October 10, 2024 • 36 mins
In this episode of Shelf Criticism, Stephen dives into the monster mash that is 2004’s Van Helsing. Hugh Jackman stars as the iconic monster hunter in a film packed with Dracula, Frankenstein’s monster, werewolves, and over-the-top action sequences. It’s a love letter to Universal’s classic monster films—or at least, that’s what it aims to be.
Stephen explores the movie’s frenetic pacing, its campy tone, and how the film embraces spectacle over substance. He also shares a personal story about his dinner with the late film scholar David J. Skal, who had strong opinions on the film's breakneck speed and manic energy. Though Stephen admits Van Helsing isn't a good film by critical standards, he defends it as a fun, brain-off popcorn flick perfect for the Halloween season.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
I can tell the character of a man by the sound of his heartbeat.
(00:07):
Usually when I approach, I can almost dance to the beat.
Strange that yours is so steady.
(00:36):
Welcome to Shelf Criticism. Meet your host, Stephen, a scholar of literature and film by day.
And by night, a cinematic archaeologist with a penchant for everything from art house to popular to outright trash cinema.
Over the past quarter century, Stephen has amassed an eclectic DVD collection, now occupying five shells of a Curio cabinet in his living room.
(00:58):
Each week, he bravely selects one of these titles to dissect, doing him as he unearths everything from obscure gems to cinematic missteps.
From blockbuster hits to forgotten flops, each film gets the critical once over it probably doesn't deserve, but will absolutely receive.
So grab your popcorn and settle in. It's time to dive into the diverse world of Shelf Criticism.
(01:29):
Welcome to yet another October edition of Shelf Criticism. Thank you all for tuning in. And if you're new to this podcast, welcome. Good to have you aboard.
All this month, I'm doing something a little special in that I'm making sure I grab horror films or at least films that are appropriate for this particular holiday, which may be more of what today's falls into.
(01:50):
It's not like I would call it scary, even though there are werewolves, vampires, Frankenstein's monster, plenty of creepy crawly critters. But naturally, to have that kind of cast, it certainly makes it fall into the October category, correct?
We will get back to true gut wrenching horror on the next episode. But for this one, we're going around to a film that I never spend an October without a rewatch on. Today, we're looking into Van Helsing.
(02:15):
All right, as usual, I take the DVD, talk a little bit about the front and back cover. So the DVD front reads Hugh Jackman, Kate Beckinsale, a Stephen Sommers film.
Van Helsing. Jackman aiming his crossbow, Beckinsale standing behind with a sword or both on the front cover. There's a flying creature, which I'm assuming is Dracula in one of his forms above their head.
(02:36):
In the right corner, there's a werewolf kneeling, Castle Frankenstein or perhaps Castle Dracula, but I think this one is Frankenstein looming in the upper right hand.
We have a quote, nonstop action, a breathtaking thrill ride, says Jeffrey Lyons of NBC TV on the DVD back. Hey, there's Mr. Lyons again.
One of the most visually thrilling movies ever made. Exclamation point Jeffrey Lyons, NBC TV ever made. That's high praise. I'm not sure if we would go that far.
(03:03):
It is visually thrilling, though. Our synopsis reads legendary monster hunter Van Helsing, Hugh Jackman is summoned to mysterious Transylvania on a mission that will thrust him into a sweeping battle against the forces of darkness with nonstop action and electrifying special effects.
Van Helsing is an adrenaline powered motion picture event. Roger Ebert calls spectacular.
(03:25):
Their exclusive special features after that explore Dracula's Castle through an innovative 360 degree self guided tour discover the stunning environments of Van Helsing that you couldn't see in theaters, bringing the monsters to life from pencil sketches through complete digital composition.
The experts in industrial light and magic show how the Van Helsing monsters were made. You are in the movie experience movie making magic through the miniature cameras on the set that give you the actor's perspective on the filming of a scene.
(03:52):
The legend of Van Helsing, the evolution of the legendary character feature commentaries with director Stephen Sommers, Bob Dusk say Duke say I'm sorry if I mispronounce your name, sir.
Richard Roxberg Schuller or Schuyler Hensley. I perhaps the guy who played Frankenstein and will camp play the Van Helsing Xbox game.
Put this DVD into your Xbox console and play the first level of the Van Helsing game. And then we have outtakes.
