Hi David,

Excellent review! VAN HELSING left me feeling so disappointed, so cheated. I never like to rip on someone's film because I've been making short films for a few years now and I know how much hard work, dedication, love, sweat and tears it takes to make your dream flicker up on the big screen. However, when something like VH comes along, there is NO REASON it shouldn't have been better. Huge budget, talented actors, a plethora of well-loved monsters; all the ingredients seemed to be there. (Speaking of budgets, my largest budget has been $500 so if anyone wants to say my work sucks, I'll fully understand!) I feel there are two areas where VH went wrong:

1) A weak story. When I watch a movie and I don't care who lives or dies, I know it's probably going to be a long two hours.

2) CGI. This piggybacks onto #1, since CGI cannot be used to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. CGI can enhance a great story, helping flesh it out visually. But if you're starting with a weak story, CGI is simply eye-candy, which always loses its luster after a short while. First a good steak, then the sizzle. (I know this is an old argument now, but so many directors/producers are like "kids in a candy store" when it comes to CGI.)

On a side note, I loved the first THE MUMMY (and enjoyed the next two) with Brendan Fraser. Characters you cared about, a creepy villain and lots of fun thrown in. I also loved Jackson's KING KONG. No, it's not the original, and the CGI gets to be a little much in a few scenes (can you say "running dinosaurs"?) but the story was solid and Kong was given a real heart.

Just my .02 cents (adjusted for inflation, of course).

Strangenstein