Van Helsing

User Score
5.6

Mixed or average reviews- based on 278 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 85 out of 278

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream 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

User Reviews

  1. MaddieS.
    Sep 27, 2005
    10
    I guess people hate this movie, huh? Well, I'm weird.
  2. MikeW.
    Oct 23, 2004
    10
    DEFINATELY FUN! It's what alot of folks go to movies for...suspension of reality...and ALOT of FUN!!! I bought the DVD and it will have a home in my collection.If you can't enjoy this one...I'd like to know what you can. It has everything,great acting,great scenery,costumeing was very COOL and animation was stunning.The work that went into this movie seems of epic DEFINATELY FUN! It's what alot of folks go to movies for...suspension of reality...and ALOT of FUN!!! I bought the DVD and it will have a home in my collection.If you can't enjoy this one...I'd like to know what you can. It has everything,great acting,great scenery,costumeing was very COOL and animation was stunning.The work that went into this movie seems of epic proportion and you can't beat the lead role casting...to of the newest "best" actors there are...so go to it,buy it and for gosh sake have fun...it's only a movie!!but a really well done one! Expand
  3. CrystalC.
    Aug 15, 2004
    10
    I loved everything about it! It was the greatest movie I have ever seen in my life!
  4. RobM.
    Jul 26, 2004
    10
    This is a great thriller movie.
  5. SylviaG.
    Jun 29, 2004
    10
    Un film à aller voir !!!!
  6. OmarM.
    May 14, 2004
    10
    This movie was fun!
  7. JohnyBoy
    May 10, 2004
    10
    Loved it, gonna go back to see it, excellent action in the movie, so who cares how the story works out?
  8. MarcusB.
    May 10, 2004
    10
    Silly, mindless fun. Very cheesy at times, but I loved the visuals and the tongue-in-cheek homage to classic horror flicks.
  9. Mandy
    May 20, 2004
    10
    For all those people who are rating this movie bad you have serious issues... I'm not kidding, really I'm not. I love horror/action movies and this satisfied both. The cast and location couldn't have been better either. Every single aspect was perfect. I could watch the movie over and over again and it wouldn't get boring at all. I throughly enjoyed Van Helsing and so For all those people who are rating this movie bad you have serious issues... I'm not kidding, really I'm not. I love horror/action movies and this satisfied both. The cast and location couldn't have been better either. Every single aspect was perfect. I could watch the movie over and over again and it wouldn't get boring at all. I throughly enjoyed Van Helsing and so should you. Expand
  10. VickyR.
    Jun 11, 2004
    10
    Absolutely the best movie I have ever seen in my life! The whole story ties together into a mysterious romantic thriller. You see the classic villians such as the Wolfman, Dracula's Brides, Count Dracula, and Frankenstien. No other movie can surpass the greatness of such a wonderful movie as this. This movie is simply THE BEST!
  11. HannahK.
    May 31, 2004
    10
    It has lots of gross parts but I think it's the best movie I have ever seen! Even my friends think that! I would give it five stars!!!
  12. Dahmir
    May 7, 2004
    10
    This movie was so amazingly bad, that it was good! Bonus points for the crazy evil Oompa Loompas and the fact that after continuous backbreaking falls and assaults the main characters did not bear so much as a scratch on them. Overall a truly horrible action movie, but at the same time an amazing comedy feature.
  13. PhillipR.
    May 9, 2004
    10
    Really liked the movie. It had very well paced action to it. The acting was decent, which is more than acceptable when it comes to a movie that sales itself as an action movie. The CG was off the wall, and I am very much looking forward to the DVD release. 'nough said I think.
  14. MikeB.
    May 16, 2004
    10
    Apparently most of the people who gave this movie a bad rating didn't grow up with the love for horror movies. I loved this flick maybe if i get brain damage i could also become a film critic Duh!!
  15. 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
    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
  16. 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
  17. 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 itI 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
  18. 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!
  19. 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 HelsingWow. 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
  20. 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.