(04:18):
So how I came to own it. This was absolutely another film that I saw in theaters. Part of it had to do with the fact that it was a universal film and clearly from the trailers it was incorporating many of those old universal monsters that I so loved as my childhood.
And just FYI, I mean going back and watching them. They were old at the time I was a child. I'm not that ancient, although my students might say otherwise.
(04:42):
On top of that, I'd already been a fan of Kate Beckinsale for a long time at that point. I'd seen her in the Golden Bowl and Emma, you know, an English major, right. And to this day, her Emma Woodhouse may still be my favorite portrayal.
Sorry, Gwyneth Paltrow. I like to haunt it a lot. And to this day, I will fight for Laurel Canyon is one of the most underrated films of the early aughts giving mad props to Beck as well as Francis McDormand and Lisa Cholodinko.
(05:05):
I do have that DVD, so that's probably one that I will be covering at some point as well. So criminally overlooked. Such a good film. Beckinsale had already played Celine in the first underworld, which was in no way anything close to a good film.
But it's one, who am I kidding? It's a franchise that I still adore, no matter how cheesy and formulaic it gets. I mean, I am such a Beckinsale fan that I'm willing to forget Pearl Harbor.
(05:27):
So maybe the Universal Monsters and just a little teeny tiny, not at all significant bit of Beckinsale were the reasons I was there on opening night to witness this film. I walked away with a big smile on my face. Even back then, I realized it wasn't exactly good, but I loved every moment of it.
I was leaned back in that chair with eyes glued to the silver screen. This was a time, as I think I've said before, when I was working at Best Buy to supplement my paltry income while teaching adjuncts.
(05:50):
I bought this one as soon as it was released, even brought it home and made my ex-wife who'd already watched it in theaters with me watch it again. As I recall, she didn't love it the way that I did. Still, she weathered my geeky fawning. So kudos to her.
That same year, a very good friend of mine, a fellow grad student and adjunct professor with whom I shared an office, was involved in the local theater scene as well.
Through a series of contacts, he knew the likes of Ray Bradbury, Norman Lloyd, Forrest J. Ackerman, the guy who coined the term sci-fi, and the film scholar David J. Skall, author of such books as Death Makes a Holiday, A Cultural History of Halloween, and Hollywood Gothic, The Tangled Web of Dracula from novel to stage to screen.
(06:27):
Each year around Halloween, his theater troupe would stage a showing of something creepy and gothic, and he'd bring someone like Bradbury or Ackerman or Skall to do a discussion and Q&A around the stagings.
And being friendly with his colleague, I always offered to take whichever guest was with us out to eat, at least once.
I was doing him a favor by keeping them entertained, and as for me, I am never not going to seize an opportunity to hang out with brilliant and fascinating people.
(06:49):
I mean, I've broken bread with the author of Fahrenheit 451 for crying out loud.
The year of Van Helsing's release, Skall was visiting, and during our dinner together, as he was quite familiar with the old Universal Monsters, the conversation turned to the film.
He was not a fan, to put it mildly. Everything I enjoyed about it, from the frantic pacing to the ridiculous accents, the over-the-top chewing on the scenery from essentially the entire cast, he abhorred it.
(07:14):
Of course, he was a super polite fellow, so we did the scholarly thing and just politely disagreed with one another.
Still, around this time of year, I always think of Skall. Not only do I usually thumb through one of his books and read a few chapters, but I also remember that long and depth conversation we had over this film, as well as many other interesting topics we breached.
And sadly, while researching this episode, I came across some tragic news. On New Year's Day of this year, Skall was in an accident involving a drunk driver and unfortunately passed away.
(07:40):
I was gutted. We hadn't spoken since October of 2011, the last time he visited my corner of the world, but his scholarship's always been at the forefront of my approach to film studies.
So, big thank you, David, for the conversations we had, the knowledge you shared, and the impact you had on me and countless others.
You'll be sorely missed. And also, if you've been drinking, call an Uber. There's no excuse to get behind the wheel.
(08:04):
And after that somber note, we'll move on to critical reception. We'll dive into what the critics thought, and let's just say Skall wasn't alone in his disdain.
It holds a 24% on Rotten Tomatoes and only scores 35 on Metacritic. The audiences are always kinder, but not too kind here.
The popcorn meter of Rotten Tomatoes ranks it at an almost passing grade, but not quite at 57%. And Metacritic users rank it at 6.4.
