Rating: 
Summary: Monsters Galore!
Review: "Van Helsing", like "The Day After Tomorrow", is a thrill ride, meant to be fun and not taken seriously. The story starts out with a quick match between Van Helsing and Mr. Hyde, showing us what is typical for a man who hunts down evil monsters who threaten humanity. Van Helsing's next assignment is to stop Count Dracula and his wicked brides, who are hatching a plan to bring their dead offspring to life. Once in Transylvania, Van Helsing meets the beautiful vampire fighter, Anna, whose family must stop the vampires in order to secure their own salvation. Anna has additional problems, once her brother who has aided her in the fight, is turned into a werewolf himself. There are loads of special effects in this film and plenty of monters, such as werewolves, vampires and Frankenstein's monster, to keep anyone who loves old 50's horror movies enthralled. "Van Helsing" falls into the same genre as "The Mummy" and "The Mummy Returns"----a campy, fun, popcorn summer movie. If you are looking for a dark, gory and serious film, this is not for you. But if you want to sit back and have fun, give "Van Helsing" a try. You'll enjoy yourself!
Rating: 
Summary: Not bad as it seem.....
Review: Actually rating should be 3.5 stars. This movie is strictly what is considered as a "popcorn flick". Make sure you check your brain at the door if you wished to enjoy this movie. Since this movie is not reality based, there would be no reason why it should not have a comic book feel to the entire film. The computer graphics did a good job recreating all the classical monsters like the werewolf and if there was any real complaint, that it was too much CGI work. The story was super thin and dialogue was best kept simple as the story - which have Van Helsing going to battle Dracula and his minions. Hugh Jackson does a good job here soldiering on for God and Church against the forces of evil. Kate Beckinsale wasn't too bad and Dave Wenham who was badly miscast in Return of the King was actually pretty good here as a fiar, Brother Carl. While not as good his Mummy movies, I thought the director, Stephen Sommers did well. The ending surprised me a bit but I can feel a sequel coming if this movie make big bucks. Part James Bond, part Indiana Jones and all made up, this may be a good movie to have a party around. It may scared little kids but grown should have fun with it. Don't take it seriously and it should be enjoyable.
Rating:
Summary: Classic Horror Comes of Age
Review: Hugh Jackman takes the title role in this horror / action flick about Vampires, Werewolves and Frankenstein's monster, in an excellent recreation of 1880's Transylvania. I had my doubts as to just how all three legendary monsters would be incorporated into a single story, but the end result is very cleverly handled, written and directed. Making this kind of movie believable should never be the director's aim (considering the subject matter) but making it plausible should be, and one or two minor grumbles aside, Stephen Sommer's has done an excellent job in my opinion. Remaining true to many aspects of the original horror flicks of the 30's, but bringing a 21st century flavor, with some magnificent set design, and truly suspenseful sequences all add to the feel of the picture. The acting performances are strong, not only from Jackman, whose character is given a mysterious edge almost as strange as his quarry, but also Richard Roxburgh who is deliciously evil as the malevolent Count, and Kate Beckinsale as the heroine. Some clever comic relief from David Wenham as the knowledgeable bookworm friar, who accompanies Van Helsing on his mission, blends well with a very fast paced, and action packed story, and all the other performances are better than average. At 2hr and 25minutes this is not a short picture, but races along at such a speed, the viewer could be forgiven for thinking it was about 90 minutes. Some scary moments, and even scarier monsters (albeit CGI) ensure the R rating, but otherwise this is NOT a blood fest, or overly gory horror picture, and constantly remains faithful to the fantastical elements of the classic horror genre. I quickly forgave the unlikely portrayal of the hero's being able to take unbelievable physical punishment, and liked but felt the 007 style equipment lab a little misplaced at the beginning of the picture. These two minor points aside, this is a thoroughly enjoyable and entertaining movie. I gave it 5 stars as I couldn't give it 4.5. Great Fun!
Rating:
Summary: It's cool.. if you like all that stuff of vampires
Review: i think thats is a great movie. the people who likes to see movies like "queen of the damned" and that kind of stuff you will love it but isn't similar. when i saw it i fell in love with that movie. but you have to watch it and understand it.
Rating: 
Summary: dont buy
Review: I was worried about this movie from the beginning. I like Hugh Jackman but this movie hopefully wont dent his career. The story was abysmal. It was too thread bare and had too many things that were trying to be part of the story. If the writer had used only the vampires it might have been ok. I have a belief that special effects should enhance a movie(like the lord of the Rings) but not overpower it. Money should have been saved on special effects to have a real writer do the story. The guy playing the vampire was awful. You think with the budget someone could have hired a real actor. Anyway if you must see this rent it.
Rating:
Summary: Not as bad as I thought it would be...
Review: Stephen Sommers must really love Raiders of the Lost Ark - he keeps remaking it; first as The Mummy, then as The Mummy Returns, and now as Van Helsing. Perhaps the reason I liked this movie is that my expectations were so low - I'd been hearing negative feedback for weeks. But what sold me is this movie is a love letter to Classic Age of Universal Monster Movies. The plot of this film is no more silly than that of Frankenstein vs. the Wolf Man, say. Frankly, I think Sommers has ONLY seen those movies - everything in this film is reminiscent of them: Frankenstein in the windmill, Dracula's Bela Lugosi accent. The main character is named Gabriel Van Helsing - either to distinguish him from Bram Stoker's Abraham Van Helsing, or Sommers just didn't know what his first name really was. In actuality, this is an "alternate universe" story - the Frankenstein and Dracula have nothing to do with Mary Shelley or Bram Stoker...or history, for that matter. This is essentially a James Bond film. Van Helsing works for the Catholic Secret Service, going around the world, killing monsters. The funny thing is, Hugh Jackman is basically playing Wolverine from X-Men all over again: he is an immortal super-hero who can't remember his past. Sound familiar? Watch the movie, the comparisons grow. I enjoyed this movie for the art direction and the atmosphere. Let's face it, no matter how many times filmmakers want to take us inside Castle Dracula, I'll be there to go with them. The story is pure shlock, but that doesn't matter. The whole film seems to be a promo for the Van Helsing Ride coming to a Universal Theme Park near you! However, I mind mindless action movies less lately. Screenplay writing is a dead art and if I'm going to sit through a banal script, I better be watching something visually interesting.
