Back
The rest of the film is basically entirely fake. Although the computer-generated effects are nothing short of amazing, most of them look like a �Shrek-like� character. This wouldn�t be a problem, except the film is mostly live action people. I enjoyed some of what was laid before me. The werewolves are the best example of some-what good special effects. Sometimes they do pass for real.
I have a feeling that this film used much of what the creators of �The Lord of the Rings� used, except these guys just aren�t nearly as talented. I felt something of a lurid shadow that was cast over the film the whole time. It did make for a visual spectacle every now and then, but, as I said, I just couldn�t believe very much of it.
And Stephen Sommers (the director) should know better. He is the man behind the �Mummy� films. The first one was good; the second one wasn�t...at all. One reason I hated the second film so much was because of the sorry excuse for special effects. They were horrible. �Van Helsing� is better, but not by much.
I compare this film to �The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen� that we saw in the summer of last year. I enjoyed that film (even though many, many other people didn�t). �LXG� is better than �Van Helsing� in my book. It was so dumb in some parts, I felt like vomiting. I guess this is mostly because of an idiotic script (also by Sommers), which has some of the worst dialogue that you�re likely to see this year.
As a moviegoer, I understand the concept of larger-than-life. Many of my favorite films have that in there somewhere. But �Van Helsing� just goes too far. I tolerated much of the film.
Definitely not the best film that is going to come out this season, and not a very good way to start off the summer movie fest, �Van Helsing� was, well...okay. And that�s about it. ** �