Van Helsing Reviews

After achieving tremendous commercial success and enthusiastic audience responses with The Mummy and The Mummy Returns, writer-director Stephen Sommers continued his penchant for reinterpreting iconic Universal monsters as big-budget action-adventures with 2004's Van Helsing. Instead of just one monster, Van Helsing mashes together material from Dracula, Frankenstein and The Wolf Man, adapting the mythology with a contemporary blockbuster sensibility. Furthermore, instead of an old, veteran vampire chaser (as previously played by Peter Cushing and Anthony Hopkins), the titular Van Helsing here is a suave, athletic action hero clad in leather, rendering this a unique interpretation of the age-old material. Although Van Helsing endured a critical mauling upon its release in 2004, the movie is surprisingly endearing and fun, with Sommers effortlessly recapturing the joyful vigour and spirit of his earlier endeavours. It's undeniably too long and narratively convoluted, but it's a competent blockbuster with a charming cast and first-rate technical specs, and the all-in-good-fun fireworks show confidently stands up twenty years later.


A monster hunter with memory loss, Gabriel Van Helsing (Hugh Jackman) hunts down and eliminates evil on behalf of the longstanding Knights of the Holy Order, reporting to Cardinal Jinette (Alun Armstrong) at the Order's Vatican City headquarters. Van Helsing also relies on a friar named Carl (David Wenham), who specialises in inventing weapons to kill various supernatural monsters. With a new threat looming, Van Helsing and Carl travel to Transylvania to kill Count Dracula (Richard Roxburgh), the vampiric son of Satan. Upon arriving at a Transylvanian town, the pair meet Anna Valerious (Kate Beckinsale), the last descendant of an ancient Romanian family who has vowed to kill Dracula or spend eternity in Purgatory. Complicating the mission is the presence of Dracula's three vampiric brides (Elena Anaya, Silvia Colloca, and Josie Maran) and a werewolf under the vampire's control. Dracula intends to duplicate Dr. Frankenstein's (Samuel West) experiments to give life to his thousands of undead spawn, but he needs Frankenstein's Monster (Shuler Hensley) to carry out his plan successfully.

Whereas Sommers drew heavy inspiration from Indiana Jones for his Mummy movies, Van Helsing feels more like a James Bond adventure, with the titular monster hunter accepting missions from a secret organisation, and relying on special gadgets and weaponry from the Q-esque Carl. Sommers even retains the typical structure of a Bond film, introducing Van Helsing as he carries out an assignment in Paris, establishing his expertise and quick thinking in combat. A fun, tongue-in-cheek sensibility runs throughout the film, with Jackman and Wenham enthusiastically delivering the comical dialogue. (After a werewolf encounter, Carl enters the room and asks, "Why does it smell like wet dog in here?".) Meanwhile, Roxburgh relishes the chance to play Count Dracula, embracing the script's inherent cheesiness. Sommers even recruits The Mummy and Deep Rising alumni Kevin J. O'Connor to play Igor (a role specifically written for the actor), and he brings ample goofy energy to the role, invigorating an otherwise shallow character. Indeed, Van Helsing's characters receive minimal development, making it difficult to care about them beyond their superficial traits - i.e. Van Helsing looks cool, Anna is attractive, Carl's goofiness is endearing, and so on. The romantic angle between Van Helsing and Anna is half-hearted at best, feeling shoehorned in for the sake of it. The climax tries to add some emotion, but it mostly falls flat.


Working with an enormous $170 million budget (nearly eclipsing the combined cost of his two Mummy adventures), Van Helsing is a fast-moving visual extravaganza that satisfies as pure eye candy. Sommers employs digital effects to bring several of the monsters to life, but other aspects of the production remain vehemently old-fashioned. Instead of solely relying on studio work and green-screening, filming occurred in various picturesque locations in Prague, Italy and France, while superb miniatures convincingly enhance the movie's sense of scope. Cinematography by the Oscar-nominated Allen Daviau (E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial) gorgeously captures the gothic production design, creating mood and atmosphere through shadows and precise lighting. It's also easy to follow the action, as Daviau relies on smooth long shots and even a little bit of slow motion, never resorting to shaky-cam or turning the carnage into a headache-inducing blur. This ended up being the late Daviau's final feature film.

