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.

*

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Right! Let’s restore some bloody logic!

It Couldn't Happen Here (1987)
(SPOILERS) "I think our film is arguably better than Spiceworld" said Neil Tennant of his and Chris Lowe's much-maligned It Couldn't Happen Here, a quasi-musical, quasi-surrealist journey through the English landscape via the Pet shop Boys' "own" history as envisaged by co-writer-director Jack Bond. Of course, Spiceworld could boast the presence of the illustrious Richard E Grant, while It Couldn't Happen Here had to settle for Gareth Hunt. Is its reputation deserved? It's arguably not very successful at being a coherent film (even thematically), but I have to admit that I rather like it, ramshackle and studiously aloof though it is.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

You kind of look like a slutty Ebola virus.

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
(SPOILERS) The phenomenal success of Crazy Rich Asians – in the US at any rate, thus far – might lead one to think it's some kind of startling original, but the truth is, whatever its core demographic appeal, this adaptation of Kevin Kwan's novel taps into universally accepted romantic comedy DNA and readily recognisable tropes of family and class, regardless of cultural background. It emerges a smoothly professional product, ticking the expected boxes in those areas – the heroine's highs, lows, rejections, proposals, accompanied by whacky scene-stealing best friend – even if the writing is sometimes a little on the clunky side.

They make themselves now.

Screamers (1995)
(SPOILERS) Adapting Philip K Dick isn’t as easy as it may seem, but that doesn't stop eager screenwriters from attempting to hit that elusive jackpot. The recent Electric Dreams managed to exorcise most of the existential gymnastics and doubts that shine through in the best versions of his work, leaving material that felt sadly facile. Dan O'Bannon had adapted Second Variety more than a decade before it appeared as Screamers, a period during which he and Ronald Shusett also turned We Can Remember It For You Wholesale into Total Recall. So the problem with Screamers isn't really the (rewritten) screenplay, which is more faithful than most to its source material (setting aside). The problem with Screamers is largely that it's cheap as chips.

Well, we took a vote. Predator’s cooler, right?

The Predator (2018)
(SPOILERS) Is The Predator everything you’d want from a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator (or Yautja, or Hish-Qu-Ten, apparently)? Emphatically not. We've already had a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator – or the other way around, at least – and that was on another level. The problem – aside from the enforced reshoots, and the not-altogether-there casting, and the possibility that full-on action extravaganzas, while delivered competently, may not be his best foot forward – is that I don't think Black's really a science-fiction guy, game as he clearly was to take on the permanently beleaguered franchise. He makes The Predator very funny, quite goofy, very gory, often entertaining, but ultimately lacking a coherent sense of what it is, something you couldn't say of his three prior directorial efforts.

My pectorals may leave much to be desired, Mrs Peel, but I’m the most powerful man you’ve ever run into.

The Avengers 2.23: The Positive-Negative Man
If there was a lesson to be learned from Season Five, it was not to include "man" in your title, unless it involves his treasure. The See-Through Man may be the season's stinker, but The Positive-Negative Man isn't far behind, a bog-standard "guy with a magical science device uses it to kill" plot. A bit like The Cybernauts, but with Michael Latimer painted green and a conspicuous absence of a cool hat.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

The possibilities are gigantic. In a very small way, of course.

The Avengers 5.24: Mission… Highly Improbable
With a title riffing on a then-riding-high US spy show, just as the previous season's The Girl from Auntie riffed on a then-riding-high US spy show, it's to their credit that neither have even the remotest connection to their "inspirations" besides the cheap gags (in this case, the episode was based on a teleplay submitted back in 1964). Mission… Highly Improbable follows in the increasing tradition (certainly with the advent of Season Five and colour) of SF plotlines, but is also, in its particular problem with shrinkage, informed by other recent adventurers into that area.

What a truly revolting sight.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge (aka Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales) (2017)
(SPOILERS) The biggest mistake the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels have made is embracing continuity. It ought to have been just Jack Sparrow with an entirely new cast of characters each time (well, maybe keep Kevin McNally). Even On Stranger Tides had Geoffrey Rush obligatorily returning as Barbossa. Although, that picture’s biggest problem was its director; Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge has a pair of solid helmers in Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg, which is a relief at least. But alas, the continuity is back with a vengeance. And then some. Why, there’s even an origin-of-Jack Sparrow vignette, to supply us with prerequisite, unwanted and distracting uncanny valley (or uncanny Johnny) de-aging. The movie as a whole is an agreeable time passer, by no means the dodo its critical keelhauling would suggest, albeit it isn’t even pretending to try hard to come up with …