Comic books are cool. Slaying vampires is even cooler (unless your name is Buffy, Angel, or anything similarly lame). Stephen Sommers made one of the best "summer flick" in recent memory, in the shape of The Mummy. So by that logic, Van Helsing couldn't go wrong, right? Right? Wrong. English has not blessed us with a word that can sum this film up. To say it was terrible would be an insult to truly terrible films, like Titanic. These films aren't even on the same scale, as nothing, and I mean nothing, can be as bad as Van Helsing.
This had the potential to be a great film. Draven-esque style lead character pisses about slaying evil monsters as is his want, dressed in Draven-esque clothes and with a dry wit of similar calibur. But honestly, I just don't know where to start with this bag of crap. What to pull apart first? The director's over-use of flashy CGI techniques? His horribly weak script? His total disregard for vampire folklore? Rubbish character development?
First, I will start by saying that there are experiences less enjoyable than watching this film. Having a cattle prod applied to genitalia, for instance; watching the video of Nick Berg being beheaded; being slowly submerged in liquid nitrogen; going down on Margaret Thatcher; watching a 'Dallas' marathon all rank as less enjoyable than this film. Granted most of them would end a lot quicker, though.
I'm not one for no-brainer movies, but can enjoy them on occasion. Hence I went into this, like many, not wanting to see touchy-feely fakeness, but wanting action, action, action, cinematography, special effects, gothic monsters, werewolves - the whole shebang. I got all this and more, and was left totally empty at the end of it. Not only had they stripped me of my faith in films, but I think they may actually have raped me a couple of times as well. Nothing else could explain the hugely disappointing feeling that I had been screwed when I came out the cinema.
Now, I'm not saying that I wanted to fall in love with the characters, but a connection with them would not have gone amiss. Nope, no worries, there was no chance of that happening in this film, as Stephen Sommers (the director, who from here on deserves to be referred to as 'Cuntface') simply doesn't know how to create realistic characters. He does nothing to develop a relationship between his audience and his characters, leaving the audience feeling as if they just couldn't care what happens to them. Usually, a lead dying in a film can potentially ruin it, but I would not have blinked an eye if Van Helsing had been violently sodomized to death, I just didn't relate to the character on any level. I was secretly praying for him to be killed, actually, just for something to laugh at.
Some will be so brash at to say that you should just sit back and enjoy a film and you shouldn't analyse character development, but that is the whole beauty of a good film. You shouldn't be aware of such things, and when you are, it is usually because it is so glaringly obvious.
Anyone quick to tell me that I shouldn't care about character development, think about Psycho. Few would argue that this is one of the best films of all time. What did we really know about Norman Bates? Nothing, we knew little of his history but as soon as we were introduced to his character, we saw that he was creepy and edgy. As the film progressed, through a series of set pieces and weird going-ons, we began to suspect his motives and behaviour more and more. By the end of the film, we are left with a set-in-stone impression of a complete nutter, all without having to think about it.
Which is the point of character development, it's a gradual thing introduced throughout a film so that the audience doesn't need to search for a connection. Sommers barely has the competence to wipe his own arse (granted that would be hard with a whole human head in the way), never mind anything useful like film/audience relationships.
Film critics that praised Van Helsing hailed it is an enjoyable journey, in which all the characters' plans are tripped up at every turn and you wonder how they will get out of the situation. The problem is, by sticking to this cliched formula of putting obstacles in the path of his leads, Sommers falls into a trap in which he must stick to tired cliches, and so the solutions are as predictable as the situations themselves. Oh, right, Van Helsing is actually a werewolf. What's that you say, the only thing that can kill Dracula is werewolves? That's an ironic coincidence! But I thought vampires were killed by stakes, holy water, and silver? No? Okay, but why can werewolves kill them? What's that you muttered Mr. Sommers? I can't make you out, speak up. It would appear you just don't have an explanation?
And what's this about Frankenstein being related to the Dracula plot? No explanation for that either? No, I didn't think so. But it sounds cool, I'll give you that. So, why wouldn't American audiences lap this junk up?!
One of the questions that I often get asked by people who liked this film is "How can you expect a realistic film when it's about monsters?"
