, but once you have, seek out Universal’s recent “Monster Legacy” DVD sets containing the 13 famous horror films that inspired writer-director Stephen Sommers to make “Van Helsing.” Me? I’ve only seen four of those films- Tod Browning’s “Dracula,” James Whale’s “Frankenstein” and “Bride of Frankenstein,” and George Waggner’s “The Wolf Man,” but I do expect to add all three of Universal’s sets- Dracula, Frankenstein, and The Wolf Man- to my collection by year’s end. At the very least, I can say that “Van Helsing” is superior to Sommers’s previous reimaginings of the Universal Monster classics- 1999’s “The Mummy” and 2001’s “The Mummy Returns.” The visuals- be they achieved by cinematography, art direction, or visual effects- are richer and more imaginative; the ideas in the story of the legendary vampire hunter (played with panache by Hugh Jackman), sent to Transylvania to destroy Dracula, are well-developed and intriguing; and Sommers’s love for the horror classics is more than palpable (best examples include the black-and-white opening sequence (a great homage to “Bride of Frankenstein”), the development of Frankenstein’s monster- well-played by Marietta native Shuler Hensley- in the story, and the way Sommers stays true to the natures of all three creatures- Dracula, Frankenstein, and The Wolf Man- while adding his own spins to the material). But here’s the thing- did it really need to be an action/adventure movie? Don’t get me wrong, there are some great set pieces (in particular a carriage chase through the woods), but like Sommers’s “Mummy” updates, you turn period-set stories into big-budget escapism, you’re begging for comparisons to Spielberg’s Indiana Jones classics that few films are going to live up to. A more intriguing idea would be to transform it into a horror epic- a la Francis Ford Coppola’s “Bram Stoker’s Dracula”- “Van Helsing” certainly has the stunning visual style for a truly Gothic and sinuous thriller, which comes so few and far between nowadays. Still, there are bigger problems with “Van Helsing” than the aesthetic choice of turning horror creatures into stunt people. Like the limp love story between Jackman’s Van Helsing and Kate Beckinsale’s sexy vampire hunter Anna. Or the ill-conceived comic relief character friar Carl (not unlike John Hannah’s terrible character in “The Mummy”), played by “Lord of the Rings'” David Wenham. Or the less-than-inspired inclusion of Mr. Hyde early on as another classic creature for Van Helsing to track down and get into a big fight with. Or the outrageously over-the-top performance by Richard Roxburgh as Dracula (the worst for the character I’ve seen, and I’ve seen enough Dracula’s over the years to say that). Or the miscalculated attempts at humor. Nonetheless, if you’re looking for a thrilling visual feast, or are curious to see what cinema’s most legendary creatures are reinvented in the eyes of a director who clearly values their early movie appearences, see “Van Helsing.” And then, reacquaint yourself with these monster’s haunting origins onscreen.
