User Score
5.5

Mixed or average reviews- based on 228 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 72 out of 228

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. 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. Expand
  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. Expand
  3. Jun 16, 2013
    7
    I'm really baffled at the hateful negative response to this film. No it's not Oscar material, it's just good campy fun. If you're a fan of old monster movies, James Bond and Indiana Jones flicks, and over-the-top humor in an action/horror movie, then you get it. I guess if you're looking for a summer action flick that takes itself too seriously, then you're out of luck with this one.

    I
    admit that the film runs a little to long, the chemistry between Beckinsale and Jackman leaves something to be desired, and the Frankenstein "monster" (though well-intentioned to give a nod to "Young Frankenstein") is really annoying. But the entertainment spawning from the hokey fun that "Van Helsing" is all about, makes these flaws so forgivable.

    For me, I'll take the over-acting screaming Brides of Dracula, the silly homages to dozens of classic action and horror movies, the cheesy one-liners, and the not-so-convincing special effects. Isn't that what monster movies are all about?
    Expand
  4. Oct 7, 2011
    2
    To save you valuable hours of your life, here's a summary of the whole movie: Big action scene with monsters, Bad CGI, People talk fast, Big action scene with monsters, Big action scene with monsters, Big action scene with monsters, People talk fast, Big action scene with monsters, Bad CGI, Big action scene with monsters, faux-dramatic scene, Big action scene with monsters, Bad CGI, Bad CGI, Fin.
  5. Oct 17, 2011
    2
    If Bram Stoker resurrected and see what they did with his story, he kill himself! this movie is just, i don´t know, this movie simply have no reason to exist
  6. 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.
  7. Dec 12, 2011
    1
    Van Helsing is possibly the closest I have come to giving a film a 0. It is a lifeless corpse of a movie. The acting is dreadful bordering on laughable. The referencing of classic monster movies doesn't only fall flat but it grates. Richard Roxburghs Dracula is over the top in the worst possible way and the scripting is dreadful. If anything its one saving grace is a remarkably entertaining intro to the character of Van Helsing (even if Hugh Jackman is terrible as the title character) with the fight between Jekyl and Hyde being a fun piece of action. Its the films only saving grace and its only 5 minutes. The film lumbers on after that, slowly killing your soul. It's dire and thats before it gets to the end where you get to witness Lion King esque sky visions. Because copying Disney in a monster movie seemed like a good idea at the time. Don't watch it, and if you do, bring a pillow. Expand
  8. Jan 22, 2012
    10
    Dear All, This my perspective - The movie was fantastic. Dont expect more and some strange things.
    But observe the technicality of the movie, how good it is? Its amazing. I have been watching whenever iam free. Coming to plot, its entirely new concept. lets no think of probability whether it happens or not happens in real life. Casting: Jackman was the perfect fit for this role and
    moreover he is my fav now. Actress Kate, even wonderful. Very challenging. Carl- Comic+ genius. :) Expand
  9. Aug 11, 2012
    7
    For me a movie underestimated. It 's just a movie for entertainment, but it succeeds well in the order and tells an interesting story about Van Helsing starring Hugh Jackman (a role that seemed inappropriate to him but he managed to play well).
  10. Nov 28, 2012
    5
    Shallow storytelling and it really only amounts up to a CGI showcase.
  11. 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 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
  12. Aug 26, 2013
    2
    Had very big expectations, because of the great opening 5-10 minutes, but i was disappointed! It could be so much better! 2/10 is my score for "Van Helsing"
  13. Nov 13, 2013
    2
    Van Helsing made me want to gouge my eyes out.
    This was an extremely painful movie to watch, quite frankly a missed opportunity in ever sense of the word. A horrible script with actors simply reading their lines and waiting to get through it.
  14. Mar 2, 2014
    10
    Interesting. Kate bekinsale is one of my favorite actresses. A rather good vampire movie unlike the twilight series. Interesting plot line and interesting characters
  15. Mar 18, 2014
    10
    I don't understand why people think this is a lame or poor movie. I think it's awesome, fun, CGI was decent, I liked how werewolfs were made and many more. It is such a shame that actually some good vampire movies have a sigma of bad movie because there are vampires in it, movies like this should be more better because it's something you can't see in a real life, so that you can enjoy it on the big screen. Expand
  16. Apr 20, 2014
    10
    Seriously?? Critics and users don't like this movie? this is more than dumbass! this is the only movie i like werewolfs, vampires and frankenstein! the story is simply beautiful, the CGI are really awesome, the cast too and c'mon! the movie is great!
  17. Jun 1, 2014
    10
    I can't believe how dumb the '' critics '' are this movie is simply brilliant,character development isn't that good but its fairly decent, CGI is superb for a 2004 movie and its the only movie to make a vampire and a werewolf just right.
  18. 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.
  19. Aug 18, 2014
    3
    It is epic and exciting for the eye, but its plot is a bit too cheesy, even for Dracula films. The characters seem too inhuman, even if they are not vampires. The plot is solid, though, and the cinematography is surprisingly impressive.
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.