That's the thing though, I'm not looking for a logical explanation, but science fiction and fantasy have to have some shred of realism. One of the best lines in this movie was along the lines of "If you don't electrocute Frankenstein then Dracula's babies will explode!" I wanted to laugh out loud at this, but I didn't want to disturb the enjoyment of the group of retards in front of me. They don't get out much do they, and if they can find enjoyment in this, fair play to them. But that particular line was almost a summary of the sense this movie made.
No-one was looking for uber realism, but some would have been nice. For example, why was the technology so far advanced? This was the 19th century, for crying out loud. The technology was just so far advanced it was not possible for me to suspend belief on the matter. Dracula just happened to know how everything worked, even though he showed no signs of the ability to develop such technology and Dr. Frankenstein (the tech genius) died in the early moments of the movie, thus you would assume he would be helpless. But no, Dracula had no mishaps with the equipments and actually seemed rather at home with them. You half expected him to chase after Van Helsing in a Ford Gran Torino, turning to his sidekick and explaining in Transylvanian tones "Eet eez zee future my friend! I call it...ze auto-mobile!" or to fry his victim's bodies in a 'George Foreman Lean Mean Fat Reducing Grilling Machine'.
Of the many ludicrous scenes in this film, I think my favourite would have to be the scene in which Van Helsing was trying to smuggle Frankenstein's monster out of Transylvania in a horse-drawn cart. Not only did he rightly predict that the vampires would chase after them, but he also managed to muster a plan that went perfectly, in which Frankenstein was actually in another cart, so that his served as a decoy. The cart just happened to tumble down a ravine, Van Helsing somehow managed to live, the vampires (who had caught up at just the right moment after days of journeying) just happened to take the bait and follow it down, realising at the last minute this was indeed the wrong cart, and VH had predicted it so perfectly that he had planted all manner of explosives and silver in the cart, thus they were buggered when the cart hit the ground. All of which is just coincidence.
This also reminds me of the now legendary segment in which a werewolf fell down a ravine, a scene almost directly lifted from the adventures of Wile E. Coyote, complete with little splat noise and comedic ground impact viewed from afar. Genius comedic reference one would assume with any other film - wholly unintentional here, I'll bet.
Anyone who tries to tell you this movie isn't awful is wrong. Not because I'm always right (I am, you know) but just because they are plain stupid. They have to be to like this, and even more so for defending it. Every time I point out that this was far, far too unrealistic, they just come back with this "You shouldn't expect a realistic film it is a vampire movie!" crap, time and time again. Of course, if we're arguing on the internet, they type "iT wAs A VaMpYrE MoViE, Ok, ChILL ALrEaDY D00D!!!11"
Because all the cool kids type in alternate caps, of course. I am fucking tired of this logic. Just because a film has fantasy elements in it, there should be no underlying basis in reality whatsoever? Characters can be underwritten? The acting can be wooden as a box? Because if we are honestly going to stand behind lazy and nonsensical fiction with cries of "It's a fantasy movie!", then I have two words for you. With two words, I am confident I can disspell your entire argument. Okay? Ready? Two words. Here we go.
Star. Wars.
You care about the characters; everything about it was perfect, and even without advanced special effects it still amazed audiences. Some would argue that the effects of old are more endearing than the CGI-heavy bullshit of today - I would be one of them.
If you are moronic enough to find entertainment within the recesses of the guff that is Van Helsing, then fine. But using absurdist logic to support your like of this movie is insulting and ignorant. It is an empty piece of product, and if you find it enjoyable, then good, but if you honestly cannot understand why people have problems with it, then you have no understanding of movies in the first place.
Which brings me to my next point. The CGI. If I had wanted computerized monsters and scenery, I would have rented Van Helsing on the Xbox instead. What is Stephen Sommers fascination with this? Is this his equivalent of Tarantino's feet fetish? At first, it's impressive, but eventually you begin to hate it. I would love to see a "Making Of" of this turd of a film.
