User Score
5.5

Mixed or average reviews- based on 251 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 78 out of 251
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. JaredC.
    Dec 4, 2007
    4
    Van Helsing is a definite thrill ride, just the never-ending action sequences were so prolonged that it got quite annoying after a while.
  2. Nov 5, 2011
    4
    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.
  3. 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 vocalVan 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
  4. Sam
    Nov 28, 2005
    6
    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 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
  5. Nov 28, 2012
    5
    Shallow storytelling and it really only amounts up to a CGI showcase.
  6. Feb 19, 2013
    6
    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 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 somethingEh, 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
  7. GregT.
    Oct 25, 2004
    4
    I watched this movie and kept it running. Peed. Watched this movie and kept it running. Cooked dinner. I never really missed a thing during these absences, because it was continual special effects overload. It just went on and on. In the end, I felt that if I saw one more flying vampyress, I was going to beat the s... out of her and the TV. The effects were great, but it was all just a I watched this movie and kept it running. Peed. Watched this movie and kept it running. Cooked dinner. I never really missed a thing during these absences, because it was continual special effects overload. It just went on and on. In the end, I felt that if I saw one more flying vampyress, I was going to beat the s... out of her and the TV. The effects were great, but it was all just a tad over the top. Expand
  8. MichaelM.
    Oct 22, 2004
    5
    Van Helsuck? No, Van Helsing. The new monster mash of a movie from the director of The Mummy series. Although, Van Helsuck would be an appropriate title for this. There are so many things wrong with Van Helsing. First of all, the plot is so overstuffed, the film always seems confusing and will leave a bad taste in your mouth. Second of all, the acting isn't really something to shout Van Helsuck? No, Van Helsing. The new monster mash of a movie from the director of The Mummy series. Although, Van Helsuck would be an appropriate title for this. There are so many things wrong with Van Helsing. First of all, the plot is so overstuffed, the film always seems confusing and will leave a bad taste in your mouth. Second of all, the acting isn't really something to shout from the hilltops about. But, the special effects are really spectatuclar, and if you could forget all the things wrong with Van Helsing and just focus on the dazzling visuals, you will have a good time. I'd wait till DVD on this one. Expand
  9. Vicky
    Sep 28, 2004
    6
    The special effects were fine the acting also but the direction "oh my god" it made me sick and dizzy! kill the director!!!!!!!!
  10. RoyT.
    Aug 13, 2004
    5
    For a fantasy movie, Van Helsing is two-thumbs up movie, but as to the rest, Van Helsing has much to say.
  11. Ben
    May 31, 2004
    6
    Would I see this again? No. But do I regret seeing it? No. Hey, I went in expecting a stupid action movie with hot women, and that's what I got. Final score: 6 Final score without Kate Beckinsale's cleavage: 2.
  12. MelissaM.
    May 16, 2004
    5
    Okay, not the best SCIFI I've ever seen, but definitely a good way to kill an afternoon. Worth the matinee, but don't pay full price for this one.
  13. GustavoH.R.
    May 29, 2004
    4
    Is this fun? No. Are the visual effects great? No, they're horrible. What about the actor's performances? Inept. Direction? Non-existent. A monumental waste of $160 million dollars. I'm sorry if this will sound a bit arrogant, but even I could write a better movie. What a disappointment.
  14. KenG.
    Jun 1, 2004
    5
    Easily the noisest and emptiest movie of the year, Van Helsing even manages to minimize Jackman's innate charisma. While the set designs sometimes excel (Dracula's castle growing OUT of the mountain is an eye-opener), Stephen Sommers, as he did with the Mummy movies, manages to make our favorite scary monsters boring. And what is with Kate's Romanian accent? Slide her back Easily the noisest and emptiest movie of the year, Van Helsing even manages to minimize Jackman's innate charisma. While the set designs sometimes excel (Dracula's castle growing OUT of the mountain is an eye-opener), Stephen Sommers, as he did with the Mummy movies, manages to make our favorite scary monsters boring. And what is with Kate's Romanian accent? Slide her back into leather and the Underworld movies where she's nice eye candy. Expand
  15. Hades
    May 8, 2004
    5
    *Sigh*... I'd predicted it would fall into mediocre drivel once I started seeing more and more previews for it, and then once I learned the director of the Mummy films was making it I was really skeptical to even go to it. But gone I have, and dissapointed I am. Rather than try to appeal on a few levels to the audience in really fleshed-out, good ways, the film tries too hard to *Sigh*... I'd predicted it would fall into mediocre drivel once I started seeing more and more previews for it, and then once I learned the director of the Mummy films was making it I was really skeptical to even go to it. But gone I have, and dissapointed I am. Rather than try to appeal on a few levels to the audience in really fleshed-out, good ways, the film tries too hard to appeal to every level and fails on all. It's not properly distributed...the entertainment, it's like they tried to cram in as much random stuff so as not to miss something that could be considered appealling but lost sight of even achieving any one thing remotely interesting or captivating. If you go into the film with low expectations (quite low) you will be pleased, if you go into the movie with reasonable expectations, you will be dissapointed. As expected the CG is good, and there are some definitely interesting locations, but Sommer's use of dialog and attempt at establishing character pale in comparison to the visual elements of his pieces. Yeah, The Mummy films and Van Helsing look great, but taking away the CG elements youre left with a rather sour taste of poor character development and even worse dialog. It wasn't the worst movie made by any means, or even neccesarily "awful" but instead of bursting onto the scene in all its potential glory, Van Helsing stumbles out of the curtain in shame and shuffles off shamefully to the resounding tune of many "boo"s. Expand
  16. TerryD.
    May 8, 2004
    5
    Stephen Sommers previous movies all had a great combination of adventure, action, witty dialog, and gee-wiz factor. This movie sadly does not. It's like a different guy wrote and directed it - a guy not quite as talented as Sommers. Not to say that the movie was badly made or it should be walk out on, but rather just another over-produced, big-budget, summer wiz-bang disappointment. Stephen Sommers previous movies all had a great combination of adventure, action, witty dialog, and gee-wiz factor. This movie sadly does not. It's like a different guy wrote and directed it - a guy not quite as talented as Sommers. Not to say that the movie was badly made or it should be walk out on, but rather just another over-produced, big-budget, summer wiz-bang disappointment. I really hope that this is not a sign that Stephen Sommers best work is behind him - that would the real disappointment. Expand
  17. SteveG.
    May 9, 2004
    5
    Van Helsing has a race-along story with plenty of action but never quite lives up to its promise - probably because it falls between various stools. There are nods and references to action movies from James Bond to Indiana Jones as well as untold Dracula and Frankenstein films but it is this tangled mess that lets it down: Van Helsing doesn't know what kind of film it is. There is no Van Helsing has a race-along story with plenty of action but never quite lives up to its promise - probably because it falls between various stools. There are nods and references to action movies from James Bond to Indiana Jones as well as untold Dracula and Frankenstein films but it is this tangled mess that lets it down: Van Helsing doesn't know what kind of film it is. There is no character development and any one-line gags more or less fall flat. Good fun though it is at times and visually enjoyable for both its CGI and fetishistic costumes, the plot groans under the weight of too many improbabilities and handy devices - for example we have to accept the Vatican not only employs adepts and monks from every other religion but they work to invent (among other things) a gas fired crossbow so it works like a machine gun. This movie touches on an interesting idea but never properly explores it: as a savior of the human race a person may rightly or wrongly have to be considered a murderer. But perhaps the film never intended to explore anything more than endless rooms in huge castles. Expand
  18. MarcW.
    May 7, 2004
    4
    In the past 2 years, I've been sorely disappointed by 2 monster flicks, Underworld and now Van Helsing. I had high hopes for the show and was let down in every way. The plot was clunky, the action boring, the acting, terrible and the characters comical (not in a good way.) Can't believe they messed it up so bad.
  19. StevieG
    May 7, 2004
    5
    Have no doubt -- this is a bad movie. I thought it might be fun based on the premise and the previews. It was a little amusing. The script is awful, with so much corny bs that it actually becomes sort of amusing. There is so much illogic to many plot points that it astounds the mind. Most of the technical aspects are decent. The special effects are of decent quality. The sets are Have no doubt -- this is a bad movie. I thought it might be fun based on the premise and the previews. It was a little amusing. The script is awful, with so much corny bs that it actually becomes sort of amusing. There is so much illogic to many plot points that it astounds the mind. Most of the technical aspects are decent. The special effects are of decent quality. The sets are interesting. The locations and constumes are fine. The problem with this movie is the script and the bad accents. Expand
  20. NickM.
    May 12, 2004
    4
    This is a great flick -- if you're a thirteen year old boy. Grossly disappointing, crammed full of noise, flash and spectacle, but even Hugh Jackman's valiant efforts can't hold it all together.
  21. SeanL.
    May 6, 2004
    4
    "Van Helsing" was a monster disappointment. I went to an advance screening and the film was WAY too long and there is no character development. The mythologies of Frankenstien, Dracula and the Wolfman shouldn't be mixed. The special effects and CGI are amazing, but that's about it.
  22. SteveC.
    May 13, 2004
    6
    Great special effects. Mediocre acting and story. Fun show to watch... up until the final 5 minutes. If the movie didn't end as it did, I would have rated it at least one point higher.
