I recently saw the first 20 or so minutes of Van Helsing. And I was disappointed.
I was at the video store, and they were out of Jurassic Park
And I tried to enjoy it. Honest.Now first off; there definitely are some things I like about this movie: As I said, I do like the concept. And the black and white opening with Frankenstein put a smile on my face that lasted up until Dracula showed up (more on that later). Actually, Frankenstein’s monster was the best part of the movie that I saw. I love his steampunk design. Actually I loved all the steampunk stuff. I really want that crossbow!
Another thing I liked was the werewolf. That is one kickass creature design!
But the negatives overwhelm the positives: I really dislike the portrayal of Mr. Hyde. Why do they always have to make him big and monstrous? The character in Robert Louis Stevenson’s novel was a much more subtle and powerful character, but since he’s only in the movie for a few minutes; I guess there really isn’t much time to explore him. Still, the whole sequence seemed like a rip-off of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: Volume One.
Oh, and what was up with the cigars? He leaves a cigar at the scene of his crime? At first I thought it was a broken stick and I was like “Oh, cool! A reference to the book!” (Remember how in the book he leaves a broken stick at the scene of Sir Danvers Carew’s murder?) But, no. It was a cigar. Now there’s nothing unusual about a Victorian Englishmen smoking cigars, but he even eats a cigar at one point! Is there some significance to this that I’m missing, or am I just over-thinking it?
But the worst part of this movie is the vampires. Oh, the vampires. If not for the existence of Twilight, this would be the worst portrayal of vampires I have ever seen. Their costumes are lame, their acting is lame, their designs are lame... Actually the lame costumes go for much of the cast. They look like cheap Halloween costumes. Dracula even has a cheap Halloween accent. I can honestly say this is the worst portrayal of Dracula I have ever seen. It’s like Richard Roxburgh was paying so much attention to his phony accent that he forgot to be scary. The vampires in Bram Stoker’s original novel are intimidating in a more subtle slip-into-your-room-like-a-shadow sort of way, not in a swoop-down-and-grab-cows kind of way. There is nothing subtle about these vampires, and as a result; they’re not very intimidating. They’re just so over the top that they’re goofy. Even the feral screeching/cackling noises they make in their “true forms” are lame! I could do better noises than that, and I'm not even getting paid for crying out loud!
Actually, I’m annoyed by the fact that this movie is even called Van Helsing. If you give a movie the name of a classic literary character, the movie had better be about that character. Otherwise you’re only going to cause confusion. If you made a movie called Sherlock Holmes that had nothing to do with the character we all know, everyone would cry fowl. But since Van Helsing is a relatively obscure character, the illiterate people of this generation will always associate the name with this movie, rather than the character from Bram Stoker’s Dracula.
So, anyway, I’m 20 or so minutes in, and my dad says “is this really worth watching?” and I think “No. No it isn’t.”
So, yeah. Good concept, but poorly executed. Brilliant ideas should be explored by brilliant people. Someone like Tim Burton or Joss Whedon. I think it would be a lot better if there was more respect for the source material, and if the writers delved more into the history and mythology of these characters. It just seems so cheep and thrown together. Since this is a monster movie, I was expecting something a bit cheesy, but more like the tasteful Doctor Who kind of cheesy, not the embarrassing to watch kind. I guess what I was really expecting was one of those ultimate geeky nostalgic crossovers (something like Avengers with monsters) and maybe that was expecting too much.
I don't know. Maybe I’m just being a dork.
I still want that crossbow.