Instead of slow-moving but cunning old-fashioned monsters, Van Helsing features agile, dynamic computer-generated beasties that swiftly fly, run and leap around, though characters like Frankenstein's Monster and Igor were still achieved through extensive prosthetics and make-up. Weta Digital contributed to the special effects, and they mostly hold up two decades later. Even though the digital creatures are not always entirely convincing, they are perfectly sufficient and do not stand out as distractingly phoney. Plus, the effects here easily surpass the awful CGI from the climax of The Mummy Returns. Moreover, the fact that the monsters mostly appear in practical environments helps to sell the illusion. Sommers is a dab hand at orchestrating rousing, fast-moving action set pieces, and Van Helsing contains numerous standout sequences, from the black and white opening that reinterprets the ending of Frankenstein, to an exciting early showdown with Mr. Hyde (Robbie Coltrane), a thrilling cart chase, and more. Without much character work or drama, Sommers dedicates most of Van Helsing to bombastic, overblown action, but it still comes together in an entertaining enough manner despite the lack of heart or emotion. Further assisting Sommers is composer Alan Silvestri (Back to the Future, Forrest Gump), whose original score bursts with flavour and mood, making the action scenes even more exciting.


Despite Universal's enthusiasm for sequels, and despite the movie leaving room wide open for further adventures, the box office results were underwhelming, prompting the studio to abandon their plans and let the IP rest...until their failed Dark Universe bid over a decade later. Van Helsing is undeniably silly, but it's also spectacular and entertaining, with Sommers again demonstrating his expertise in crafting fun cinematic junk food. Especially in 2024, there are far worse ways to spend two hours and there are far worse blockbusters in existence.

6.7/10

Cheezy, cheap, and charmless BUT Kate Beckinsale brings it all back to what is at least a sometimes watchable movie.

Honestly, I don’t think it was that bad. Indeed, after hearing only bad things about this movie, I had some rather low expectations but, personally, I ended up enjoying most of it. In my opinion, I think most of the viewers missed the point concerning this movie. Indeed, the whole thing is really loud and dumb but it was actually supposed to be that way. Honestly, you are dealing here with a movie about Van Helsing chasing not only Dracula, but also Frankenstein’s Monster and Mr Hyde, I mean, what did you expect then?!? Of course, it was really preposterous, over-the-top and completely campy but I was fine with that. In my opinion, I thought it was rather entertaining and the special effects were pretty neat. I mean, there was definitely an overdose of CGI action stuff but, once again, it fit the tone of the movie itself. Still, don’t misunderstand me, it is not a masterpiece whatsoever, but for a dumb blockbuster, I have seen much worse lately (‘Battleship, ‘Transformers 2’, ‘Transformers 3’,…). I mean, it was one of the first time that I had the feeling that the makers were well aware about how ridiculous the whole thing looked and played nicely with this fact, at least, that’s how I felt while watching this. Anyway, I’m one of the very few who thought so, it was destroyed by the critics, it is quite often considered as one of the worst movies ever made so any plan for a potential sequel was scrapped (maybe it was better anyway to leave it to one movie). To conclude, in my opinion, it is actually a decent and fun blockbuster and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

VAN HELSING O CAÇADOR DE MONSTROS - O Dr. Van Helsing (Hugh Jackman) é um dos principais especialistas em monstros de sua época, no século XIX. Contratado pela Igreja Católica, ele parte para o leste europeu com a missão de eliminar o mais perigoso dos vampiros: o conde Drácula (Richard Roxburgh). Ao seu lado ele terá a ajuda de Anna Valerious (Kate Beckinsale), tendo ainda que enfrentar monstros como o lobisomem (Will Kemp) e Frankenstein (Shuler Hensley).

To say that Van Helsing is an over-bloated CGI-heavy brain-dead popcorn movie is an understatement. A talented cast is completely wasted, obviously phoning it in for paychecks and playing second fiddle to CGI that is rubbery, cheap and been bettered by made-for-TV movies. Too much, too long and too dumb for its own good, Van Helsing aims to be a crowd-pleaser, but plays out like a monster-movie fantasia inside of a thirteen-year-old boy's brain. Except a thirteen-year-old could actually cook up something more entertaining.

The "plot" (as if such a thing existed in this thing) concerns a mash-up of several different monster movie classics. There's three different werewolves (the last of which has to be one of the dumbest plot reveals in history), Frankenstein's monster (oh, now I know how the script was written!), Dracula and his brides, a band of mysterious Catholic monster killers and some Transylvanians who are there to kill Dracula (or something like that). There's even a cameo from a ridiculously huge Mr. Hyde. Imagine the Ang Lee Hulk, but flesh toned and in Victorian garb and you're in the ballpark. What, no room for the Mummy and the Creature from the Black Lagoon? With so many characters to try and balance in the script the writers decided to jettison anything cumbersome like plot and character development or multidimensional personalities. The actors can try all they want, but they're left spinning their wheels in the mud, so to speak.

And let us discuss the poor actors! Hugh Jackman, so leading-man handsome that it's faintly idiotic, is given nothing to work with but a 'mysterious' backstory and some nifty gadgets. Kate Beckinsale unleashes what has to be the world's worst Transylvanian accent in quite some time, and Richard Roxburgh mistakes a hammy glower for an emotion as Dracula. Will Kemp, model-cum-actor, is given nothing to do but appear shirtless and oiled up. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it's a waste of a character.

