Stephen Sommer's VAN HELSING has become the poster child, and rightfully so, for the worst excesses of modern films -- absurd CGI, non-stop nonsensical action, impossible feats that defy physics and over-the-top everything.
I hated it -- and for those who know my giving nature, film-wise, "hate'' is a strong word for me.
But even though I very much enjoyed Sommers' THE MUMMY, and was in the minority for liking the flawed but fun remakes of THE TIME MACHINE and PLANET OF THE APES, I really did hate VAN HELSING. It was nothing about the Universal monsters and everything about what movies shouldn't be.
Snowed in last night, I decided to revisit VAN HELSING. And while I still think it's really awful, I saw the film through clearer eyes this time and have a better idea why it failed.
-- First of all, the scale is all wrong. We all, I think, got excited during the opening black and white creation scene. But it quickly became apparent that Sommers was going to use a bludgeon where a scalpel was called for. There weren't dozens of villagers, or even a few hundred, as would be normal in 19th Century Transyvania. No, there were THOUSANDS of CGI villagers, all holding torches, all moving en masse. If I was a kid, I would've yelled 'Phony!'
-- The CGI action is dreadful -- impossible leaps, swinging rescues that make no sense. The Wolf Man creature never looks real, Mr. Hyde is a cartoon and the only creature that is interesting -- the Monster -- has so many bells and whistles (a head that opens, a detachable face, etc.), that the faint patina of belief is gone from the first scream. The vampire harpies are kinda cool, but too much flying and zooming. And the vampire baby bats? Please.
-- And then the pacing. Here we truly have the worst of modern films. People don't enter a room. No, the doors fly open with huge roars of sound; people aren't just pushed they are thrown across courtyards, through walls. Everything is always breaking apart with great thunder and lightning. No one ever stops to sip a cup of tea. It's an editing bay gone wild.
And yet. And yet. ... Both MUMMY remakes had all of these things -- the same crazy geometries, heroes falling from great heights unharmed, sand monsters and millions of bugs. Why did those work for me, and not VAN HELSING, which was obviously Sommers' heartfelt tribute film?
I think the reason isn't the effects, the editing, the pace or the physics. The reason VAN HELSIN failed while THE MUMMY worked is a very basic thing. The acting.
Even those who groaned at THE MUMMY had to enjoy or believe in Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz and villain Arnold Vosloo. They made the film work, playing off the special effects in a Harryhausen mix of fun and professionalism.
In VAN HELSING, you never believe in Hugh Jackman, who seems to be playing an action figure instead of a character. The heroine, Kate Beckinsale, is so wrapped in Vampira tough girl attitude that she never emerges as a character we care about.
But the chief failure is VAN HELSING's Dracula. Richard Roxburgh's Dracula is a total and complete failure -- neither caricature nor parody but a plodding ineffectual whisper where there should be a scream. It's funny - he's the only one in the movie who shouldn't underplay his part. Instead, Roxburgh's Dracula isn't evil, isn't funny, isn't sardonic, isn't ironic. He's a table readthrough. It's amazingly...bloodless. I would have preferred George Hamilton!
Had Dracula worked he could have dominated the film. Instead, we're left with Burger King monsters vs. Hasbro heroes.
I think all this proves that the essence of any film, when all is said and done, is the portrayals within. Believe in the actors and you can believe anything, even that a man can fly.
But VAN HELSING never suspends disbelief. The actors don't believe it. Why should we?
The whole thing left me feeling rather sad. By the end, you're so wrung out by the sheer intensity of it that it almost redeems itself. And when you watch the DVD Extras you can see that Sommers really did want to make a tribute film that mattered. I hear that kids liked it. Hope so.
Because I hated it. In a sad, yearning way...
david
'One man crazy! Three very sane spectators.
I hated it -- and for those who know my giving nature, film-wise, "hate'' is a strong word for me.
But even though I very much enjoyed Sommers' THE MUMMY, and was in the minority for liking the flawed but fun remakes of THE TIME MACHINE and PLANET OF THE APES, I really did hate VAN HELSING. It was nothing about the Universal monsters and everything about what movies shouldn't be.
Snowed in last night, I decided to revisit VAN HELSING. And while I still think it's really awful, I saw the film through clearer eyes this time and have a better idea why it failed.
-- First of all, the scale is all wrong. We all, I think, got excited during the opening black and white creation scene. But it quickly became apparent that Sommers was going to use a bludgeon where a scalpel was called for. There weren't dozens of villagers, or even a few hundred, as would be normal in 19th Century Transyvania. No, there were THOUSANDS of CGI villagers, all holding torches, all moving en masse. If I was a kid, I would've yelled 'Phony!'
-- The CGI action is dreadful -- impossible leaps, swinging rescues that make no sense. The Wolf Man creature never looks real, Mr. Hyde is a cartoon and the only creature that is interesting -- the Monster -- has so many bells and whistles (a head that opens, a detachable face, etc.), that the faint patina of belief is gone from the first scream. The vampire harpies are kinda cool, but too much flying and zooming. And the vampire baby bats? Please.
-- And then the pacing. Here we truly have the worst of modern films. People don't enter a room. No, the doors fly open with huge roars of sound; people aren't just pushed they are thrown across courtyards, through walls. Everything is always breaking apart with great thunder and lightning. No one ever stops to sip a cup of tea. It's an editing bay gone wild.
And yet. And yet. ... Both MUMMY remakes had all of these things -- the same crazy geometries, heroes falling from great heights unharmed, sand monsters and millions of bugs. Why did those work for me, and not VAN HELSING, which was obviously Sommers' heartfelt tribute film?
I think the reason isn't the effects, the editing, the pace or the physics. The reason VAN HELSIN failed while THE MUMMY worked is a very basic thing. The acting.
Even those who groaned at THE MUMMY had to enjoy or believe in Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz and villain Arnold Vosloo. They made the film work, playing off the special effects in a Harryhausen mix of fun and professionalism.
In VAN HELSING, you never believe in Hugh Jackman, who seems to be playing an action figure instead of a character. The heroine, Kate Beckinsale, is so wrapped in Vampira tough girl attitude that she never emerges as a character we care about.
But the chief failure is VAN HELSING's Dracula. Richard Roxburgh's Dracula is a total and complete failure -- neither caricature nor parody but a plodding ineffectual whisper where there should be a scream. It's funny - he's the only one in the movie who shouldn't underplay his part. Instead, Roxburgh's Dracula isn't evil, isn't funny, isn't sardonic, isn't ironic. He's a table readthrough. It's amazingly...bloodless. I would have preferred George Hamilton!
Had Dracula worked he could have dominated the film. Instead, we're left with Burger King monsters vs. Hasbro heroes.
I think all this proves that the essence of any film, when all is said and done, is the portrayals within. Believe in the actors and you can believe anything, even that a man can fly.
But VAN HELSING never suspends disbelief. The actors don't believe it. Why should we?
The whole thing left me feeling rather sad. By the end, you're so wrung out by the sheer intensity of it that it almost redeems itself. And when you watch the DVD Extras you can see that Sommers really did want to make a tribute film that mattered. I hear that kids liked it. Hope so.
Because I hated it. In a sad, yearning way...
david
'One man crazy! Three very sane spectators.
