An interesting twist on several old themes, but I have a complaint. Not Dracula killing Victor Frankenstein, not Van Helsing unexplainedly being over 400 years old (with no explanation, by the way), not Frankenstein's monster loving his creator as a father. I was actually okay with all that. Stephen Sommers is a horrible story teller. Half the characters in The Mummy and The Mummy Returns were annoying and I guess he saw no reason to do anything different. Ann Valerious is a constant agitant and deserves to die. She and the people of her village are trying to destroy a werewolf, but when her brother is bitten and tries to attack and kill her, she attacks Van Helsing when he tries to kill him. Now all of a sudden she wants to find a cure. When her brother is captured in man form she tries to untie him, knowing full well he's a wolf. Friar Velkan is the ever present comic relief, equivalent to Jonathan Carnahan in The Mummy. But one comic relief isn't annoying enough, Igor (played by Kevin J. O'Connor who was also annoying in The Mummy as Beni Gabor) must make inane comments as well. On to the plot: Dracula is unkillable. He has been, stabbed, staked, burned, beaten, julienned, frickaseed and baked at 350 for 4 hours. He can also control werewolves. He needs Frankenstein's monster's life energy to bring life to his legions of stillborn children. But it turns out the one thing that can kill him is a werewolf. Now if Dracula is unkillable save for by a werewolf, why keep one around? It just so happens Van Helsing is the one who murdered him 400 years ago and Van Helsing could resist Dracula's control as a werewolf. And you guessed it, Van Helsing gets bitten by a werewolf. Oh, and apparently the moon is always full in Transylvania. Dracula's lair is only accessible by a mirror in Ann Valerious' house. But she has no idea how to get there? And not only that, but Dracula marches his wee-man henchmen, Igor, the monster and tons of equipment through this portal and NOBODY sees them. Don't bother with popcorn, in the end when Ann dies we see her reunited with her family in the clouds. There's all the corn you need as wee see her smiling down, happy she's had her neck broken by a werewolf. The action is steady in this movie and Hugh Jackman is really the only likeable character (and the only one who's accent is halfway believable). It had potential to be a great movie, but Sommers is too stuck on horrible plot devices to put together a good story. Van Helsing will probably make enough millions to warrant a sequel, but I hope Sommers will be working on The Mummy 3 or something when production starts.

Obviously you went in intent on picking this movie apart which will make it hard to enjoy any summer action movie. That's too bad. It's a monster movie, it's not real to begin with.

On the other hand, I would argue with you on several points. Van Helsing is way more than 400 years old and they DO explain it. They just don't beat you over the head with it and state it in overly-obvious terms. You have to think about it a little bit - just a little, though.

Anna Valerious is kind of the typical "agitant" woman in an action movie, but I think she actually does help out most times instead of standing back and screaming in terror. As for the end "cloud scene," yes that was pretty corny but I took it that it was just Van Helsing visualizing it. Carl never saw the images. This is one of those things that you can easily lambaste in the movie if you are so inclined, but I prefer to just accept it. And who can blame Anna for not wanting to kill her BROTHER? He is her brother, after all. And she didn't know of a cure before.

As far as Dracula and the control of the werewolves, I never got the impression that he was mentally controlling anyone. Moreso he had convinced the werewolves (and Dr. Frankenstein) to follow his leadership through threats, intimidation, and their natural evil tendencies. He kept the werewolves around because they are extremely powerful. Their danger to Dracula was known only to him and that is why he kept the antidote/cure at hand, so that if they got out of control he could negate their threat to him.

This wasn't a movie intended to be torn apart and dissected for flaws. It was a summer action movie and VERY entertaining at that (at least to me and several others on this board).

I am not sure of the actual story, but the movie was great. It is the best "siege" movie that I can ever remember seeing.

If we're talking siege movies, let's not forget SAHARA. Bogie as Sgt. Joe Gunn--one of his finest roles.

I just got back from Van Helsing. I don’t see what all the bad reviews are about. Sure I have issues with the tone, the comic relief, the screeching of the wives, the bad accents, the Bondization of Van Helsing, even the change of first name.

But you know what? I had a good time.

Sometimes you can overthink these things. I mean, it's a monster movie, folks.

My mom and I went for Mother's Day and she throughly enjoyed herself
(She saw the originals as a little girl in a local theatre where her dad was a
projectionist)
And for myself, I like the way Jackman and his Wolverine character surfaced
once more.
It may not be the greatest movie ever made, but for what it was- it was a lot of fun (and is far better than that stupid, overblown and overwrought TROY)

(and is far better than that stupid, overblown and overwrought TROY)

How do you know? Have you seen that already?