  21. Jul 15, 2015
    10
    It was a great movie. The CGI wasn't bad, the story is great, the characters are great, everything is awesome. But the thing that makes this movie one of my favorites movies, it's how they make the supernatural beings. They make you want to be one or hunt one. Love this movie
  22. Louis'sbrother
    Mar 22, 2007
    9
    Another epic breakthrough by Universal studios. I loved the monster violence, but the story needs some help. Definately a solid 9.
  23. LarryT.
    Oct 28, 2004
    9
    Cheesy, but thoroughly enjoyable. Kate Beckinsale never looked better.
  24. MarkR.
    Jun 12, 2004
    9
    A blast of a movie that kept me glued to the screen- fantastic effects, alluring females (well, it's true) and a gripping score- to keep the film alive. A must for fans of the (admittedly) cliched action thriller: as this film most certainly is.
  25. LindsayM.
    May 21, 2004
    9
    I thought this was an excellent and entertaining movie. I went into the theater skeptical, but found myself really enjoying the film. The only downside was that it was a little long. But don't listen to "steaming turd" kid, it was well worth the price of a movie ticket!
  26. ZachW.
    May 18, 2004
    9
    This was a great movie, no doubt about it. It has all of the original horror movie characters, pretty good acting, (I love Frankenstein) and some really good action. I heard "this movie has no plot", and "there's no way you can mix frankenstein, the werewolf and dracula and come out with a good story". Well, I think it worked, and it worked very well. I would definitely recommend This was a great movie, no doubt about it. It has all of the original horror movie characters, pretty good acting, (I love Frankenstein) and some really good action. I heard "this movie has no plot", and "there's no way you can mix frankenstein, the werewolf and dracula and come out with a good story". Well, I think it worked, and it worked very well. I would definitely recommend this movie if you are into those old horror creatures, but don't want to see a horror movie, but a great action movie. Expand
  27. BrianD.
    May 22, 2004
    9
    This movie was very exciting and a thriller.
  28. Gabe
    May 6, 2004
    9
    This movie will and is awsome cuz it takes place in Romania (w00t).
  29. JimS.
    May 13, 2004
    9
    Awesome effects, the plot sucked but it was still lots of fun. The ending isn't as good too, but you should see it for yourself.
  30. LaurieV.
    May 8, 2004
    9
    This was a fantastic movie. No, seriously! The plot was totally unbelievable, but what do you expect from a monster movie? Realism? This movie left realism at the door, and if you do too, then you will love this movie. It has a lot in common with Starship Troopers (another movie lots of people hate that I love): it's big on spectacle, low on dialogue and back-story, but unlike ST, This was a fantastic movie. No, seriously! The plot was totally unbelievable, but what do you expect from a monster movie? Realism? This movie left realism at the door, and if you do too, then you will love this movie. It has a lot in common with Starship Troopers (another movie lots of people hate that I love): it's big on spectacle, low on dialogue and back-story, but unlike ST, the characters have real personality. Beckinsale does a passable kiss-ass heroine (she's decorative, but just not a very good actress), and Jackman's considerable talent is more than adequate for his role. But what really makes this movie is the effects: this movie is a rollercoaster of gorgeously realised FX set-pieces strapped tightly together, with none of the tedious dialogue -- action movies are never good at dialogue, so why try? This movie just skips dialogue altogether. And the plot, while impossibly contrived, is nevertheless *novel*: it's very rare that I can see a movie and be surprised by anything, but this movie surprised me several times. There are also a lot of funny moments: sometimes the humour is intentional (Jackman plays his role entirely straight-faced, but all the other characters take jabs at monster-movie cliches a few times) and sometimes it is not (such as the dozens of million-to-one chances everyone successfully takes). This is not a serious movie, but did it ever claim to be? It was fast, exciting, pretty, surprising, funny and fun. What do you want, blood? (Then there's lots of that too) Expand
  31. JoeB
    Dec 14, 2008
    9
    Strange that so many people hated this movie. The plot might not have been very original, but it was decent. The action sequences were fun to watch, there was more humor than the average horror movie, and the graphics were good. I guess I don't hate mainly because I didn't know much of the vampire, frankenstein, and werewolf lore that so many people were upset about since the Strange that so many people hated this movie. The plot might not have been very original, but it was decent. The action sequences were fun to watch, there was more humor than the average horror movie, and the graphics were good. I guess I don't hate mainly because I didn't know much of the vampire, frankenstein, and werewolf lore that so many people were upset about since the movie didn't stick to them. Expand
  32. Dec 29, 2015
    9
    Van Helsing is movie that combines fantasy, action, drama, mystery and sci-fi. It has monsters, cool weapons and very good characters and performances. I think Van Helsing is one of the most underrated movies ever and it is also my favorite movie with no sequels or prequels.