(08:28):
Incidentally, the number of reviews on Rotten Tomatoes for this film is over a quarter million. Needless to say, I did not go sifting through any of those.
The critical zinger of the bunch belongs to Gregory Weinkauf of the Dallas Observer who says, and I quote,
This beast is as subtle as a Red Bull enema, but it succeeds magnificently as compulsively watchful spectacle.
(08:49):
Red Bull enema. Where do the people come up with this stuff? I don't know, but please, for the love of all that's holy, just keep churning out jewels like that. I love it.
Joe Morgenstern's review and the Wall Street Journal is where I want to spend my time, however.
If you know Morgenstern's work, you know that it too is filled with some clever turns of phrases, beginning with the headline.
The horror. Van Helsing turns Hunt for the Undead into a dreary monster mush. Dracula returns and he wants you to buy an action figure.
(09:16):
Morgenstern, of course, is a well-respected critic and Metacritic scored his review a zero, meaning he didn't have a single sentence that expressed a positive sentiment for this film.
That's not unheard of, but generally speaking, a critic finds at least one jot or tittle of something to commend. I knew when I saw that goose egg, this was a review I was going to look into.
He begins by mentioning, to use his words, the quote, elaborate restaging of the scene in James Wales Frankenstein at the beginning of the film, that famous moment when Victor shouts, it's alive.
(09:45):
Only Morgenstern contends it isn't. Nothing's alive, he says, in this trash heap travesty of warm weather entertainment.
Despite the frenetic pace, everything is either deadening or dead, starting with a basic notion of Professor Van Helsing, the venerable vampire hunter from the Bram Stoker novel.
First, nice alliteration in that opening sentence. Second, the following sentence is not exactly correct. This is not Abraham Van Helsing, but Gabriel Van Helsing.
(10:11):
It appears to be implied in the film and even stronger in the supplemental material that he's actually the archangel Gabriel who's lost his memories. I don't think I'm being pedantic in stressing that. Accuracy does matter.
Morgenstern's insistence that it is dead is curious. He does acknowledge the paradox, I suppose, that this is in spite of its pace. Incidentally, the word frenetic he uses is one of the adjectives that Skal used when we talked about it as well.
(10:34):
I just have a hard time squaring that circle. Either a film is dead or packed wall to wall with action, but both can be deleterious, but it's hard to fathom exactly what he means by claiming both.
He continues to harp on the kineticism. The computer generated effects, accompanied by a four aspirin orchestra pumping out of a two nexium score, are numbing in their repetitiveness and twilight grunginess.
(10:55):
Kids may go along with a relentless action, but still feel trapped in a funhouse devoid of fun. We do need to talk about the effects. During the early encounter with Vulcan and the werewolf, I remember thinking this was some nice CGI.
Werewolves, whether practical or computer generated, are so hard to capture on film. Most of the time they look awful. And I'm looking at you Oz from Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
In that scene, the werewolf is constantly in motion, often obscured by trees or the net that he's momentarily caught in. I think this serves a great advantage to the film.
(11:23):
What we do see looks impressive, but from there the effects only devolve, including Vulcan and the new werewolf, as well as Van Helsing when he's transformed.
It's their pointy ears. They look like Batman's mask, not lupine appendages.
Some of the sets, Castle Frankenstein, the Windmill, Castle Dracula, do look terribly phony, but I also think that's fine.
There's a sense of artificiality about the entire film anyway, and this is the same observation that I made about Stardust's representation of Stormhold in the town of Wall on my other podcast, Real Lit.
(11:53):
And this is not at all, but totally is, a shameless plug. Wink, wink.
What really bothers me is everything else. The vampire brides when they transform into their winged state, Dracula when he morphs into whatever the heck bat hybrid thing that was, the little demonic baby bloodsuckers.
During the first scene where the brides attack, there's a moment where one grabs Anna, Kate Beckinsale's character, and flies off with her and flings her into the air, and it just looks so fake I chuckled and shook my head.
(12:19):
Now understand this is 2004, and CGI has grown leaps and bounds since.
I cut Stardust, which is a 2007 film, the same slack in my other podcast, wink, wink, for this reason as well.
Still, it's worth noting the effects have not aged well at all.
