kitty
05-11-2004, 10:31 AM
Van Helsing: A Frankenstein of a Movie
If one were to imagine campiness as a ruler with two extremes, Stephen Sommers, director of The Mummy, The Mummy Returns and Van Helsing, would be in danger of taking a swan-dive right off the edge of excessive. The Mummy was fun, entertaining, and didn't take itself too seriously, creating a summer blockbuster out of a somewhat shaky premise. Fast forward to The Mummy Returns, where Sommers heightened the jokiness, cut out the realism, and generally created a campy comedy that appealed to some while making most groan -- all culminating in a writhingly painful finale, reminiscent of Silver Age comic books, in which the Mummy villain looks up and screams "Whyyyyyy?" at the top of his lungs.
Thankfully dropping The Mummy series, Sommers turned, this year, to Van Helsing, an 'homage' (or perhaps 'hack job'?) of the classic horror films of the past. As in last summer's League of Extraordinary Gentelmen, favourite horror villains make cameo appearances in a storyline that incorporates such lovable characters as Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde, Count Dracula, and Frankenstein. Hugh Jackman (aussie and championship belcher) stars as the immortal hunter of evil, Van Helsing, while Kate Beckinsale plays the seductive Transylvanian gypsy, Anna Valerious, charged with bringing Count Dracula down. David Wenham is Van Helsing's friar sidekick, Carl, the brains of the operation and perhaps the only truly brilliant aspect of the entire film.
In Van Helsing, Sommers' campiness has reached unbearable levels, as one wonders if he thinks he is directing a mainstream film or a B movie. He might argue both -- however, the melodramatic writhing of Dracula's concubines are less homages as they are horrible. Much of the film's over-the-top acting and dialogue cuts right through the realm of funny and lands smack dab in the middle of just plain bad.
But, even if one were to ignore the melodrama, or at least write it off as artistic license, Van Helsing cannot escape the affliction of a sheer lack of a thought-out storyline. Anecdotally, my boyfriend fell asleep during the middle half of the movie, and when he woke up, asked to be filled in on key plot points (such as Van Helsing's origin story and, particularly, why he is immortal). I realized, as I tried to explain these details to him, that my boyfriend hadn't missed a thing; these questions had never been addressed.
Van Helsing, the movie, is like a Frankenstein monster -- a cannibalistic salvaging of existing film classics to form a single entity with lots of physical substance, but with very little going on upstairs. The lack of any real plot helps make it an excellent eye candy piece, and indeed, the CGI and make-up departments for Van Helsing outdid themselves in the creation of the various monsters (though Richard Roxburgh is a little unengaging as Dracula). Sommers creates an enthralling environment for his film, an 18th century world where magic and monsters are as much a reality as the Vampire Hunter D rip-off that Van Helsing's character embodies. Scenes like the Wolfman's transformation, and the carriage chase scene, are visually stunning, and Sommers knows it, including them in most of the trailers. A master at sequels, Sommers seems to know exactly how to milk a cash cow for all it's worth. Van Helsing, not only spawned a video game of the same title -- before the film even debuted -- but the film also concludes with a nearly perfect ending for a follow-up film, with a cliched 'riding off into the sunset'.
Fans who may have seen the original films that Sommers draws upon may appreciate this newest addition to the monster classics genre, however, the rest of the populace tricked into thinking this would be a pop culture blockbuster will be sadly disappointed. While the eye candy cgi effects are satisfying and entertaining, one should not underrate the importance of a good plot. Sommers', unfortunately, committed this critical error, and the result is a painfully horrendous monstrousity of a film, second only to Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen's New York Minute.
If one were to imagine campiness as a ruler with two extremes, Stephen Sommers, director of The Mummy, The Mummy Returns and Van Helsing, would be in danger of taking a swan-dive right off the edge of excessive. The Mummy was fun, entertaining, and didn't take itself too seriously, creating a summer blockbuster out of a somewhat shaky premise. Fast forward to The Mummy Returns, where Sommers heightened the jokiness, cut out the realism, and generally created a campy comedy that appealed to some while making most groan -- all culminating in a writhingly painful finale, reminiscent of Silver Age comic books, in which the Mummy villain looks up and screams "Whyyyyyy?" at the top of his lungs.
Thankfully dropping The Mummy series, Sommers turned, this year, to Van Helsing, an 'homage' (or perhaps 'hack job'?) of the classic horror films of the past. As in last summer's League of Extraordinary Gentelmen, favourite horror villains make cameo appearances in a storyline that incorporates such lovable characters as Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde, Count Dracula, and Frankenstein. Hugh Jackman (aussie and championship belcher) stars as the immortal hunter of evil, Van Helsing, while Kate Beckinsale plays the seductive Transylvanian gypsy, Anna Valerious, charged with bringing Count Dracula down. David Wenham is Van Helsing's friar sidekick, Carl, the brains of the operation and perhaps the only truly brilliant aspect of the entire film.
In Van Helsing, Sommers' campiness has reached unbearable levels, as one wonders if he thinks he is directing a mainstream film or a B movie. He might argue both -- however, the melodramatic writhing of Dracula's concubines are less homages as they are horrible. Much of the film's over-the-top acting and dialogue cuts right through the realm of funny and lands smack dab in the middle of just plain bad.
But, even if one were to ignore the melodrama, or at least write it off as artistic license, Van Helsing cannot escape the affliction of a sheer lack of a thought-out storyline. Anecdotally, my boyfriend fell asleep during the middle half of the movie, and when he woke up, asked to be filled in on key plot points (such as Van Helsing's origin story and, particularly, why he is immortal). I realized, as I tried to explain these details to him, that my boyfriend hadn't missed a thing; these questions had never been addressed.
Van Helsing, the movie, is like a Frankenstein monster -- a cannibalistic salvaging of existing film classics to form a single entity with lots of physical substance, but with very little going on upstairs. The lack of any real plot helps make it an excellent eye candy piece, and indeed, the CGI and make-up departments for Van Helsing outdid themselves in the creation of the various monsters (though Richard Roxburgh is a little unengaging as Dracula). Sommers creates an enthralling environment for his film, an 18th century world where magic and monsters are as much a reality as the Vampire Hunter D rip-off that Van Helsing's character embodies. Scenes like the Wolfman's transformation, and the carriage chase scene, are visually stunning, and Sommers knows it, including them in most of the trailers. A master at sequels, Sommers seems to know exactly how to milk a cash cow for all it's worth. Van Helsing, not only spawned a video game of the same title -- before the film even debuted -- but the film also concludes with a nearly perfect ending for a follow-up film, with a cliched 'riding off into the sunset'.
Fans who may have seen the original films that Sommers draws upon may appreciate this newest addition to the monster classics genre, however, the rest of the populace tricked into thinking this would be a pop culture blockbuster will be sadly disappointed. While the eye candy cgi effects are satisfying and entertaining, one should not underrate the importance of a good plot. Sommers', unfortunately, committed this critical error, and the result is a painfully horrendous monstrousity of a film, second only to Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen's New York Minute.