While there might be some kill set pieces (the brides attack on the village) and character designs (again, the brides - although how they manage to change from nude beasts to wearing flowing fabrics is anyone's guess) and some nicely stark color palettes, there's not much of any real interest here. By the time the film ended I was both completely annoyed, amazed at how stupid it had all been and almost giddily laughing from the camp that is vampire babies bursting from large eggs hanging from a ceiling. Van Helsing probably works best as camp. Or a movie that is rife for a drinking game to be attached to it. All I know is that it was bombastic popcorn filmmaking at its worst.

Van Helsing is a very stupid and pointless mess that wasn't filmed correctly and did pretty much everything wrong. The action scenes were mildly enjoyable. I think the mian reason why I really hated this film was because I'm not a big fan of vampire films. This was a film that I knew that I wasn't going to like very much because it just seems a bit over the top in entertainment but very sloppy regarding acting, direction and script.


What were you thinking, Hugh Jackman? Jackman is a fantastic actor but it's like he lost his balls so to speak to want to be in a film like this. I don't think he chooses very hard at what films to be involved in. A worse actor should have played Van Helsing instead. In a way I'm not that surprised that Kate Beckinsale was in this film. I think her portrayal in Underworld led to Van Helsing. She was very crap as well but she was someone I could laugh at when watching it but watching Hugh Jackman as Van Helsing was horrible because I know he can do a lot better than that.


The directing was absolutely awful! It tries to entertain but doesn't succeed in a great way. It doesn't seem very realistic when it comes to creating an interesting story about vampires. That is why I don't really like vampire films: weak stories and unrealistic characters within them. The only one I sort of liked was Twilight.


Van Helsing is a really awful film that I really didn't like at all. There are very stupid performances from both Hugh Jackman and Kate Beckinsale. Very silly, ridiculous and pointless film that I hated. I don't regret watching it though. I am glad I gave it a try at least.

''My life... my job... my curse... is to vanquish evil.''

The notorious monster hunter is sent to Transylvania to stop Count Dracula who is using Dr. Frankenstein's research and a werewolf for some sinister purpose.

Hugh Jackman: Van Helsing

The Mummy(1999), Stephen Sommers showed us that he could make a film that had quirky characters, plenty of CGI, and was simply witty and humourous. The sequel was a typical overblown similar venture .
The premise for Van Helsing must have seemed brilliant to film houses bosses, take the three biggest horror characters of the 1800's (namely Dracula, the Wolf Man, and Frankenstein's Monster) and blend them all together with a hero who, whilst originally was just a mild-mannered doctor, is now a kick-ass monster hunter. What could possibly go wrong? Well alot actually.

The problem is that Van Helsing seems like a continuation of the Mummy series, just with a different story, location and a new set of players: 2D characters, massive amounts of dodgy CGI, and dollops of fun, mainly from David Wenham's friar. It's yet another step down for the director who, although has proved he's up for plenty of action, cannot put any life into it. Hugh Jackman appears to be the perfect lead for the role of Gabriel Van Helsing, but he never gets the chance to give depth to his character – as soon as he kills one set of baddies, he's off to kill some more. He can handle the action well (but we already knew this from the X-Men films), and could probably handle any real drama that should have been inserted into the film, but the director just doesn't seem to want us to know anything about any of the characters, he just wants to see them fight, which is not enough. I couldn't help but think that if things had been taken a little slower, the film could have been made that much more interesting – less would have been more in this case.

Anna Valerious: Oh, my God! The Frankenstein Monster!
Frankenstein's Monster: Monster! Who's the monster here? I have done nothing wrong, yet you and your kind still wish me dead!

The film was also executed as a horror and action film, and yet there is not one moment that provides a genuine chill or cheap scare, although it is very dark(it's mostly set at night-time) Admittedly some of the action scenes and sets are convincing, and the film does have good production values, but once again it seems the budget has gone towards all the CGI, and not on the script or story. With each film, Sommers seems to include more and more monsters, as if he is trying to outdo his last film in terms of effects. This is a prime example of the "quality not quantity" adage, as the more CGI there is, the less real it looks. The action scenes quickly become repetitive and although start off original and good, end up being a bit of a bore. And really, how many times to we have to see the lead characters swing on a rope in front of a castle? It's just not necessary….

Overall, it's a real shame that the film turned out this way. It really needed to be either a slower horror film, or an action film which did not feel the need to rush through at such a pace that the audience are afraid to blink lest they miss something. Stephen Sommers must learn how to do character development prior to this, action later, if he's going to keep a fan base going, simply relying on visual effects alone, just isn't enough for us anymore.

''Viscous material, what did I tell you!''