    Story is good and atmosphere is more than great. Many classic monsters show up and face common nightmare that is
    Van Helsing is movie that combines fantasy, action, drama, mystery and sci-fi. It has monsters, cool weapons and very good characters and performances. I think Van Helsing is one of the most underrated movies ever and it is also my favorite movie with no sequels or prequels.

    Story is good and atmosphere is more than great. Many classic monsters show up and face common nightmare that is called Van Helsing.
    Hugh Jackman is nearly perfect Van Helsing (some reason called Gabriel instead of Abraham), Richard Roxburgh is surprisingly good Dracula and Kate Beckinsale is great as Anna, same time beautiful and tough counterpart to Van Helsing.

    Action and story are both well executed and overall design of the movie is great and entertaining. Characters are well made, places look good and movie is from start to finish well made, interesting and feels good.
    Monsters look good overall and great finale is amazing. Even the ending is very well done and I think that movie has very little flaws.

    9/10

    Masterpiece
    Expand
  33. ChandlerS.
    Nov 15, 2004
    8
    Very Good Movie. The characters were well thought out and designed. The Special effects were awesome. The plot could use some work, but overall a very good movie, that I recommend.
  34. AMovieCritic
    Nov 13, 2004
    8
    Here's another under-appreciated movie. This is a movie where people went into it....expecting...well...I don't know what they were expecting! I was expecting an 'action packed thrill ride with amazing special effects' ....and that's what I got. The action (which almost NEVER STOPPED) was amazing, the effects were jaw dropping, the plot was cool, the villains and Here's another under-appreciated movie. This is a movie where people went into it....expecting...well...I don't know what they were expecting! I was expecting an 'action packed thrill ride with amazing special effects' ....and that's what I got. The action (which almost NEVER STOPPED) was amazing, the effects were jaw dropping, the plot was cool, the villains and monsters were cool.....the directing was awesome, (sometimes the camera brought A LOT to the screan...Sommers is really turning into an awesome Action Movie director. See this if you want fun action, with great effects and cool characters. I don't know what everyone else was expecting, but they obviously didn't get what they expected. What I described is EXACTLY what to expect. Go into this movie expecting that, and chances are that you won't be disappointed. Expand
  35. Sam
    Nov 3, 2004
    8
    Sure the beggining is a bit slow, but I can't help but be furious with most crititcs because the special effects are gougeous, the plot is pretty cool, and the action is intense. I would have given it a 10, but the slow begginig detracts 2 points.
  36. Rico
    Oct 20, 2004
    8
    For a popcorn movie this kicks ass. I was never bored and some of the effects were breathtaking. if you want a serious movie to contemplate then this is not for you. if you want to sit down with some nachos and be taken on a wild ride then check this out.
  37. HarrisonB.
    Aug 8, 2004
    8
    Van Helsing was a great thrill ride. Hugh Jackman was like Johny Depp in Secret Window. A little too many special effects. But great animation. It was a good movie.
  38. DragonKnightofFinalFantasy
    Jul 17, 2004
    8
    I liked this movie with lots of non-stop action which wasn't good had no real story though. I thought it was a good B List movie with some humor thrown in I liked it okay and The San Fransico Chronicle and Wall Street Journal can shove it for giving it a zero.
  39. Linkster
    Aug 7, 2004
    8
    Pay no attention to Dan...It seems his only way of critiquing a film is attempting to humiliate those who don't see things exactly as he does. It is definitely worth seeing, if you are a fan of the Dracula and Frankenstein horror stories.