Rating: 
Summary: Not what I was expecting...
Review: The previews really hyped me up for what I thought was going to be this summer's blockbuster hit, similar in scope to the "X-Men" franchise. Essentially what was given was "The Mummy", but set in Transylvania with Dracula as the main villain as opposed to the mummy. You could pretty much trade the heroes and not see much of a difference in character, and like "The Mummy", "Van Helsing" was filled with great action scenes, cheesy lines and numerous plot holes. I think the one that killed me (warning: SPOILER AHEAD!) was the whole Gabriel reference. So was Van Helsing actually and arch angel reborn near the end of the 19th Century? Unfortunately, the movie ends while leaving this question unanswered/unexplained, so I'm sure a sequel will be in the works. I honestly far preferred the Van Helsing described in "Bram Stoker's Dracula", a learned scholar who hunted the undead as opposed to an unknowing, brawny adventurer who doesn't know the first thing about vampires.
The special effects were great, mixing in the familiar cheesiness with in-your-face CGI, thus making it one of the movie's strong points. I was impressed by the werewolf transformation, but I have to admit that the death of Dracula was severely lacking.
To sum it up, see this movie for what it is: cheesy, loud, high action that won't make you think, and you won't be disappointed.
Rating:
Summary: An Old Fashioned Film.
Review: The summer 2004 movie season officially got underway with the release of VAN HELSING. The movie was written by Stephen Sommers (THE MUMMY and THE MUMMY RETURNS). The film stars Hugh Jackman (X-MEN, X2) as Van Helsing, the famed literary vampire hunter who killed Count Dracula. Unlike the usual interpretations of the character, Jackman's Van Helsing isn't an aging scholar fighting his last battle. Instead, this incarnation of Van Helsing presents the character as a 19th century James Bond crossed with the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, who is employed by the Vatican as a secret agent to ward off the forces of evil. After the movie's introductory episode with Mr. Hyde atop Notre Dame in Pris, Van Helsing returns to Vatican City. His superiors send him to Trannsylvania, Count Dracula's hunting grounds. For half a century Dracula has been living in a symbiotic relationship with the villagers. But Dracula has begun killing more and the village is under siege by werewolves. Dracula is up to something big and only Van Helsing can stop him. VAN HELSING is full of plot holes, many of the characters lack development, and there is some really corny dialogue. However, the movie has some amazing special effects and provides some very interesting interpretations of literary and movie characters (I especially enjoyed the representation of Frankenstein). The movie isn't meant to be a deep piece of cinema. It's a movie that does what movies have done since they were first invented: entertain and excite. VAN HELSING is a great piece of mind candy to chew on.
Rating:
Summary: Helsing is HELLISH
Review: This is probably one of the greatest action films of all time. With all of your favorite characters such as Frankenstein, Dracula, Wolfman, and Mr. Hyde, this movie is a blast. Van Helsing is a monster killer packed with the most advanced weapons of his time. I guarentee that you will enjoy watching Helsing match all of you favorite monsters and I urge you to rent it. It will be worth the money.
Rating:
Summary: A very corny, extremely enjoyable film.
Review: This movie is very silly. Laughable even, as it at no point avoids cliche, and is utterly stupid sometimes. (Kate Beckinsale's Transylvanian accent for example.) But it's a lot of fun. So much fun that it would be a shame not to see it in the theater. And I'm going to go see it again. It is a very visual movie; one incredible affect after another.
It starts with a black and white Monster of Frankenstien scene; he comes to life, carries dead Victor (used to be Henry) Frankenstein out of the castle, get's burnt in a windmill. You know the drill. But Dracula, and his 3 half disgusting swisscheese-like bats who are sometimes beutiful women with flowing dresses, do not. They are understandably upset, as of course, it takes the Monster's undead energy to bring back all their disgusting offspring for more then half an hour. You see, they usually explode very soon after.
One year later, a digital card says, and Van Helsing is in paris fighting Mr. Hyde in the Cathedral of Notre Dame. You know that Hyde is digital, nothing real could be that size and do what he does, but he is INCREDIBLY real looking. Then Van Helsing get's a side-kick. bla-bla-bla, goes to Transylvania, Were-wolves, Vampires, Frankenstien, Were-Wolves killing vampires, all sorts of stuff.
It makes less sense then a broken fragrance candle, but it is visually stunning, and its constant action is exilerating. Especially a coach chase, a masquerade ball, the Hyde fight, and the final climactic battle to the death. If it makes its some 150 million dollar budget (probably will), there may just be a sequel, and this makes me VERY happy.
Stephen Summers has indeed repeated the popcorn munching success of "The Mummy", with less humor, but way more of those jaw-dropping effects. Go to see it in the theater while you still can. It would suck to miss it.
|
