|
|
Van Helsing
The Nadir.
2004
Director: Stephen Sommers
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Kate Beckensale
It would only make it worse.
THE SETUP:
“Tribute” to the old Universal monster movies is the equivalent of pouring hot lead into your eyeballs.
DISCUSSION:
I really don’t have much to say about this movie, but I think it is important to set a baseline for “bad bad,” to set a DEFINITION for a movie that is utterly devoid of quality or any redeeming value, and this is it. On this site, Van Helsing represents zero.
I avoided this at the theater, intuiting from the reviews that it really would be quite bad (as opposed to “fun bad”). When it was released on video, the New York Times described it as “virtually unwatchable,” which sparked my interest in seeing it. I rented it [with Persona, oddly], and found that they were right. I like that insult, unwatchable. When you think that, you know, all you have to do to “watch” something is sit there with your eyes open… and the idea that even THAT cannot be managed for this film... And you know, it turned out to be TRUE!
Perhaps one day in the future this film will be looked at as the bridge out of narrative cohesion and into the inevitable future when movies are nothing more than a succession of unrelated violent and sexual images on a screen. This film is all climax and nothing else. Not a second goes by when something isn’t swooping, exploding, birthing, flying, attacking, etc. It begins, it runs, and an interminable amount of time later it ends. If the majority of mainstream movies lately are following the model of “the roller coaster ride,” this movie would be one of those rides that just picks you up and drops you straight down, lasting two hours.
Usually I am content to just sit and watch special effects. I certainly have a great deal of stored affection for the old Universal monsters, and more so for the mood, tone, and photography of those old films. So it’s not that the idea of this movie doesn’t appeal to me. It’s just that it’s so packed with dumb special effects that remain constantly set at 11 [if the moon is ALWAYS going to be full and beautifully peeking out of wispy clouds, the thrill of that is pretty much gone, isn’t it?], that all texture and interest has been steamrollered out. This is one of those movies in which every sight has been tweaked to be exactly perfect and as such all visuals are diminished as a whole.
SPOILERS, AS IT WERE:
The story is virtually nonexistent, with Kate “I’ve given up on serious acting” Beckensale kicking ass except in the situations where she needs a man to save her, some thing about her brother, some hugger-mugger about children of Dracula who are like little CGI bats that want to do something bad or other… but wait until you get to the end where Van Helsing himself actually kills Kate. And what, he just shoves her really hard? He lands on her? Something. I wasn’t interested enough to rewind and look. And then at the very end when her face appears in the sky… your mouth will drop. If only the rest of the movie had been that floridly bad it would have been a lot more enjoyable.
I would like to commission a study to cross-reference viewer’s preference for this film and level of education, to answer the question “How dumb do you have to be to like Van Helsing?” This film also earned additional schadenfreude for the massive marketing network it tried and failed to push down everyone’s throat as they attempted to launch a ‘Franchise.’ Remember when franchises originated because everyone really liked the first movie? And they had more compelling stories to tell? And they had a charismatic hero? And people cared?
Anyway, Van Helsing will serve as my baseline for a movie that absolutely no enjoyment, either from it’s goodness or its badness, can be gleaned.
SHOULD YOU WATCH IT?
Maybe, just to see how bad it can get.