  40. VictorD.
    May 11, 2004
    8
    It sucks!
  41. Danny&Ron
    May 8, 2004
    7
    Good special effects, nice action, fun lighthearted escapism. Not a serious movie for all you tight as--- who are trying to analyze a summer movie. Lighten up and have fun. The movie was meant to be light and entertaining, not change the world.
  42. CameronS.
    May 7, 2004
    7
    This movie was fun. It wasn't as bad as people are saying it is. I enjoyed it. It's not the best movie out, but it's not the worst.
  43. JimR.
    May 10, 2004
    7
    Unlike "The Mummy," this film was quite enjoyable. The sets and cinematography are wonderful (and should be recognized somewhere), and it's full of action. Not a terrific film, but definitely not worth the bad press it's getting.
  44. KateM.
    May 13, 2004
    7
    I thought it was fun. It had excellent special effects and a very hot leading man! It isn't necessarily great movie-making, but it doesn't have to be.
  45. CraigA.
    May 12, 2004
    7
    Ok so its not the most realistic film you will ever watch, nor is it the most gripping but I have to admit that despite its many flaws Van Helsing managed to entertain me for 2 hours. True a lot of that time i was thinking "oh how convenient that the rope you are swinging from is pointing exactly at the room where the main character is held hostage" etc but if you're after a good Ok so its not the most realistic film you will ever watch, nor is it the most gripping but I have to admit that despite its many flaws Van Helsing managed to entertain me for 2 hours. True a lot of that time i was thinking "oh how convenient that the rope you are swinging from is pointing exactly at the room where the main character is held hostage" etc but if you're after a good popcorn movie where you can turn off your brain, laugh at the charcters (like the ultra camp dracula) and just enjoy it then I would recommend it! Expand
  46. MarkB.
    May 9, 2004
    7
    Since I really hated Stephen Sommers' brain-dead, sloppily computerized Mummy movies, I went into his gloss on the mid-1940s Universal Studios Frankenstein-meets-Dracula-meets-(fill in the bank) flicks with very low expectations and a real sense of dread. And, I must admit, Sommers blindsided me. A wildly energetic, everything-including-the-kitchen-sink hodgepodge of Universal, Since I really hated Stephen Sommers' brain-dead, sloppily computerized Mummy movies, I went into his gloss on the mid-1940s Universal Studios Frankenstein-meets-Dracula-meets-(fill in the bank) flicks with very low expectations and a real sense of dread. And, I must admit, Sommers blindsided me. A wildly energetic, everything-including-the-kitchen-sink hodgepodge of Universal, Hammer, Indiana Jones, James Bond, the Howling movies and the Alien films (!!!), this movie incredibly fast-paced, don't-look-back popcorn movie is the dictionary definition of a "guilty pleasure". Sommers doesn't have one iota of Buffymeister Joss Whedon's storytelling skills or wit, but attempts to compensate by throwing so much at the audience (vampire brides! Mr. Hyde!! A Frankenstein monster with a breakaway face!! Gatling-style archery!!) that I'm surprised he didn't try to make the movie in 3-D. Hugh Jackman is typically charismatic in the title role (even if he's occasionally overwhelmed by all the STUFF whirling around around, over and under him); Kate Beckinsale, whose psuedo-accent is delightful, does more for bustiers than anyone since Jennifer Lopez as Selena. Special props to Richard Roxburgh's Wagnerian Dracula turn; his wall-walking entrance is unforgettable. If your cinematic superego craves nourishment, Kitchen Stories or Barbarian Invasions, is, I'm sure, playing SOMEWHERE; Van Helsing, meanwhile, is perfect comfort food for your moviegoing id. Expand
  47. 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).
  48. 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
    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
  49. Apr 17, 2015
    7
    Ok, so it's not anywhere near a masterpiece. I'll also admit that it's at times cheesy, and it does really, really overuse c.g.i. But it's also undeniably fun. Jackman is awesome as Van Helsing and the movie is super energetic. Those are its two main strengths but it has more. I liked its imaginative take on some of the classic monsters. Frankenstein's monster is usually depicted asOk, so it's not anywhere near a masterpiece. I'll also admit that it's at times cheesy, and it does really, really overuse c.g.i. But it's also undeniably fun. Jackman is awesome as Van Helsing and the movie is super energetic. Those are its two main strengths but it has more. I liked its imaginative take on some of the classic monsters. Frankenstein's monster is usually depicted as dim witted, but here he's basically a genius. The action is indeed ludicrous but it can also be exhilarating at times. I thought the plot was pretty interesting to be honest, especially how it depicts Van Helsing as professional monster killer. If you don't take it too seriously I'm sure the movie will give you a good time too. I think the main reason the critics didn't like this movie was because they were expecting an actual horror movie. It's not. If they were expecting the fantasy adventure that it is, I think it would have gone down a little more smoothly.
    If anything, it's a thousand times better than Hansel & Gretel.
    Expand
  50. 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
  51. 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!!!!!!!!
  52. 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.
  53. 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.
  54. 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
  55. 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
  56. 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.
  57. 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
  58. 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.
  59. 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.
  60. 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
  61. 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
  62. 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
  63. 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
  64. 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
  65. 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
  66. Nov 28, 2012
    5
    Shallow storytelling and it really only amounts up to a CGI showcase.
  67. 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.
  68. 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
  69. 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.
  70. 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.
  71. 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.
  72. 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.
  73. 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?) Expand
  74. 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
  75. 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
  76. 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
  77. 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.
  78. WJS
    Aug 23, 2015
    4
    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.
  79. [Anonymous]
    Sep 1, 2005
    3
    To think 160 million dollars went into one of the worst movies i've ever seen. Blade II uses half that amount, and gives you twice the fun, and axes those annoying Transylvanian accents. Dracula's brides were cool when they didn't talk. That crossbow is a good use of Retro-futuristic imagination. But everything else is a total wreck. How could ILM screw up so badly? Those To think 160 million dollars went into one of the worst movies i've ever seen. Blade II uses half that amount, and gives you twice the fun, and axes those annoying Transylvanian accents. Dracula's brides were cool when they didn't talk. That crossbow is a good use of Retro-futuristic imagination. But everything else is a total wreck. How could ILM screw up so badly? Those FX guys worked with Steven Spielburg, for heaven's sakes! Even the musical score fails to deliver. Oliver Stone's disasterous Alexander at least had uplifting, epic music from Vangelis, but this stuff was just garbage. Just watch the mummy movies for hollywood cheese. This blunder doesn't even qualify for those lowly standards. Expand
  80. TomM.
    Nov 14, 2004
    3
    How can anyone give this movie a 10? Seriously folks, I understand that everyone has different tastes in movies but a 10? It's not Casablanca. Bottom line is that this movie provides a weak story (which is fine for what this movie tried to be), awful acting (which is never ok), horrible cgi effects, and god awful dialogue. I wish I could rely more on the internet to get a decent idea How can anyone give this movie a 10? Seriously folks, I understand that everyone has different tastes in movies but a 10? It's not Casablanca. Bottom line is that this movie provides a weak story (which is fine for what this movie tried to be), awful acting (which is never ok), horrible cgi effects, and god awful dialogue. I wish I could rely more on the internet to get a decent idea of what to expect in regards to movies. Apparently that is just not going to happen. Honestly, if people really love this movie and want to rate it a 10 then I am not surprised at all with the dung that Hollywood continues to churn out. Expand
  81. RaggetB
    Oct 24, 2004
    3
    Too long. Sucks.
  82. VictorD.
    May 16, 2004
    3
    It sucks!
  83. Kris
    May 8, 2004
    3
    I tried very hard to enjoy this movie - - I really did; I turned off almost all of my brain - - but it just wouldn't click with me. It's a terrible letdown. Perhaps the only enjoyable part for me was the ending, because I was laughing hysterically at it. I wanted badly to scream "Mufasa!" during that sequence. If you were unfortunate enough to pay for this trash, you will know I tried very hard to enjoy this movie - - I really did; I turned off almost all of my brain - - but it just wouldn't click with me. It's a terrible letdown. Perhaps the only enjoyable part for me was the ending, because I was laughing hysterically at it. I wanted badly to scream "Mufasa!" during that sequence. If you were unfortunate enough to pay for this trash, you will know what I mean. Expand
  84. MaxwellS.
    May 8, 2004
    3
    The entire first half of this movie drags along while you continue checking your watch and praying for the end. And while the second half is a bit better, the movie could not be saved. Too bad, I was really looking forward to this one too.