Universal Studios had never shown the proper respect for the unforgettable monsters who they helped make famous in the cinemas, to back this fact, we just have to watch the awful encounter between Dracula, the Frankenstein Monster, Bud Abbot and Lou Costello, which happened in 1948, in a long-forgotten film (thankfully). Though, even Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein could be considered a classic if compared to this terrible Van Helsing.

It's amazing though, that the initial sequence of Van Helsing is so promising: in black and white, it pays an homage to the very same films that moments later it will embarass. It brings Dr. Frankenstein yelling: "it's alive!", just like Colin Clive in the 1931 classic with Boris Karloff as the monster; the scene is agile and quite interesting, taking the spectator to believe he's actually going to watch a quality film. Unfortunetely, right after that, the film gets colored and shows us the hero (Hugh Jackman) who's in Paris, to face something that barely resambles Mr. Hyde (voiced by Robbie Coltrane); the special effects are poorely done by the way. From then on, we follow the adventures of Van Helsing, who's appointed by a secret society to destroy Count Dracula (Richard Roxburgh), who's trying to find some way to give life to his thousands of vampire-babies, with the help of some freaky looking Oompa-Loompas. To go on with his task, the main character has the help of Anna Valerious (Kate Beckinsale) and Friar Carl (David Wenham) as the "comic relief".

Trying to get the nice mood that made The Mummy and The Return of the Mummy in relatively fun films to watch, director Stephen Sommers tries self-referential jokes and other attempts of humor that never work the way they are supposed to here. And, always that the film attempts some drama, it ends up causing laughter (like when Dracula says something like 'I'm empty and live forever!' or at the instant that Anna stops an important mission to complain: 'I've never seen the ocean. It must be beautiful.'). Furthermore, Sommers isn't even faithful to his own rules: at one certain moment, for example, a determined objective must be reached 'between the first and the last strokes of midnight', something that the plot simply forgets, since, once the first strike is heard, the last one never seems to come. Going the same way, one of the female vampires has a calm conversation at bright sunlight, though the script tells us at one point that it would be fatal to such creature. And after all that, I don't even want to begin discussing the ANNOYING relationship between Van Helsing and Anna, that follows all imaginable clichés: they fight all the time but ultimately, notice that in fact, they were "made for each other".

As if all that wasn't enough, Sommers' obssession for special effects once again compromises his efforts, since Van Helsing gives and authentic overdose of images created by a computer. I don't know if anybody else think like me, but I think it's simply impossible to cheer or even believe in a character who's magically turned into a digital doll always when action begins (the 'virtual heroes' seen here are even worst than those seen in Dare Devil or Torque. And the same goes for the sets. The sequence we see a chariot going towards the pitt (obviously done through computers) makes as much tension as seeing the Coyote falling o the cliff after once again trying to get the Road Runner. And to make things even worse, the director seems to compensate the lack of inteligence of the film through the sound volume. VERY FEW FILMS CAN BE AS NOISY AS VAN HELSING IS!

In his first main character after being great as Wolverine in X-Men and X-Men 2, Hugh Jackman is an unpleasant surprise here, since he's miles away from his charisma shown in the previous (and subsequent) X-Men films. Kate Beckinsale proves, once again, to be nothing more than a fiest for the male eyes, her accent is more than simply weird, it is bizarre (though it doesn't bother much). And if David Wenham can be the least sympathetic with his characterization of clumsy Friar Carl, the same can't be said about Kevin J. O'Connor, whose Igor isn't nearly as funny as Beni that he played in The Mummy.

But the biggest shame of the film, is in the terrible performance of Richard Roxburgh, he makes one of the worst versions of Dracula ever. Apparentely, he thought he was still on the sets of Moulin Rouge, in which he lived the cartoonish 'Duke' (very well then), the actor adopts exagerated gestures and has a ridicule diction, making his Dracula in a vampire version of Sylvester, the Cat (it's the second time I mention a Looney Tunes character here. Though I love them, I can't help thinking it's not exactly a complement for this film). Though, Roxbugh isn't alone: the three actresses who live Dracula's brides are equally irritating with their abominable gigles and their pathetic facial expressions.

Showing an amazing capability of embarrassig everyone involved in it, the film has also a regretable soundtrack by Alan Silvestri, who even gets to the point of copying the great John Williams (specially in the more 'dramatic' moments).

In spite of all I've said so far, Van Helsing managed to scare me once: when I realized that Stephen Sommers had the intention of repeating what he did in The Mummy and make a series of films starring Hugh Jackman's character. Thankfully the film sunk like a Paris Hilton film in the box-offices and this idea was quickly dropped.

Completely.. This was the movie that made me realise what i fantastic actor Hugh Jackman is, and i love the horror/thriller film that this is. Van Helsing has an all-star cast (I loved how David Wenham was in it) and ofcourse an original story