| |
|||
 |
|||
|
|||
| |
Van Helsing
As I sit down to write this review, I am still unsure how my opinion of Van Helsing will fare. There are two possible directions that I could approach this movie. One is favorable, and one is not-so-favorable. It is all, I suppose, a matter of the perspective that I wish to embrace. If you have already observed the number of stars that I chose to reward the film, you already know my ultimate decision; however, as I presently write these words, I am undecided, though I am confidant that if I lay both sides out on the table and weigh them, I will reach an acceptable verdict. All this to say, keep reading if you want to know the workings of this film critic's brain. On one hand, Stephen Sommer's Van Helsing can be viewed as an effective tribute to the golden-age era of Universal Picture's monster movies. Those low-budget, B-level films started out exceptionally with genuinely creepy, dignified classics like Frankenstein, Dracula (both 1931) and The Wolfman (1941). Soon, as the sequels progressed and the box office receipts kept rolling in, Universal decided to save money by combining all of the above monsters into follow-ups which included all of three of these cinematic demons in over-the-top, royal rumbles. With titles like Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman and Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein, these films were low on imagination and budget but high in spirit and atmosphere. With obviously cardboard scenery, painfully fake accents, and over-the-top acting, these matinee-flicks were of course ludicrous, but they were certainly a whole lot of fun. As I watched Van Helsing, I could not help but realize that had Universal possessed the big budgets and special effects in the 1940s that they do today, and had the Indiana Jones films already existed in that era from which to draw additional inspiration, then Sommer's film is exactly the type of weird, zany hybrid that would have been made. It is the type of film that exists so that Hugh Jackman can look extremely cool in leather and blast away at flying vampires with his semi-automatic crossbow while steering a burning carriage over a shaky bridge. It is the type of film in which Transylvania is resident to Count Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, and no less than three Wolf-mans, all of whom are at odds with each other. It is the type of film in which every character, including the protagonist and the abovementioned antagonists, speak with accents so painfully fake that they somehow manage to sound Russian, German, Austrian, and Mexican all at the same time. It is the type of film in which the visually eye-popping action sequences never let up, even to breathe a little life into its routine, one-dimensional characters. As a big-budget tribute to B-grade horror flicks, Van Helsing does no wrong, and I could happily award it three or even three-and-a-half stars. It is action-packed with stirring special effects and cinematography that perfectly capture and update the atmosphere that these older films replicated. Yet I find myself giving pause and not passing a favorable verdict so quickly. Yes, this film is an effective tribute, but what if I wanted more? What if I wanted at least one memorable character, or one really good line of dialogue, or one engaging plot point that wasn't recycled from countless other films? Is it easy to forgive this movie's faults with a throwaway conclusion like, "It's an effective tribute to older, flawed, but fun films," but shouldn't these modern filmmakers have taken it upon themselves to improve on these old films instead of merely updating them? They obviously didn't think so, and as a result, for all of the film's special effects, it comes across as lazy filmmaking: As a horror movie, Van Helsing is uninspired and routine. As an adventure movie, it is action-packed to the point of mind-numbing. As a comedy, it never reaches the level of maturity in its laughs that Young Frankenstein reached. Even laughs to the cartoonish level of Monster Squad would have been fine, but Van Helsing doesn't even contain that much aspiration. To be a tribute, a film must work something like a spoof. It must show that it respects and understand that film to which it pays homage. It should also leave the viewer with a greater respect and appreciation for the film that it tries to replicate, while at the same time spinning its predecessor's themes and ideas into new directions. Van Helsing doesn't do any of this. It is so loud and busy, with a plot so complicated yet somehow redundant and contradictory, that it only reminds us of the 1940 monster mashes without leaving us inspired to watch them again. It is therefore not a tribute but a merely a modern-day copycat. But there are so many things to like about this movie. The set designs, the re-imagined looks of the monsters, the exciting action sequences. Yes, I was awed by the spectacle of Dracula's masquerade ball. Yes, I grinned ear to ear as Van Helsing spun about Notre Dame like a Victorian Batman. Yes, Frankenstein's Monster has never looked cooler. But when I can quote every line of dialogue before they are spoken and guess every plot twist before they occur, I find myself wishing for a screenplay and a story with as much intelligence as the set-design. I suppose one thing I cannot do is review the film as I wished it had been made. I know that I must be fair and instead rate it on the level of the vision of the filmmakers. Nevertheless, as I reflect upon the classic Gothic/Victorian horror novels from which these classic monsters originally came from, I cannot help but wonder what it might have been like if Van Helsing had faced off with the rich literary characters that inspired their Hollywood counterparts. The cold, calculative vampire of Bram Stoker's Dracula, a handsome creature of few words and immense action. The manipulative fiend of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, who is capable of murdering innocents and then using his poetic words to gain sympathy and manipulate his maker's will. The haunted, passionate nobleman of G.W.M. Reynold's Wagner, The Wehr-Wolf, who greedily accepted riches, wisdom, and power in exchange for the curse of lycanthrope. What challenges might Van Helsing have faced if he had faced these intelligent demons of nineteenth century writing? I can only speculate on this question, as the monsters that he faces in this film are certainly in the tradition of the Universal Studios interpretations. Dracula speaks almost completely in one-liners and is not scary. Frankenstein lumbers with limited intelligence and is, as usual in these contrived Hollywood plots that don't know what to do with him, given a more heroic role. The Wolfman doesn't do much but lick his lips and look ferocious. These conventions were the way that it had to be, I suppose, for a film lacking in storytelling inspiration. Still, I remember that these monsters were at least scary in the B-movies of the 1940s. Here they seem so unthreatening that I wondered why Transylvania was such a scary place to live at all. It's really no worse than New York City during rush hour, except cars hit you faster than the vampires can swoop down and carry you away. Perhaps after sixty years, the monsters needed a greater edge than simply physical upgrades: Perhaps they needed smarter writers. In the end, while a film like James Whales' original, 1931 Frankenstein would merit four stars, I could only grant the likes of Frankenstein Meet the Wolfman around two-and-a-half. As Van Helsing is somewhere in the range of the latter, I can't give it any more than that, and will even reward it less on the grounds that Stephen Sommers and his colleagues should have known better and made a far more intelligent film. Still, I reject this movie with a wink to my readers: If you loved Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman, you will go hog-wild over Van Helsing. Those readers know who they are. Cast: A Universal Pictures release.
Written and directed by Stephen Sommers. Rated PG-13, for wall-to-wall
action, scary sequences, violence, and some scantily-dressed vampire
brides. Running time: 132 minutes. Original United States theatrical
release date: May 7, 2004. Questions? Comments? E-mail me: danel_the_tinman@hotmail.com |
||