  85. Kelly
    Jun 1, 2004
    3
    A disappointing film with bad dialog, so-so acting, less than impressive effects, and a really cheesy ending. This movie had great potential, but was unable to deliver the goods.
  86. JonI.
    May 9, 2004
    3
    I walked into Van Helsing excited at the prospects. I thuroughly enjoyed Sommers' Mummy films. So I went in expecting good action and simply a fun summer film. This even fell short of those low expectations. This was obviously nothing more than a thrown together script with every monster character and cliche Universal had at their disposal. Universal has entrusted way to much to this I walked into Van Helsing excited at the prospects. I thuroughly enjoyed Sommers' Mummy films. So I went in expecting good action and simply a fun summer film. This even fell short of those low expectations. This was obviously nothing more than a thrown together script with every monster character and cliche Universal had at their disposal. Universal has entrusted way to much to this film with a video game, tv series, and unfortunately sequels in the mix already. The only part that made this film worth sitting through was Kate Beckinsale who as usual is stunning. Now the question remains will Universal films continue to jam this crap down our throughts or will they abandone their pointless side projects for this movie. The only future I see for this film is on a five dollar bargain rack collecting dust next to Gigli. Expand
  87. Daher
    May 16, 2004
    3
    Stupid as The League of Extraordinary Gentelman. Hate it! Same mixture of dull characters that only adorn the movie (Kate Beckinsale and Peta Wilson, respectively) with an absolute hero (Connery and Jackman respectively). Wait for the DVD.
  88. CaseyK.
    Mar 30, 2010
    3
    Although great action scenes, Van Helsing is a pathetic attempt to create interesting monster characters but senseless with daft screenplay and terrible directing from Stephen Sommers.
  89. TommiK.
    Sep 6, 2006
    2
    Noisy, fast paced, boring, lacking any depth. Very nice effects and lots and lots of actions. Also sometimes stylish design and lots of effort. If only it had plot and charisma.
  90. BobB
    Oct 24, 2004
    2
    I fell asleep way too much, boring...
  91. NathanF.
    May 12, 2004
    2
    By the time the credits started rolling my forehead was red from slapping it so much in stupefied disbelief. This movie can be summed up with a quote from Futurama where Fry says "Wow, it has a vampire AND an explosion." If you liked this film, lean over here so I can slap you.
  92. IvanaT.
    May 26, 2004
    2
    Everyone here is right. This story DOES have a plot. It's just a crappy one. Ok, so get this. Dracula, who has recently asked Dr. Frankenstein to raise a corpse, tries to use the same method used to revive the Frankenstein monster to bring his thousands of babies back to life. Because he is undead, they are born pre-dead. Thus, he must put life in them. Utter, utter schlock. it was Everyone here is right. This story DOES have a plot. It's just a crappy one. Ok, so get this. Dracula, who has recently asked Dr. Frankenstein to raise a corpse, tries to use the same method used to revive the Frankenstein monster to bring his thousands of babies back to life. Because he is undead, they are born pre-dead. Thus, he must put life in them. Utter, utter schlock. it was probably only made because it gave millions to ILM. Kudos. You have made crappy movie history. Expand
  93. MasterChief
    Jun 4, 2004
    2
    The maker of this movie must be flogged in public and then stoned to death!