Stephen Sommers: Well, for this part we used CGI and didn't bother using real actors. We just CGI-ed them in from previous movie roles, borrowing heavily from Jackman's previous appearance in X-Men and X-Men 2 for a lot of the action scenes. Yeah, haha, funny thing about this scene here (cut to footage from the film)...the interesting thing....is that we actually just used CGI here, believe it or not! Ha! Oh, sorry, this bit as well, that was CGI. This bit too! CGI, CGI, CGI, CGI, CGI. Even the credits, in fact, were CGI. I'm not even doing this interview just now, they're just CGI-ing me in from an interview that was a bonus feature on The Mummy DVD Special Edition. CGI. Yeah, CGI, bitch! CGI! Can you motherfuckers hear me, I said FUCKING C-G-I! CGI, CGI, CGI, it's everywhere, CGI IS TAKING OVER THE WOOOOOORLD (jumps out a window)
Actually, to be fair to Van Helsing, it wasn't too CGI-heavy. I think there may have been a teacup in the corner of the tenth shot in the fourth scene in the background, behind a plant pot that was slightly obscured by a bundle of books with a fish tank in front of them, that wasn't created with CGI, and was indeed real. But the jury is out on that one.
Okay, my last moans, before I go and do something less painful like rub my balls on a cheese grater - characters and dialogue. As we have established, Mr. Sommers relied heavily on cliches. So why not use them throughout? He introduced us to this cunt of a character, whose name I didn't even bother remembering. He was a monk - "no, actually I'm technically a friar!" SHUT THE FUCK UP NO ONE GIVES A TOSS - who we were probably supposed to compare to Q from the Bond movies, a technical whiz-kid, but instead I drew similarities between him and my tosser of a neighbour. They don't have a lot in common, they both just really annoy me.
So anyway, this character was one-dimensional and there for one reason - comic relief. This dumb bitch (as mentioned earlier) kept laughing at his cliched jokes. I hate this when I'm watching a film. People laugh because it's expected of them - it's not a peer pressure thing, it is just force of habit for audiences to laugh at the supposed comedic points. It isn't funny, no matter how many times this fanny shows himself to be a total wimp, I refuse to laugh because it is just a tired idea, and it hasn't been funny since it was originally used in movies.
This was the sort of character that you could just predict his lines. If a monster was to appear, he would be the character that would inevitably turn to Van Helsing and say "Okay, I'll leave you to it then", before running away. He wasn't funny, in fact I didn't even smile once at a single one of his lines. He was just a total dick, about as welcome as a tampon at a lesbian orgy. I can't help but feel if he wasn't in this I may have enjoyed it, but every time his little bastard of a face came on screen, I clenched my fists and with all my strength, tried to force an aneurysm, just to feel the sweet release of death. I just hated him, there is nothing more I have to say on the subject other than the fact I hope the actor contracts syphillis and dies for ever taking on this role.
The dialogue was a big problem with this movie. The lines had about as much meaning to them as Linkin Park lyrics, just bland rubbish trying to make Sommers look cool. The characters in Transylvania were based around two main people, a brother and sister. The brother inevitably died, leaving only her for Van Helsing to team with. What a surprise that it was the girl. Seriously, I was so shocked that the director would make use of a scenario that gave way to a romantic interest. YAWN! Boring!
So with no real reason for it being her that survived and not him, we had no reason to relate to the characters or their bond. It was the typical "You're an arrogant member of the opposite sex, however will we get along? What a mismatched, crazy pair we are!", that inevitably turned into co-operation and eventually romance. Seen it before. A little interesting dialogue could perhaps have picked up the movie at this point, but nope, nothing. Just bullshit lines about what Van Helsing got out of the job of slaying monsters, namely "self-realisation". Oh yeah? Well, what does that mean asshole?
Seriously, what the fuck does 'self-realisation' mean? Does that mean you realise you are yourself, as opposed to the old woman that lives two doors down? Or that you're an asshole? Self-realisation of what exactly, eh? That you picked a stinker of a movie? Go fuck yourself, Van Helsing. Go fuck yourself with a used toilet brush, nobody gives a fuck about your self-realisation. How the fuck do you realise something of any consequence by killing hideous monsters as a living? Nonsensical.