As for the pounding score by Alan Silvestri, whose scores in films are a murderer's row of bangers, Back to the Future, Predator, Forrest Gump, Marvel's Avengers films, I agree it's pretty much pure pounding, adrenal stimulant, a Red Bull enema perhaps.
(12:48):
I actually like that about the film though.
During the scene where our heroes are trying to transport Frankenstein's monster away from Dracula, I particularly noted how pulse-pumping it was.
And my thought was nothing to do with aspirin or nexium.
Rather, I smiled and just thought about the pure spectacle that this film is.
Like the Universal monster films of the 30s and 40s that this film pays homage to, from the sweeping landscapes to the ridiculous action sequences to the score, it all begs to be seen on the big screen.
(13:15):
I don't know that we get that quite in that scope anymore in film.
I can't think of anything since Avengers Endgame that's had a similar feel to me.
So devoid of fun? Come on, Morgenstern.
This is not a good film, at least from a critical eye, but it doesn't get much more apt to be standard popcorn fare.
Morgenstern goes on to claim that it's really pointless to think about this as a narrative film.
Rather, it's, and I quote,
(13:37):
A merchandising engine and a marketing ploy designed to exploit among other corporate assets many of the great and not so great horror flicks in Universal's vaults. The new film was a centerpiece or a presenting symptom of an onslaught that will include video games, a TV series, a theme park attraction and action figures, as well as DVD reissues of the back catalogs of the Universal monster films.
(13:59):
Now, this is a fair critique.
Universal assumed a smash blockbuster with this film and planned to have it kick off a full blown franchise.
They were given a budget of $160 million, a price tag which Morgenstern seems appalled by.
How much has changed in 20 years, eh? I mean, that's not cheap, but it's certainly not what's being spent on some major blockbusters today.
The film brought in just under $52 million on opening weekend and brought home a domestic gross of $120 million.
(14:23):
Worldwide yields did push that into the black, topping $300 million, but still it was far from a runaway success.
In fact, shortly after its less-than-stellar showing, the plug was pulled on the planned TV series. And I didn't mean to do that alliteration.
Incidentally, if you're wondering, the sci-fi series Van Helsing is completely unrelated to the film.
There was a line of toys released, video games and, yes, Universal Studios opened an attraction called Van Helsing Fortress Dracula.
(14:49):
That opened in 2004 and closed in November of 2006, being replaced by Universal's House of Horrors, which also includes a lot of the classic Universal monsters.
There was also an animated film, Van Helsing The London Assignment, which Phil's in the back story alluded to in the film when Gabriel tells Mr. Hyde,
I missed you in London. There is also a one-shot comic book from Dark Horse, Van Helsing from Beneath the Rue Morgue,
(15:10):
which has him doing battle with H.G. Wells' famous antagonist, Dr. Moreau.
Incidentally, for both the video game and the animated film, Jackman provided the voice work.
And, no joke, there were Van Helsing slot machines sent to many casinos.
Though it was a disappointment on a number of levels, there's no doubt the film did exist much to drive the supplemental sales of other merch,
at least as much as there was there to entertain.
(15:33):
As I mentioned earlier, the DVD contains a preview of the first level of the Van Helsing video game for Xbox.
And while I will concede this is frustrating, essentially we just paid for tickets to watch a two-hour commercial,
it's also surprisingly familiar to me. I mean, I grew up in the 80s, so our Saturday morning cartoon fair was, what, He-Man, G.I. Joe, Transformers, Thundercats, and that ilk.
Wasn't it always strange how when they released a new G.I. Joe, for example, as an action figure,
(15:57):
he somehow always managed to show up on the cartoon right around the same time?
It was downright dastardly, but also incredibly effective, as children are extremely susceptible to advertising.
By the time the Children's Television Act was passed, I wasn't really watching cartoons anymore, but I can't deny the effectiveness.
How often did I go digging through couch cushions or begging my mom for chores for hire, just so I could snag that soldier I saw up in the G.I. Joe cartoon for that Saturday morning?
(16:20):
But with Van Helsing's PG-13 rating, it wasn't really children being targeted.
I suspect a lot of the action figures were even purchased by adult collectors who never even took them out of the box.
And a cursory search on eBay tells me I might be on to something.
So yeah, it's frustrating to think that the big corporate machine has its tentacles all in this film and uses it to push sales of more junk and milk every last dime it's able to out of the consumer.
