Universal Pictures | Release Date: May 7, 2004
5.6
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 294 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
129
Mixed:
78
Negative:
87
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
4
JaredC.Dec 4, 2007
Van Helsing is a definite thrill ride, just the never-ending action sequences were so prolonged that it got quite annoying after a while.
1 of 1 users found this helpful
4
kingshahidNov 5, 2011
I heard great things about this movie. It failed at keeping my attention but I have to say that the graphics and concept was truly something out of the ordinary. I'm a fan of vampire movies but this was not something I could get myself to enjoy.
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
HalfwelshmanDec 6, 2011
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,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. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
6
SamNov 28, 2005
Easily, may I repeat EASILY, 2004's biggest cinema dissapointment. It's not a terrible movie, I just expected it to be a classic on the lines of Batman Begins or Spider-Man 2, and, well, it wasn't. It had pretty good FX and Easily, may I repeat EASILY, 2004's biggest cinema dissapointment. It's not a terrible movie, I just expected it to be a classic on the lines of Batman Begins or Spider-Man 2, and, well, it wasn't. It had pretty good FX and the action scenes were enjoyable, but the plot was just a rip-off of Godzilla if you think about it. The bad guy is trying to let his billions of babies hatch to rule the world. That's pretty much it. I will, however, admit that Van Helsing and Dracula are likable, but all the other characters hace as much life as Dracula's children, for a few momentary seconds they may have life, but then right after they lose it. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
Compi24Nov 28, 2012
Shallow storytelling and it really only amounts up to a CGI showcase.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
RolentoFeb 19, 2013
Eh, it's pretty mainstream and a good example of shallow storytelling, sure, but it's ok after all if viewed with the right mindset. Not that I'm into those things that much, but the action segments and the CGI were not bad at all, so combineEh, it's pretty mainstream and a good example of shallow storytelling, sure, but it's ok after all if viewed with the right mindset. Not that I'm into those things that much, but the action segments and the CGI were not bad at all, so combine that to a story that is... well, I'd say more "neutral" than bad, like incredibly obvious and, again, mainstream... and I guess you get something "ok-ish" out of it. I admit it also has some minor sentimental value to me, seen this one a lot of time ago. Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
5
Iky009Jan 6, 2014
Não grande coisaNão grande coisa Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
oxanaJan 3, 2015
This movie is good and gore at the same time. My dad stated that the special effects were probably supposed to look as they did... I find no other explanation (speaking of the Dracula/Werewolf fight, for one). At places, the images wereThis movie is good and gore at the same time. My dad stated that the special effects were probably supposed to look as they did... I find no other explanation (speaking of the Dracula/Werewolf fight, for one). At places, the images were realistic, but the overall fantasy-like atmosphere probably created that. Worth a look, but there isn't much you can get out of this. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
WJSAug 23, 2015
I think that if you're looking for a copy of this movie on DVD or Blue Ray, you just have to drop into your local cheese shop and you'll find it right next to the cheddar.

Very cheesy movie that looks great but you have to fight your way
I think that if you're looking for a copy of this movie on DVD or Blue Ray, you just have to drop into your local cheese shop and you'll find it right next to the cheddar.

Very cheesy movie that looks great but you have to fight your way through the over-the-top acting and non-sensical direction to grab your slice.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
The3AcademySinsJul 17, 2016
If you are looking for some B-Movie, cheesy fun times, then THIS is the film for you. Everyone loves a so-bad-its-good monster mashup, and I definitely recommend this one for fans of the old Scy Fy channel classics.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
SpangleDec 2, 2016
Okay so this movie is stupid. Like, really stupid. All about Count Dracula needing the body of Frankenstein's monster to give life to his children, Van Helsing is a pure mess of a movie and really off-the-wall. With horrific dialogue and badOkay so this movie is stupid. Like, really stupid. All about Count Dracula needing the body of Frankenstein's monster to give life to his children, Van Helsing is a pure mess of a movie and really off-the-wall. With horrific dialogue and bad effects, this one is just a recipe for disaster. However, its campy inclinations and embracing of its more ludicrous elements by bringing them to their completion is what really makes this one a film packed to the brim with raucous entertainment. That said, the everlasting question of the film is: how bad is life in Transylvania? It is bad enough being neighbors with Dracula. However, to accept that the vampires will kill and eat one or two people every once in a while to sustain themselves as a fact of life and an ideal situation is really terrifying. How bad were things before they struck a deal with Dracula?

Featuring Hugh Jackman as Van Helsing, the famed archenemy of Dracula, the film tells the story of Gabriel Van Helsing having to go to Transylvania in order to kill Dracula. He is to help save the Valerious bloodline, as they will be stuck in purgatory as a result of their failure to kill Dracula, who was one part of their bloodline before he struck a deal with the devil. By the time he arrives, however, only Anna (Kate Beckinsale) is alive. As with all of Beckinsale's more ludicrous roles, Van Helsing is unafraid to utilize her sex appeal with tight clothing, revealing dresses, and tons of ass shots. She is also largely a damsel in distress here finding herself in situations where men must come and save her. However, the one character I did love, other than Van Helsing himself, is Frankenstein's monster (Shuler Hensley). A compassionate figure in this installation, he was created against his will and, yet, now that he is here, all he wants is to live. Highly sympathetic, it is hard to root against the classic monster in this film.

On the flip side, Dracula (Richard Roxburgh) is very easy to root against. Wholly evil, Dracula's large breasted concubines often do his bidding and are truly horrifying to look upon. The special effects on their bat forms are really quite bad and stand out as some of the worst, aside from Mr. Hyde, who is certainly the worst. This said, Dracula himself is well costumed and truly menacing. Roxburg instills him with a stoic deviousness. However, the best part of Dracula is the mythology here. From the ice castle to the missing script to his back story with Van Helsing, it is all very engrossing. With small details sprinkled throughout the film, director Stephen Sommers really does handle the story quite well at times. Though silly and over-the-top, there is a common thread here that binds it all together.

Yet, the film cannot get out of its own way. Not only is the acting horrific by Beckinsale and David Wenham, but so is the script. Deviating and often unfocused, the script is over-written, too long, and far too wordy. Though the story does often exceed these problems, it occurs far too sparingly to ignore the issues with the script. Even worse, the conclusion is embarrassing.

SPOILERS
After killing her as a werewolf, Van Helsing buries Anna. As she is finally reunited with her family, we see a vision of her being reunited with her family in the sky and gravitating towards the light. Yikes.
END SPOILERS

Often really dumb, Van Helsing can also be incredibly fun. Campy, silly, and over-the-top, it is hard to defend the stupidity of the plot, though I really liked the mythology. Unlike other movies of this ilk that came out in the early 2000s such as Underworld, its mythology is its only strength. In Underworld, we had over-the-top, yet solid acting. Solid special effects. And a lot of fun. Here, we get some good fun, but everything else is just so bad it hurts.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews