Metascore
35

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 38 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 7 out of 38
  2. Negative: 16 out of 38
  1. Instead of paying homage to these creepy creatures of bygone Hollywood, Sommers seems to be unwittingly lampooning them. The first few minutes of Van Helsing, shot in black and white, look like outtakes from Mel Brooks' gagfest "Young Frankenstein."
  2. Reviewed by: Ty Burr
    38
    We haven't had a good Frankenstein, Dracula, or Wolf Man movie in a long time, so here's one where the whole gang shows up. One catch: It's not good.
  3. 38
    The biggest crime of Van Helsing is that it resurrects classic monsters and fails to make them scary. With a full 132 minutes of feeble jokes and gimcrack phantasmagoria, it's not spine-tingling - it's butt-numbing.
  4. 25
    Here's a shrieking bore of a horror flick.
  5. In sum, Van Helsing is yet another video game disguised as a wide-screen epic. Here's hoping the box office drives a firm wooden stake through its hokey Hollywood heart.
  6. To be fair, the movie is nothing if not consistent -- the idea is every bit as dumb as the execution.
  7. 12
    There are quite a few unintentionally funny moments, although the overall experience was too intensely painful for me to be able to advocate it as being "so bad, it's good."
  8. Sommers film just lies there, weighted down by a complete lack of wit, artfulness and internal logic. So it's a disaster -- a big, loud, boring wreck.
  9. Reviewed by: Pete Vonder Haar
    20
    Sommers suspends the laws of time and physics and forces his characters to spout some of the cheesiest dialogue imaginable.
  10. Van Helsing, a fusion of eye candy and brain sputter, is a long, kinetic, yet dreary mess.
  11. Reviewed by: Ed Park
    30
    In Van Helsing, the orgy of morphing, shrieking, lightning-cracking, and habitual rope-swinging quickly turns oppressive.
  12. A special-effects extravaganza that uses the barest of excuses to bring these characters together.
  13. 30
    The road of excess leads to the palace of boredom in this overblown monster epic.
  14. Reviewed by: David Edelstein
    20
    You have to feel for the army of talented FX people who must have spent months on scenes--trying to compensate, with their artistry, for the lack of dramatic logic--and having to listen to those lines over and over.
  15. 10
    A work of staggering stupidity.
  16. Nothing's alive in this trash-heap travesty of warm-weather entertainment, despite the frenetic pace.
User Score
5.5

Mixed or average reviews- based on 226 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 53 out of 125
  2. Negative: 50 out of 125
  1. Apr 20, 2014
    10
    Wow. I can't describe how much i'm disappointed. How can you not like this movie? And that's why we don't get good movies nowadays. People don't even have a good taste! This movie is awesome. Amazing storyline, seriously.. A monster hunter? EPIC. I mean, who doesn't like it? It's so good! The werewolves are incredible, the best ones I've EVER seen in a movie. And the vampires? Van Helsing is probably the only movie that shows vampires how they really are: monsters. But sure, people now prefer "vampires" who shine like fairies at the sun! Is that even a vampire? Oh right, no. And the werewolves? Nowadays are simply wolves. Van Helsing recreates it as a completely beast, which is what they are! And the CGI? It too damn good! It was 8 years ago and it is still way better than most of the movies we get now! Just.. argh. Seems like people don't know what are good movies. Today, people prefer vampires who fall in love with humans and it's all a big teenager drama than really good stories who give a message. The world is lost. Such a good storyline, such good characters and actors. The CGI is very good and.. then there's the public who actually sucks. Van Helsing is a really good movie. Full Review »
  2. Dec 6, 2011
    5
    Van Helsing just about works as a film if you don't take it too seriously. It's a fun fantasy romp with numerous references to 30s and 40s Universal horror films. It does have some awful dialogue (it's written and directed by Stephen Sommers, and as with The Mummy and The Mummy Returns, he proves himself much more talented in directing ballsy action sequences than bringing profound vocal utterances to the big screen). It also has some awful performances from its cast (the chief culprit being a laughable, bad Eastern European-accented Kate Beckinsale, but a fairly wooden and inconsistent Hugh Jackman in the title role doesn't fair much better) and the plot is an ugly mess - rather than a glowing tribute to classic horror filmmaking it's a ridiculous throw-everything-but-the-kitchen-sink affair. Despite these glaring issues, Van Helsing could never be called boring. Yes, it might be a bit too long, but the film boasts some fantastic effects (I personally feel that the werewolves featured in the film are the finest in movie history) and the action scenes are handled well - though each set-piece is quite long, the momentum is never lost. You also have a liberal dose of humour and a standout performance in Richard Roxburgh's Count Dracula. Yes, he's hammy, but in a knowing sort of way, and he's a much better actor than Bela Lugosi ever was, and, perhaps most importantly, he appears to be having so much fun with the role. Van Helsing is completely hilarious if it's taken completely seriously, but if you're willing to suspend your disbelief, ignore its more wobbly aspects, it's quite possible to derive a certain amount of perverse pleasure from such a genuinely entertaining film. Full Review »
  3. Jul 10, 2014
    7
    The tried and true formulas have been done to death with classic horror themes. Nobody finds Dracula, the wolfman, Frankenstein scary anymore.So how could they even develop and turn it into something fresh or at least different. By making it an action movie full of special effects. Yeah so no awards for depth and creative writing, but still a lot of pure popcorn fun to be had. Full Review »