  23. J.Kazakoff
    May 19, 2004
    4
    While the special effects were good, the movie was built on stereotype after stereotype after stereotype. Wouldn't be exciting for once if the two main characters didn't fall in love? Not only must you suspend your belief in reality, which I have no problem with, but you must also suspend basic physics laws and the construction abilities (could they really build a castle that While the special effects were good, the movie was built on stereotype after stereotype after stereotype. Wouldn't be exciting for once if the two main characters didn't fall in love? Not only must you suspend your belief in reality, which I have no problem with, but you must also suspend basic physics laws and the construction abilities (could they really build a castle that big and cool in 1400? Why does a vampire need that many fires lit?) Collapse
  24. MichaelD.
    May 10, 2004
    4
    Enjoying this movie is completely dependant on expectation and predisposition. It is not a good movie. I loved Legue of Extraodinary Gentlman for what if offered, epic super-human characters come to life, but I still know that it wasn't a "good" movie. Vanhelsing will amaze you in its depictions of vampires and Frankenstein and Warewolves....but its plot and character development Enjoying this movie is completely dependant on expectation and predisposition. It is not a good movie. I loved Legue of Extraodinary Gentlman for what if offered, epic super-human characters come to life, but I still know that it wasn't a "good" movie. Vanhelsing will amaze you in its depictions of vampires and Frankenstein and Warewolves....but its plot and character development will leave you annoyed if you need it. Its a fun and visually enticing ride, if not 45 minutes too long, but not for everyone, that's for sure. Expand
  25. DavidC.
    May 8, 2004
    4
    The 4 is for CGI and nothing more. It was well made visually, but the rest was aweful. Clichés, bad humor, bad acting, bad story. From the beginning you want to leave, the only thing the kept me there was the price I paid for the ticket. The concept is just horrible!!! Dracula wants to rule the world and the only way to do it is by having children. But the children are born dead, The 4 is for CGI and nothing more. It was well made visually, but the rest was aweful. Clichés, bad humor, bad acting, bad story. From the beginning you want to leave, the only thing the kept me there was the price I paid for the ticket. The concept is just horrible!!! Dracula wants to rule the world and the only way to do it is by having children. But the children are born dead, so they need to zap them to life. They tried it before, but didn't work. so they try to find frankenstein's monster, 'cause he was succesfully brought back to life, so he's "the key"... haha!! Then Van Helsing tries to kill him, 'cause he is told that his memories will return if he does and is helped by a friar and the remaining member of the family that are cursed and the only way to break it, is by killing dracula!! The perfect example of a cliché was before they go to Dracula's castle, the girl (the remaining family member) tells Van Helsing "wait!, be careful". Don't spend your 10$ on this, wait for the DVD to rent it. Expand
  26. BillS.
    May 18, 2004
    6
    Supremely silly and heavily Hollywood, yet the visual salute to the 50's Universal Monster franchise is fairly impressive to behold. If you're tolerant of the somewhat bubblegum characterizations of the 'usual' Dracula/Wolfman/Frankenstein characters and appreciative of virtual roller-coaster rides that feature heavy CGI, this could be worth your $10. On the other Supremely silly and heavily Hollywood, yet the visual salute to the 50's Universal Monster franchise is fairly impressive to behold. If you're tolerant of the somewhat bubblegum characterizations of the 'usual' Dracula/Wolfman/Frankenstein characters and appreciative of virtual roller-coaster rides that feature heavy CGI, this could be worth your $10. On the other hand, if you're a monster purist, love true goth without Dracula coming off as overly prim, or if the idea of Frankenstein's monster being a clownish wimp gets you seething, you may want to avoid Van Helsing. The bottom line: Stunning visuals, deplorable dialogue, silly and watered-down characters/monsters. Expand
  27. BenA.
    May 16, 2004
    4
    This could have been much better. I liked the premise, and the sets and art direction were very good. However I didn't like how Van Helsing had to be this Victorian age Inspector Gadget. The visual effects were sub-par most of the time. I'm sure if I were like 13 years old, I would have loved this movie. But for adults with higher standards, this movie is a little short. I also This could have been much better. I liked the premise, and the sets and art direction were very good. However I didn't like how Van Helsing had to be this Victorian age Inspector Gadget. The visual effects were sub-par most of the time. I'm sure if I were like 13 years old, I would have loved this movie. But for adults with higher standards, this movie is a little short. I also would note its kind of sad that David Wenham goes from playing a crucial part in the greatest film trilogy of all time (LOTR) to playing Van Helsing's goofy sidekick. That's just a sidenote. Expand
  28. Jan 3, 2015
    6
    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 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.
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. This creature feature is exhilarating fun, a richly designed and often quite funny re-exploration of the movie past.
  2. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    60
    The sense of evil overkill is entirely representative of the picture itself, which repeatedly looks ready to blow all its fuses due to sensory overload.
  3. 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.