(16:42):
That said, I loved G.I. Joe and the like back then. If it was a 30-minute commercial, well, it was one that was darn fun to watch.
And I think the same holds true for Van Helsing.
And perhaps the most amusing part of all is that Morgenstern sees this film as symptomatic of the dumbing down of society writ large.
He says, quote, Yet Van Helsing will be seen as a narrative movie by kids who don't know any better and will contribute with its invincible stupidity and video game incoherence to the ongoing desensitization of young audiences.
(17:09):
Universal is a studio that trashed two treasures from Dr. Seuss, How the Grinch Stole Christmas and the Cat in the Hat.
Now they're using the same brain busting techniques in Van Helsing.
If only we were saying, OK, boomer in 2004. And even that would be incorrect.
Morgenstern is 92 years old. He predates the boomers. Does that make him more grumpy?
I don't know. I'm not all that up on Internet parlance.
(17:31):
And I joke about this critique, and I think it's a bit reactionary and overdramatic.
And that said, I myself for a good two decades have also bemoaned the perceived slide into Philistinism, cretinous offerings with large explosions, hollow plots, completely lacking substance or nuance.
Usually with the name Michael Bay slapped somewhere on there.
But I guess that's the nature of the beast. If you like a film, it's spectacle.
(17:53):
A reminder of why we gather around the big screen instead of sitting at home thumbing through Netflix titles with a bovine interest.
If it's, say, Pirates of the Caribbean, Curse of the Black Pearl, then it's brain rot that's shaving off IQ points with each passing action sequence.
I just don't like that film. To my credit, I guess I at least fully acknowledge that movies like Van Helsing or the Bad Boys franchise or the underworld films are not really well done, perhaps even stupid.
(18:19):
I just sometimes like to turn my brain off and watch things explode.
I do wish we were turning out more thoughtful films and that there was currently a market for smaller, more intellectual offerings specifically on the big screen rather than going direct to streaming.
But I also acknowledge it's a bit preposterous to assume Van Helsing and its ilk are chipping away at the next generation's appreciation of a complex, intelligent story.
(18:41):
As we move on to my take, I will say with Morgan Stern's review, I've already called attention to many of the numerous shortcomings of the film.
It's loud and stupid and one big advertisement. Though it features some of the best-known movie monsters, it can't really be called horror.
In fact, IMDb lists it as action, adventure, fantasy, and thriller. Honestly, it's just mostly action. Not that there's anything wrong with that genre.
It's just that going into a film like this, you didn't expect quite so much of it, I think.
(19:04):
I also find some of the plot contrivances to be just way too convenient.
Van Helsing and Carl arrive in town just as the brides of Dracula attack on the first full moon after Vulcan's bite.
Then he and Anna conveniently fall into Frankenstein's lair despite no one having seen the creature for over a year. Talk about perfect timing.
And okay, I get the Vatican knows more about Van Helsing and Dracula's past.
(19:25):
The Cardinal who sends him even says that he might find out some answers to his missing memory.
But still, making those two foes old friends who used to fight together on the same side and all that history in between them, it feels so cliché.
And this is without mentioning the equally contrived notion that Gabriel has lost all his memories,
keeping the audience in the dark and leading us on a journey of discovery at the same time our protagonist is figuring things out.
(19:46):
It's also just sort of silly to think that the only way Dracula can be killed is by a werewolf.
Also, by the stroke of midnight on a werewolf's first full moon, the creature falls under the complete control of Dracula.
And just to continue with the conveniences, Van Helsing just so happens to get bitten by a werewolf.
Oh, and Dracula has a cure for lycanthropy.
However, it's not like anyone watches this film because the plot is excellent and airtight, right?
(20:07):
I would like to praise the pacing of the film, something that many of the critics bemoaned.
It is frantic or frenetic to use both Skal and Morgan Stern's terms, but it works.
There's never a dull moment.
Over the past few episodes, I've talked about films that drag or feel overlong, most recently just a couple of days ago with my consideration of mirrors.
Wink, wink.
I'm almost starting to sound like I have no attention span and can't weather any film over 90 minutes.
(20:31):
That's not the case at all.
I could sit down right now and watch Godfather 1 and 2 in one sitting.
But it's about pacing.
Mirrors checks in at an hour and 51 minutes and it feels glacial.
Orange County is 82 minutes and it feels too long.
Conversely, Van Helsing is two hours and 12 minutes and it doesn't feel overlong.