My mom and I went for Mother's Day and she throughly enjoyed herself
(She saw the originals as a little girl in a local theatre where her dad was a
projectionist)
And for myself, I like the way Jackman and his Wolverine character surfaced
once more.
It may not be the greatest movie ever made, but for what it was- it was a lot of fun (and is far better than that stupid, overblown and overwrought TROY)

I really liked it, too. The only thing I didn't like (since it was already revealed above) was killing off the girl.

I really liked it, too. The only thing I didn't like (since it was already revealed above) was killing off the girl.

She'd be a burden in the sequel, so...

I love "last stands" in general. Beau Geste, They Died with Their Boots On, Khartoum, Zulu, Siege of Firebase Gloria, The Four Feathers, The Alamo (haven't seen the new one yet). What others are there?

Man, you forgot one of the all time great historical last stands, "Themopolea (spl?) Don't know if there was ever a movie about it made but there is an awesome book called the "Gates of Fire"...(I can't remember the authors name...shame on me)

King Leonidus and 300 Spartans holding off and putting a pretty good beating on a Persian army said to be in the 50,000-100,000 range. Amazing stuff. And not to add a spoiler but they would have been able to hold off the Persians for much longer but they where betrayed....Great stuff if you like history and last stands. (also, in reading this book I found out the origination of the word "Dread Locks"...very interesting)

How do you know? Have you seen that already?

Yes, I have and found it to be all that and more.The film just lies there on the screen and save for one scene involving Peter O'Toole as Priam, there is
no emotional investment in any of the characters. But there is plenty of sex appeal for females 12 to 35, the audience without which probably wouldn't attend. It's as if all the leads were cast for their supposed handsomeness and buff physiques.

Liberties (that's putting it mildly) are taken with Homer's work and having translated the Latin of both the Illiad and Odyssey, I knew to expect this.

Petersen has made a film that manages to be both pro (every one who fights in war and goes to it for glory) and anti war ("old men talk, young men die").

This is the second film that Bana has sunk, Pitt is alternately petulant/egotiscal, Bloom lookes prettier than Helen (she becomes secondary during the latter stages of the film) and is a wimp. The only person who remotely looks as if she belongs in that time is Saffon Burrows.

What this film needed was a Russell Crowe type. No. Wait. He's already been a Gladiator.

Obviously you went in intent on picking this movie apart which will make it hard to enjoy any summer action movie. That's too bad. It's a monster movie, it's not real to begin with.

On the other hand, I would argue with you on several points. Van Helsing is way more than 400 years old and they DO explain it. They just don't beat you over the head with it and state it in overly-obvious terms. You have to think about it a little bit - just a little, though.

Anna Valerious is kind of the typical "agitant" woman in an action movie, but I think she actually does help out most times instead of standing back and screaming in terror. As for the end "cloud scene," yes that was pretty corny but I took it that it was just Van Helsing visualizing it. Carl never saw the images. This is one of those things that you can easily lambaste in the movie if you are so inclined, but I prefer to just accept it. And who can blame Anna for not wanting to kill her BROTHER? He is her brother, after all. And she didn't know of a cure before.

As far as Dracula and the control of the werewolves, I never got the impression that he was mentally controlling anyone. Moreso he had convinced the werewolves (and Dr. Frankenstein) to follow his leadership through threats, intimidation, and their natural evil tendencies. He kept the werewolves around because they are extremely powerful. Their danger to Dracula was known only to him and that is why he kept the antidote/cure at hand, so that if they got out of control he could negate their threat to him.

This wasn't a movie intended to be torn apart and dissected for flaws. It was a summer action movie and VERY entertaining at that (at least to me and several others on this board).

I guess I'm missing something. Where is it said the movie wasn't intended to be picked apart? We do it with every other movie- what makes this one so special? Remember everyone dogging the Hulk? I thought that was a great movie, but there are a lot of people who picked it apart. I actually liked Van Helsing =for the most part=, there were just elements that were extremely annoying. I understand Anna's apprehension to killing her brother, but she goes so far as to get upset with Van Helsing for trying to kill him. And she objected to killing him BEFORE there is a known cure. I think Stephen Sommers isn't that great of a story teller. He can come up with good ideas, but the execution is a let down. Oh, and the Friar said it outright that Dracula could indeed control werewolves- they were worried he'd be able to control Van Helsing. It makes no sense for Dracula to keep werewolves around. Nothing can kill him except werewolves. Which means he pretty much could go anywhere and do anything he wanted. So if he can control them he could have eliminated them. He had to know about the prophecy considering the painting was in a house he lived in.

But anyway, if they make a sequel, I hope Stephen Sommers isn't involved. The movie could have been a lot better.