“Van Helsing” as lifeless as a zombie

It wasn’t supposed to happen this way! “Van Helsing” was supposed to be the movie that kicks off this year’s summer blockbuster season, and it was supposed to be fun, and we were all supposed to love it and hope for a sequel two years from now. Instead, it turns out to be a standard brainless action movie, not a speck of originality to its name.

Bram Stoker told us that Dr. Abraham Van Helsing was a brave, yet humble man, knowledgeable in science but governed by religion. A true hero. It’s only too bad that the titular Van Helsing of this movie isn’t Abraham, but Gabriel (Hugh Jackman), who had the unfortunate luck to be an action hero several years before the action movie was born. His latest mission is to aid Anna Valerious (Kate Beckinsdale), whose bloodline has been bound by an oath to destroy Count Dracula (Richard Roxburgh). But of course, it’s not enough just to kill Dracula on general principle; he has an evil plot as well. He plans to unleash thousands of his offspring upon an unsuspecting world, but he needs Frankenstein’s Monster (Shuler Hensley) and the Wolf Man to do it.

Hollywood must have some damn talented editors working on its payroll, because how else could they make a boring piece of tripe like “Van Helsing” appear so exciting in the trailers? Dracula seemed genuinely sinister, the Wolf Man made my pulse jump, and Van Helsing looked like just the man to put all of these creatures at bay. But in the end product, the Count is an over-actor who gnashes his teeth at every opportunity, the Wolf Man is nothing but furry, fake-looking CGI, and Van Helsing is stuck in the middle as a run-of the-mill hero.

I admit there’s definitely some silly pleasure to be had watching tussles between Dracula, the Wolf Man, and Frankenstein’s Monster—epic battles that the characters’ creators could have never imagined. It’s sheer delight just thinking about it. But that’s why Universal made those kinds of crossover movies over 60 years ago, so there’s no real reason to resurrect the idea, especially since it was done a lot better back then.

When Van Helsing is battling those monsters of yore, there’s a little fun to be had; it’s hard to turn down silver bullet-slinging action. In fact, the first few sequences have great little moments that are undoubtedly exciting. But the viewer soon realizes that action is essentially recycled from older, better action movies. Excitement quickly degenerates into loud, “when-is-this-going-to-end” groans.

However, the real problem lies within the hero himself. Van Helsing is little more than an empty, gun-toting shell of a character, utterly disposable and easily replaceable. He fancies himself a cross between Indiana Jones and James Bond, but he has neither the intuitive humor of the former, nor the suave intelligence of the latter. At least he wears a cool hat.

I realize there is a necessity to shut off your brain during movies like this, and I accept and embrace that concept. Director Stephen Sommers is talented at making such action films—his “Mummy” movies were perfect examples of mindless fun. But here, he pushes the limit of what a reasonable person can ignore, and pushes the movie right off a cliff. You can compare “Van Helsing” to Frankenstein’s Monster, sewn together from pieces of other movies, brought to artificial life to become a cruel parody of entertainment.