This use of weak dialogue was consistent, so at least that's something Sommers can brag about. While some films may have inconsistent use of weak dialogue, Sommers amazed throughout with his bullshit. When Van Helsing went to the Vatican, for instance, the dialogue was terrible. Sommers would have been as well making this scene a soliloquy. The leader of the operation that Van Helsing was a part of (based in an underground lair underneath the Vatican) started talking at length about what the operation was, about who he was, and about what Van Helsing's role was. We assume from their friendly banter that the two know one another and meet regularly. So why does he explain this to Van Helsing? This is something that VH already knows, and served no purpose other than being a wafer-thin hint at the nature of the operation. Why didn't Sommers just write down details of the group on beermats and make it into a handout for the audience, which would have allowed for him to just get on with the film.
The other cliche Sommers relied on heavily was the "classic" device deployed in horror films. A creepy, eery silence, the character stands all alone with a single torch. A sudden noise. The character moves slightly. RAAAA! Something jumps out and scares the audience. Only I wasn't scared in the slightest, because by the fifth time he had done this, I was a bloody medium. Not only could I predict the next lines, I could predict the entire events of the movie. Hell, by the time the credits were rolling I was guessing names before they were on screen.
At the end of the movie, the woman dies. The entire plot had been based around how her entire line of family had unsuccessfully tried to kill Dracula, as a part of an agreement with God. Until a descendent did, the family couldn't get into Heaven. She was the last descendent, and so if she didn't manage it, the family would be trapped in Purgatory forever. Okay, so Dracula dies, then the woman dies, and at the end Van Helsing and Geekboy (I can't remember his name, the annoying fucker anyway) stand watching her body burn as they cremate her. Now, given that the film has been based around the plight of this family, the audience instantly assumes she will be reunited in Heaven and that the family can now rest in peace. Having stuck to tired cliches the rest of the time, Sommers has no other choice - this is the only feasible ending. So yes, the audience is satisfied to a degree, safe in the knowledge that even though the characters were empty and boring, at least everything was resolved.
But as if to express some deep assumption that Sommers has that his audience are IDIOTS (anyone who enjoyed it is, right enough), he actually goes so far as to have a final scene in which we see THE SKY PARTING AND THE OUTLINE OF HER FACE - DETAILED WITH CLOUDS - RISING HEAVENWARDS UNTIL SHE MEETS THE OUTLINES OF HER FAMILY!
That was it. I fucking lost it at that point. �4.30 wasted on this bag of shit. I was furious. I leapt into the row behind me, grabbed the popcorn from the dumb bitch and dragon-kicked her in the teeth, mangling her braces into something resembling a trainwreck. Her father grabbed at me in a rage, but before he could do anything, I had pulled the cushion off a seat and was beating him over the head with it furiously, resulting in internal bleeding in his head, from which he died. I ran down the stairs of the cinema, pushing children out the road, and dived at the screen. I started ripping it to shreds with my teeth, and was eventually dragged, kicking and screaming, out the cinema.
Little can be added to this that I haven't said already. So I will leave you with a parting thought. While you next contemplate going to the cinema, if you do indeed think of going to see Van Helsing, do by all means. I won't stop you, and it is for you and you alone to discover how bad this film is. What I will do is recommend something that your �5 could be better spent on.
"Hicksville! An Introduction To The Genius Of Bill Hicks". Why should you spend your money on this, and not on Van Helsing? Well, for one thing, there was no CGI used in the making of this. It isn't shite - it is entertaining, unlike VH, which is about as enjoyable as a punch in the nose. While Van Helsing drags on for 132 minutes of your life, this CD will only borrow half an hour, and can leave you feeling ten thousand times more satisfied than Van Helsing could ever hope to. So go on. Don't be a moron. Buy a Bill Hicks CD, and learn that not everything in life has to be a big bag of shite. Buy here. (You should note that I don't care if this link works. It should do, but if it doesn't, tough, I'm not your mother)
And so as my parting words, I would like to invite Hugh Jackman, Stephen Sommers, and indeed anyone involved in the making of this movie to eat my feces. Go on, you know you deserve it. Eat my shit, guys. Eat my shit. I sat through yours, didn't I?