  94. Triniman
    May 8, 2004
    2
    Van Helsing 1/5 After the film, my friend turned to me and said ?Aren?t you sick of the over-use of computer animation in movies these days?? With Van Helsing, the answer is a resounding YES! This is yet another film that proves that special effects alone cannot make up for a lousy script. The best special effects are still the ones you don?t know are special effects. With VH going after Van Helsing 1/5 After the film, my friend turned to me and said ?Aren?t you sick of the over-use of computer animation in movies these days?? With Van Helsing, the answer is a resounding YES! This is yet another film that proves that special effects alone cannot make up for a lousy script. The best special effects are still the ones you don?t know are special effects. With VH going after vampires and werewolves at the same time, you just knew this was going to be a compromise. There?s nothing particularly scary in the film. The best monster of all happens to be Dr Frankenstein?s monster, who actually does have a heart and a mind. Hommage is paid to James Bond Q department and maybe a bit of Indiana Jones and Spiderman. Unlike Indiana Jones, the Van Helsing character is humourless, flat and uninvolving. The first Spiderman film had a heart. This film has virtually no pulse. With a rating of PG-14, you knew Van Helsing was going to be a juvenile, silly affair, and it hits the mark precisely. There?s got to be a video game version coming soon. Is it worth seeing again or buying on DVD? I don?t think so. Let?s hope there won?t be a sequel. Review by Triniman Expand
  95. RichardG.
    May 10, 2004
    2
    This Movie is utterly ridiculous, has hollywood ran out of stories to tell? They have Van Helsing, Dracula, Mr. Hyde, Frankenstein's monster and the Werewolf running around. I almost died with laughter. I just wanted to see Frankenstein bust a colt .45 revolver, that would finish off this movie. This movie should have just been converted into a spoof comedy during the production -- This Movie is utterly ridiculous, has hollywood ran out of stories to tell? They have Van Helsing, Dracula, Mr. Hyde, Frankenstein's monster and the Werewolf running around. I almost died with laughter. I just wanted to see Frankenstein bust a colt .45 revolver, that would finish off this movie. This movie should have just been converted into a spoof comedy during the production -- Oh wait it all ready is -- it just wasn't done intentionally Expand
  96. DerekG.
    May 8, 2004
    2
    Words cannot describe what a complete and utter mess this film is, so I won't bother trying.
  97. WormyMcworm
    May 9, 2004
    2
    2. For the adorability that was David Wenham scuttling around as a little beetle priest. Everybody else sickened me. I genuinely wanted those stupid vampire brides to explode and kill them all.
  98. RobertCritic
    May 6, 2004
    2
    The special effects were amazing. That is about the only positive thing to say about this movie. The acting was wooden, the dialog was shallow and unengaging, but by far, the worst aspect of this movie is the plot. Written for those who recently fell off the turnip truck or who, like Frankenstein, have an abnormal brain, this screenplay is completely devoid of any redeeming qualities and The special effects were amazing. That is about the only positive thing to say about this movie. The acting was wooden, the dialog was shallow and unengaging, but by far, the worst aspect of this movie is the plot. Written for those who recently fell off the turnip truck or who, like Frankenstein, have an abnormal brain, this screenplay is completely devoid of any redeeming qualities and is frankly just stupid and insulting. There is no emotion connection either between the characters or between the characters and the audience. Several plot lines teased throughout the film are left unresolved in a most unsatisfactory way for the viewer. What is most upsetting after viewing this film is the recognition that a concept with such potential was executed in such a poor and wastful way. Expand
  99. RichardG.
    May 10, 2004
    2
    This Movie is utterly ridiculous, has hollywood ran out of stories to tell? They have Van Helsing, Dracula, Mr. Hyde, Frankenstein's monster and the Werewolf running around. I almost died with laughter. I just wanted to see Frankenstein bust a colt .45 revolver, that would finish off this movie. This movie should have just been converted into a spoof comedy during the production -- This Movie is utterly ridiculous, has hollywood ran out of stories to tell? They have Van Helsing, Dracula, Mr. Hyde, Frankenstein's monster and the Werewolf running around. I almost died with laughter. I just wanted to see Frankenstein bust a colt .45 revolver, that would finish off this movie. This movie should have just been converted into a spoof comedy during the production -- Oh wait it all ready is -- it just wasn't done intentionally Expand
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. 20
    Sommers suspends the laws of time and physics and forces his characters to spout some of the cheesiest dialogue imaginable.