Van Helsing (2004)
Here you have a film directed by the guy that gave us the highly entertaining 'The Mummy'-films (starring Brendan Fraser) and it is poised to bring action adventure to the screen whilst pitting some of the most famous monsters ever against one another. What could possibly go wrong?
Several things, as it turns out.
At its core, the story is a lot of fun. Turn professor Van Helsing into a one man army whose sole purpose is to hunt down and destroy the monsters that plague humanity. Give him some James Bond-esque gadgets and some quick wit and Bob's your uncle. Not only that, but since the heyday of Universal there hasn't really been such a massive pairing of monsters as the Wolf-Man, Frankenstein's monster and vampires (except of course the highly underrated 'The Monster Squad'). Seriously, how could this fail?
But it did and does.
First, the good news. The casting of our main characters is spot on. Get Hugh Jackman to play Van Helsing? Sure thing. I mean, the guy oozes charisma and this sort of role is almost what he was born to do. True, on occasion he does veer a little too close to his portrayal of Wolverine in the X-Men franchise, but that is but a minor thing. Kate Beckinsale is also great as the Transylvanian princess Anna. She isn't a damsel purely in distress, and on occasion she kicks more backside than Van Helsing does. Sure, at a certain point they hamfistedly try to insert some sort of love interest between the two that doesn't really make sense, but besides that, they work well off each other and are clearly equals in every way.
On a minor note: both Jackman and Beckinsale look incredibly hot in their respective outfits. That might be considered a shallow comment, but hey. Bite me. (fitting for a film containing vampires)
As an adventure romp, this could have worked, but the main problem is the incredibly uneven acting of most of the supporting cast. Dracula's Brides are just silly and overact considerably. David Wenham as the comic relief/sidekick is annoying as hell as well. The guy playing Frankenstein's monster tries his best, but he feels a little stale.
Also, what kind of horrible accent did they give Alun Armstrong as the Cardinal? If that's supposed to be Italian English, then I'm Napoleon Bonaparte. It's so distracting.
But my biggest problem bar none with this entire film is Richard Roxburgh as Dracula. Some actors overdo it and chew the scenery, but he not only chews it to bits, he also swallows it whole, shits it out and then chews through it yet again. I mean, what the actual fudge? It's as if director Stephen Sommers just told him to go big and never once reigned him in.
Now there's nothing really wrong with a 'bad guy' slightly going over the top. As a bad guy you can get away with quite a lot of pathos. But this is Count Zartharn-levels of overacting.
If you didn't get that last reference, do no fret. You will one day. If you do: congratulations and I owe you a beer or another beverage of your choosing.
Don't get me started on his accent that flies all over the place, or the fact that even the smallest of reactions gets cranked up to eleven. He is incredibly annoying and I don't know why anyone allowed him to go this much overboard.
The CG hasn't aged particularly well, either. The design of the werewolves is actually fairly cool and the transformation is well done, but the vampires look like crap and some of the matte shots are flatter than a flattened piece of paper on a completely flat surface.
The last thing that gets up my nostrils is the fact that they have a good female lead and they unceremoniously kill her off at the end. Why? No, seriously: why? What was the point? Trying to make Van Helsing a more tragic figure? No need. Couldn't take a strong female to survive because she's not constantly in need of rescuing? What was it? WHAT? What on Earth could have spurred on such an asinine choice?
And don't give me that: "but now her whole family is happy in heaven"-tripe, either. I just don't buy it.
'Van Helsing' really isn't a good film by any stretch. But it can be a lot of fun with friends. If you're all drunk. And holler at the screen.
First, the good news. The casting of our main characters is spot on. Get Hugh Jackman to play Van Helsing? Sure thing. I mean, the guy oozes charisma and this sort of role is almost what he was born to do. True, on occasion he does veer a little too close to his portrayal of Wolverine in the X-Men franchise, but that is but a minor thing. Kate Beckinsale is also great as the Transylvanian princess Anna. She isn't a damsel purely in distress, and on occasion she kicks more backside than Van Helsing does. Sure, at a certain point they hamfistedly try to insert some sort of love interest between the two that doesn't really make sense, but besides that, they work well off each other and are clearly equals in every way.
On a minor note: both Jackman and Beckinsale look incredibly hot in their respective outfits. That might be considered a shallow comment, but hey. Bite me. (fitting for a film containing vampires)
As an adventure romp, this could have worked, but the main problem is the incredibly uneven acting of most of the supporting cast. Dracula's Brides are just silly and overact considerably. David Wenham as the comic relief/sidekick is annoying as hell as well. The guy playing Frankenstein's monster tries his best, but he feels a little stale.
Also, what kind of horrible accent did they give Alun Armstrong as the Cardinal? If that's supposed to be Italian English, then I'm Napoleon Bonaparte. It's so distracting.
But my biggest problem bar none with this entire film is Richard Roxburgh as Dracula. Some actors overdo it and chew the scenery, but he not only chews it to bits, he also swallows it whole, shits it out and then chews through it yet again. I mean, what the actual fudge? It's as if director Stephen Sommers just told him to go big and never once reigned him in.
Now there's nothing really wrong with a 'bad guy' slightly going over the top. As a bad guy you can get away with quite a lot of pathos. But this is Count Zartharn-levels of overacting.
If you didn't get that last reference, do no fret. You will one day. If you do: congratulations and I owe you a beer or another beverage of your choosing.
Don't get me started on his accent that flies all over the place, or the fact that even the smallest of reactions gets cranked up to eleven. He is incredibly annoying and I don't know why anyone allowed him to go this much overboard.
The CG hasn't aged particularly well, either. The design of the werewolves is actually fairly cool and the transformation is well done, but the vampires look like crap and some of the matte shots are flatter than a flattened piece of paper on a completely flat surface.
The last thing that gets up my nostrils is the fact that they have a good female lead and they unceremoniously kill her off at the end. Why? No, seriously: why? What was the point? Trying to make Van Helsing a more tragic figure? No need. Couldn't take a strong female to survive because she's not constantly in need of rescuing? What was it? WHAT? What on Earth could have spurred on such an asinine choice?
And don't give me that: "but now her whole family is happy in heaven"-tripe, either. I just don't buy it.
'Van Helsing' really isn't a good film by any stretch. But it can be a lot of fun with friends. If you're all drunk. And holler at the screen.
Reacties
Een reactie posten