Skip to main content

Van Helsing, I don't want to go to Transylvania!


Van Helsing
(2004)

There comes a point in a director’s career, particularly when that director is both writer and director of his movie projects, when the blame for his failures must be levelled squarely in his direction. No letting him off the hook by placing the blame on studio meddling or unmeetable deadlines. The peculiar situation of Stephen Sommers is one in which, as his autonomy grew, so uncontrollable budgets usurped any aesthetic, stylistic or narrative coherence. And Van Helsing is the overblown disaster, all of his own doing it should be emphasised, that lay in wait as a natural result of this.

The warning signs were there well beforehand. Sommers had found success through adaptations of a couple of classics of children’s literature; The Adventures of Huck Finn and The Jungle Book. They were reasonably popular, and the latter in particular was a money-earner for Disney. So, he went on to steer a film that remains the highlight of his career; monster movie with a capital “B”, Deep Rising. It’s a movie where he manages to judge the knowing tone just right, helped considerably by the unlikely return to leading man duties from Treat Williams. It should be noted that he wrote all of these, as he did the two Mummy outings that followed. It was these two films that gave him the clout to make anything he wanted with Universal.

The first Mummy is an agreeable-enough, sub-Indiana Jones popcorn flick, but with none of the love and care Spielberg brought to the daring archeologist (the first few adventures, at least). Rather, the story, tone and pace lurch with wild abandon from scene to scene. Sommers’ hyperactive approach has little time for character-building or plot nuance. In that sense, he is very much the churn’em out successor to the ‘30s serials that Spielberg and Lucas were bringing far more acumen to. The Mummy Returns, which came two years after the first installment, is an overblown, CGI-mess even by Sommers’ half-baked standards. The effects frequently looked half-finished and, worse, seem to have resisted all attempts by the plot to keep them under control. It was a big hit at the box office, of course, but Sommers seemed to be exactly the kind of high-energy, low-quality director that was gaining an unfortunate foothold at the beginning of the millennium (see also Brett Ratner).

And so, he was handed the keys to Universal’s kingdom. He had revitalised one of their monsters. Why not let him take on all of them? Dracula, Frankenstein’s monster, the Wolfman… We should probably be grateful that the film was his undoing (he has had only one film released since). Van Helsing wasn’t an outright flop, but it was a production that had so much money thrown at it, it would have to have made double it’s gross worldwide to be considered a success (the budget was reported at $160m, the gross was $300m). The proposed sequel and planned spin-off TV series (Transylvania) both floundered and, over-night, Sommers was persona non grata (when many of us were just surprised it had taken studios so long to recognise the obvious).

And yet, it’s not like Sommers hadn’t seized upon a decent premise. Or even a strong choice of leading man (even if picking Hugh Jackman was based purely on post-Wolverine cachet). And it isn’t as if he has no idea of how to direct; it’s that his choices are so hyperbolic that they become anti-dramatic. As a writer, his work is rudimentary at best; perhaps he realises this deep down and consequently feels the need to douse his failings in that department under a bombardment of visual effects and semi-comprehensible action. His cinematographer, Allen Daviau, worked with Spielberg a number of times during the ‘80s, but Van Helsing’s uniform sheen of colour-corrected greens and blues is as uninviting as the cartoonish CGI that erupts from every frame.

For Sommers, only excess will suffice. And so, appropriately, the script reflects this attitude. Van Helsing isn’t just a vampire hunter, he’s a Vatican-sponsored monster masher who has been alive for centuries and suffers from convenient amnesia concerning his distant past (as crassly as one would expect, this isn’t Abraham, but younger brother Gabriel; purely for reasons of Sommers’ production company retaining the rights to the character… that no one is interested in exploring further). Because heroes these days need to have a mysterious past and superhuman qualities. And he is equipped with James Bond gadgetry and even a Q-figure to tell him what they do. So too, Dracula doesn’t just want to haunt Transylvania; he wants to take over the world with his progeny, given life through the experimentation of Baron Frankenstein. And, er, something to do with a pet werewolf.

You can see Sommers with all the Universal monsters to play with, trying to connect the dots between them in as extreme and ludicrous a fashion as possible. It’s just a shame there’s no sign of Gill Man (but we do see Mr Hyde, who was not one of Universal’s pantheon). Every element is introduced at the level of “shouting” and builds from there to a crescendo. It’s a wearying script, so one-note that the freneticism becomes banal.

This is, if possible, even more true of the camerawork and editing. Sommers’ CGI-enhanced visuals require a perpetually airborne camera, be it crashing towards grounded characters are following flying harpies.  Or just trailing falling monsters as they show little regard for gravity, geography or physics. There’s no weight to the scenes, reflecting the absence of weight within the drama. After a while, it becomes quite confounding that the director seems so clueless about straightforward drama. Yet he also seems to have scant understanding of pacing, tension and simple dynamics between figures within the frame. I said that he appears to understand the basic requirements of direction, and he does, but his choices are willfully destructive to engaging an audience. He continually positions and moves the camera for maximum impact, but he is rarely serving the drama by doing so. And it is always used that way. The result is simultaneously both lifeless and frenziedly steroidal.

The design on the film is similarly slapdash, with anything half decent usually buried under a mess of lazily fake-looking CGI. The werewolf rips off his human skin to transform but there’s no impact; it’s just CGI gloss. The nude harpy/vampires of Dracula’s harem lack any hint of eroticism (even though the choice was clearly intended to be suggestive) because they are so CG-crappy. And the less said about Mr Hyde, the better. The connecting sections of the head of Frankenstein’s Monster are quite nifty, but the overall design is lacklustre. Igor looks like no one got beyond sticking a bit of putty on Kevin J O’Connor’s face. And the less said about the vampire spawn, the better. The costumes of Van Helsing and Anna are ridiculously sumptuous leather ensembles, over-designed costumes that only fit with the film because every aspect is so predictably attention-seeking in its artifice. The sets are likewise all about flashy grandiosity, invested with zero atmosphere.

Hugh Jackman is always dependable, but completely lost within this mess, particularly when saddled with a character this rudimentary. Kate Beckinsale is virtually indistinguishable from her role in Underworld. Richard Roxburgh delivers his usual scenery-chewing assault on dignity and good taste as Dracula, just as he did playing Moriarty in the previous years The League Extraordinary of Gentlemen. Only David Wenham’s comic relief friar escapes with any credibility, somehow able to inject a lightness of touch when the dialogue (uniformly awful) provides no such opportunity (it’s a consistent disappointment that a film so perpetually inane is also so bereft of an engaging sense of humour; Sommers attempts to write gags, but they are crashingly obvious and flounder as badly as every other aspect of the film).  The relentless colloquialism of the dialogue becomes annoying very quickly.

Van Helsing is a relentlessly hyperactive, gaudy ADD monstrosity. Characters fly about the screen as dismissive of the laws of physics as Sommers’ script is of dramatic integrity. The tiresomely excessive result feels every one of its 131 minutes. Sommers returned with G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra in 2009, replete with the same kind of car-crash direction. The film was a big enough hit to ensure a sequel, so Sommers is now free to inflict continued retina damage upon audiences across the globe. The director returns this year with Dean R Koontz adaptation Odd Thomas. He’s also attached to a remake of When Worlds Collide. Just imagine the incomprehensible results that will yield.

*

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism