ScoobyWell
Great visuals, story delivers no surprises
ChanFamous
I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.
Kinley
This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows
TronkyLizard
God i hate the cgi in this. It is some of the worst stuff ive seen, comepletely takes me off the mood to see hugh jackman clearly walking on a green screen. What brings me back in? The film doesnt care. And its proud of itself. My god! So damn proud its adorable.Not only that, but the film doesnt take itself seriously at all!! It takes tropes and characters and creates this mish mash that is both generic and yet full of passion and excitement. The main villain is camp incarnate, he gives such a delisiously entertaining ridiculous evil he stole the scene everytime. It just has personality, behind the 2000's aesthetic, generic plot youve seen a hundred times, and cgi that look like playstation 2 graphics, is a soul that just wants u to have fun. Im glad to have given this one a second chance.
jonahcybarra-82318
Ever since Bela Lugosi, Lon Chaney Jr., and Boris Karloff graced the silver screen, audiences have loved to be scared of mythical monsters such as Dracula, the Wolfman, and Frankenstein respectively. Van Helsing is a great throwback to the campiness of those film yet it fails to capture the fear those films instilled in their audience. I will admit that I am biased towards this film because of its subject material and due to its sporting of Hugh Jackman as the legendary vampire hunter Van Helsing. When Universal Studios attempted to start their Dark Universe first with Dracula: Untold and then The Mummy, they failed miserably because both films simply took themselves too seriously while still not calling themselves horror. Van Helsing doesn't sport this problem and is a better movie because of it. My two biggest issues with the film is that at times it feels disjointed as though it is trying to fit too much into the story and the CGI is very spotty, sometimes appearing to be decent for the time and others making it obvious where they spent their special effects budget. Hugh Jackman does a decent job of acting however this was apparently before he got his accent under control. Kate Beckinsale does the best job out of everyone in the film, showing off her emotional range as an actress as well as her skills with an accent. Dracula, played by Richard Roxburgh, is a passable interpretation of the infamous Count, however he is never scary through the entirety of the film. Dracula's three brides are all very over the top with their acting and more annoying then anything, as is the over-the-top performance of Shuler Hensley as Frankenstein's Monster. Rounding out the case is Friar Carl, played by David Wenham, who's main purpose is for comedic relief and story exposition. This movie is by no mean's a good movie, hence my two and a half star rating, however despite its faults it is a fun film for any occasion with a nostalgic callback to some of my favorite monster movies.
djs-specs
If you're after high art, or even much of a plot, this isn't the movie for you. Its silly to the point of being utterly ridiculous at points, and the CGI does NOT stand the test of time. But it really is worth watching just to see Richard Roxburgh - a truly talented actor - almost literally chew on the scenery playing Dracula.
bradleygranz
Van helsing is great action it a great fight scenes awesome ending fight werewolf vs vampire
