Van Helsing is the first big budget blockbuster to cross our screen for this season's summer flicks. It's expensive and flashing, boasting a great cast and promising to thrill millions. It follows in the same footsteps as Spider-Man in 2002 and X2: X-Men United in 2003. Studios set it up to gear up the audiences for this summer's massive movie lineup. But did it fail?

Van Helsing is the tale of a man chosen by God and the Vatican to destroy all the unholy entities that roam the streets of Europe. Not surprisingly, all of these unholy entities are characters from Romantic/Victorian literature, which is where Van Helsing came from. In this particular tale, Van Helsing must destroy Dracula and meets many a strange creature in the process. We learn about werewolves and vampire offspring as well as Frankenstein's monster. There is love and intrigue and, of course, some comedy. Originally meant to be the sequel to Bram Stoker's Dracula, this film rises up from the ashes of a world-weary tale and creates a new super hero who will save us from the creations of mad men and demons. Thank goodness Anthony Hopkins did not reprise his role, else we would never have what we do.

The CGI is spectacular, the casting is choice, and the only scene lacking is the very end. Captive Audience Productions has done a stellar job creating the werewolves and vampires, and, dare I say, Frankenstein's monster. The integration was such that the characters were believably real without being too over the top. Of course, there were a few instances where the CGI quality fell through, but overall, it was a great leap for the CGI department. Every year they are making greater and greater advances and the films are becoming more impressive, yet fans are still rebelling against this advance in on-screen technology. But without CGI how would you show the amazing transformation effect of the werewolf when he tears off his skin to reveal his fur and his fur falling off to reveal skin? It's an amazing sight that could hardly have been duplicated without this advancement.

Speaking of werewolves and skin. The adaptation of the stories is very pleasing. Personally, I love the story of Frankenstein's monster and it is always wonderful to see a new adaptation or twist. I have heard from a little bird that many members of the audience did not like these "corruptions" of the text. And to you I say "BAH!" Where would monster movies be without corruption of the text? Abbott and Castello meet Frankenstein? Besides, the film never boasts that it is an adaptation, and to go even farther, there is no official text to base Van Helsing on aside from the character of Abraham Van Helsing in Bram Stoker's Dracula, who is a far different creature to be sure. The blending of these famous horror characters is respectable and allow the overlapping of their stories to be plausible if not exactly probable. Considering Stoker and Mary Shelley knew each other and there is no official source text for werewolves, but a long history of vampires and werewolves, I felt the stories were woven together in a way that made everything fit very nicely. Sure Underworld dealt with the rivalry between vampires and werewolves, but Van Helsing does not do only that. It furthers the myths about the relationship between vampires and werewolves and is only harkening back to classic mythos.

While the writing was somewhat sub par and very action-flick oriented, the cast still turned up aces. Fears that Hugh Jackman and Richard Roxburgh would carry with them their past film luggage were put aside when all you can see before you is the characters they are portraying. It was only fitting to have Jackman be Wolverine in X2 and have him be a werewolf in this film. Actually, I felt he did an even better job as Van Helsing and he shed his wolverine skin easily. It was enjoyable watching him on the screen for two hours and I was not cringing from his over-abrasive nature that can be seen in his character in X-Men.

Roxburgh, while not over the top, embodied enough of the Dracula charm to make him believable. He was no sniveling Duke, but a magical Count who has all the right moves and knows all the right things to say to bring his means to an end to life.

Kate Beckinsale also played a pivotal role and delivers as Anna Valerious, the last in a long line of men and women who have sworn to kill Dracula. Her accent feels forced, but the most important thing to remember is the region in which this film takes place, so it's hard to fault her for trying. Her outfits were also a tad too modern for my taste, but they did the job well.

The only other character I need comment on is Faramir, I mean David Wenham. He plays Van Helsing's overly brainy friar sidekick Carl. Some might compare him to "Q" from James Bond, but that's only for a brief second when he gives Van Helsing some neato weapons. He reminds me of Eve from The Mummy, a bumbling genius sidekick who only has scholarship on their mind. Let's just remember he's a stock character and I was very disappointed to see Wenham playing such a lame persona after playing the honorable Faramir. His lines were always cheesy and over the top and while he had some very enjoyable scenes, he downright borderline ruins the film.

The character Carl and the ending of this film are the only two points about the film that leave much to be desired. These are clear flaws in the directing/writing skills of Stephen Sommers. We can only assume that the overly cheesy sentimental ending was slapped on in honor of his father, who we are to assume is dead, since the film is dedicated to him and the ending is seeing people in heaven. I think some of this tension might come from the fact that I was never really impressed with his ability to create well-rounded characters in The Mummy series. Eve always pushed the wrong buttons on my likeability scale and in the first film she really made me want to reach through the screen and strangle her. In the second film, her brother becomes more of nuisance that he's worth and is only there to drive the comedic value of the plot. All the flaws of The Mummy series are present here in Van Helsing.

Van Helsing works as the first blockbuster film of the season. It delivers an action-packed tale with lots of quality CGI and special effects. If you're going to complain about believability, you can stay at home, because the whole premise for this film is decidedly absurd. But despite its sometimes-corny dialogue and exaggerated characters, the film is quite enjoyable and will even make you forgive the errors on the part of the bumbling Carl. So grab your popcorn and drag along a friend. This is worth an evening out.
 

<<<Back