just watch it!

Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

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.

Van Helsing (2004) is fun and pretty well made in different aspects. It has good acting throughout by all the actors, especially by Beckinsale and Jackman. Kate Beckinsale really is a great choice for the role she fulfills, she has the correct physical look/appearance, and she fits in all the other ways as well, good cast call. Hugh Jackman is obviously playing the main character here, Van helsing. Hugh also gives a fine performance, and he also physically fits the role, he's very stoic at times but then heartfelt at times when he needs to be, and he's strong/muscular, which of course is necessary with all the action scenes and maneuvers he must perform. Speaking of action scenes, the special effects and the actual fighting in this movie is all very well done, and I don't mean to say that it's the best thing in any action movie you'll see, but it suffices. I also really like the way they did Dracula's wives, seductive and menacing at the same time, which of course is the way Dracula's wives are supposed to be. I thought the plot was entertaining and I thought it was executed well. So all in all Van Helsing receives a seven out of 10 as far as quality goes.

The Three Acts:The initial tableau: There is a lot going on in this film. The initial context comes from four vignettes: (1) Doctor Frankenstein has successfully brought life to his cobbled together monster. Dracula, who funded Frankenstein, figures that his investment has borne fruit, and kills the doctor. The monster is enraged by this, and manages to escape Dracula and the mob with their torches. Dracula recruits Igor.(2) Van Helsing confronts Mr. Hyde in Paris at the behest of a secret group operating out of the Vatican. In doing such work, Van Helsing has become a wanted criminal of international renown. He has no public support whatsoever, and is hated by many.(3) At the Vatican, Van Helsing is dressed down by Cardinal Jinette. He gets a new assignment: to protect the Valerian family (Anna and Velkan), and to help them kill Count Dracula in a fulfillment of a family oath. The oath was that the family would not enter Heaven until Dracula was destroyed. Van Helsing meets the friar named Carl, who is both timid and talented.(4) Velkan and Anna attempt to trap the werewolf that has been terrorising the village. Velkan kills the werewolf, but is bitten in the process.Delineation of conflicts: Velkan becomes a rather powerful werewolf. Dracula would use Velkan for his own purposes. Van Helsing and Anna have a chewy first meeting, then agree to oppose Dracula's intentions toward Velkan.Dracula and his trio of mates (Aleera, Verona, and Marishka) want their undead offspring to have life. Van Helsing, Anna, and the Vatican want them to die: Van Helsing, to follow orders; Anna, to save her family from Purgatory; the Vatican, to drive the spawn of Satan from the face of the Earth.Frankenstein's monster would like to live in peace with some degree of freedom. Dracula wants to consume him to transfer life to his offspring. The Vatican wants the monster dead since he's not precisely human, and his life was not given to him by God. Carl would like to comply with the Vatican's wishes, but cannot in good conscience.Dracula wants Van Helsing dead for strong reasons of his own. Van Helsing, Carl, Anna, and the monster are opposed.Resolution: Excellent, difficult, and harmonious.

I'll be honest 'Van Helsing' is a hard movie to review. I totally see both ends of the spectrum. It can be a very fun movie when one looks at it's corny audacity and monster set pieces. And yet it's just too much to ask for a whole hearted straight faced recommendation because that dialogue... I kind of hate and love this movie for a lot of different reasons some of which conflict with one another. In the end I can't quite condemn it because it's too much stupid fun.There is no getting around the fact that it has one of the stupidest half-assed written scripts for any huge summer blockbuster. There are moments in this movie where Stephen Sommers writes himself into traps and a vampire will pop literally out of nowhere because he has no idea of anything else to do. My all time personal favorite moment is when he has no idea how to get our heroes to Dracula's castle so a painting suddenly becomes a portal. The characters are so shallow that whenever Sommers tries to squeeze in some personality or motivation it becomes jarring and hilarious. The Transylvanian Princess Anna remarks that she has never been to the sea as they explore Frankenstein's ruins. It's ineptness reaches a climax in the big finale when Hugh Jackman doesn't actually fight Dracula. He turns into appalling CGI werewolf. I felt kind of ripped off. It's bad screen writing 101.And yet as far as stupid movies go this one is kind of entertaining in that it so sincerely believes it's smart. Hugh Jackman is the reason 'Van Helsing' retains just enough serious to laugh with and not at the film. If Sommers had Brendan Fraiser again this movie would have been a disaster. Jackman is perfect here. He is entertaining and adds the right amount and right kind of humor to his performance. I don't know. All my criticism and smiles come down to me being a huge Universal Monster fan. This movie loves the iconography of the monsters. You definitely see where the money went on this thing. The sets and make-up effects are all spectacular. The cobwebs, the Transylvanian villages, the laboratory. I can't help but smile at it. The opening ten minutes alone are worth the price of admission. The movie only truly gets boring when it is loaded with CGI....and yet on the other hand I can't help but be a little angry that Universal thinks this and 'Dracula Untold' is how to honor their monster heritage. Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff, and Lon Chaney Jr never played characters as superficial as these in any of the Universal classics. Everything is at face value here. The iconography? Beautiful. The mythology? They don't have a clue as to what made these characters appeal to monster fans. I understand the hate this movie gets but I think it's far too stupid to devote any passionate loathing to. I loved it as a kid when it first came out and looking back at it I can still sort of see why I did. It's goofy and has fun being goofy. It's a 'Batman & Robin' caliber watch. You'll be entertained I think if you sort of smirk at it.