Perhaps the fight between our titular hero and Mr. Hyde could have been saved for the animated version.
But this is the first part of the film where we meet Van Helsing and it does a great job of setting up his character.
(20:56):
Besides, it's nice to have another famous monster wedged in there.
Likewise, the entire masquerade scene, while providing some action, is a bit of an indulgence.
Instead of having Allira capture Anna and demand a trade for Frankenstein's monster,
it could have just as easily captured the monster instead.
That would have cut out probably enough to keep it right at the two hour mark.
However, we would miss out on such a lovely set piece and some of the most sumptuous images.
(21:19):
And Hugh Jackman on a Trampese. You can't cut that.
The film is so action packed and visually stunning that it holds your attention from opening to closing credits, which is no simple feat.
Now I should dial back some of my praise here, however, because we're moving into the next segment.
Standout performance. How bad is the acting here?
The accents are deliciously terrible across the board.
I think Kate Beckinsale's changes three or four times during the course of the film.
(21:43):
Morgan Stern actually says that that accent is, and I quote,
somewhere between Hedy Lamarr and Ariana Huffington.
And I'll see Hugh Jackman is playing a European.
So, yeah, makes sense. Let's just give him an American accent.
None of the cast are Eastern European.
A few of the actors during the masquerade scene are Czech.
But did you know Prague is actually west of Vienna?
Seriously, look it up.
(22:05):
Still, the Aussies, the Brits, the Americans, one of the brides is Spanish and another one's Italian.
But they all affect some sort of Transylvanian tinged brogue.
This could be in part a nod to Bela Lugosi and Todd Browning's Dracula.
He was Romanian born, spoke very little English, and he learned his lines phonetically.
But that cadence and that accent has been mimicked mostly poorly by every kid on the playground pretending to be a vampire.
(22:27):
I want to drink your blood. Right. We all did that.
We're playing vampires. It's what we think of.
The accents, however, are not even the craziest part of the acting.
If the action is over the top, the performances are doubly so.
Richard Roxberg plays the counts melodramatically, hissing and growling and baring his fangs every chance he gets.
He can't even compete with the brides.
(22:48):
How they scream and writhe when Mariska is killed by Van Helsing and his nifty gas powered silver steak crossbow.
The way they yell in agony elicits a chuckle as opposed to actually feeling the grief at losing a sister wife.
Frankenstein's monster is equally hammy with his groans of agony and also I think provides some unintentional humor when he's just out of the blue.
When he's captured begins reciting the 23rd Psalm.
(23:11):
What are you doing? You must find a cure.
My friends are doing it for me.
Trans! Yes. You want one?
I cannot screw the bolts. This is going to hurt.
I am accustomed to pain.
I want you to know you're alive.
In no way am I critiquing any of these actors.
It's clear that's the way they were directed.
This was a tone Stephen Sommers wanted to achieve.
(23:33):
And I think it works.
As I said when teasing this episode in the last episode, this film does not want us to take it seriously.
Except for the two top build performers.
Morgenstern calls Jackman a quote dreadful bore and says Beckinsale is the same.
And I quote again, a Romanian vampire huntress whose defining characteristics are cheekbones, breasts and boots.
Still good writing, but I don't know that it's accurate.
(23:56):
Actually, it is kind of accurate, but I think that's the point.
Jackman is deadpan, mostly laconic, but what would you expect from a grizzled monster hunter?
It fits his idiom to show no emotion.
Beckinsale, on the other hand, wears her heart on her sleeve.
I'm not sure at all what Morgenstern found boring about her performance.
I certainly wouldn't rank it anywhere near her best.
Better than Pearl Harbor, though, but that's an awfully low bar.
(24:19):
She gets the job done.
What stands out with these two is the way they're surrounded by performers chomping down so hard on the scenery, they're cracking their teeth.
And these two are just playing it straight.
It's like they aren't in on the joke.
For some reason, however, I think that works even better.
That they aren't in on the joke is the joke.
So I think I'm giving this standout performance, however, to David Winnum, who plays the cowardly Friar Carl.
(24:41):
He's just the right amount of wormy and mousy.
He's clearly a scholar, not a fighter.
He gets a nice arc, shows a little bit of bravery with a barmaid and then later in the showdown at Castle Dracula.
But mostly he serves as comic relief in a film that's mostly comedic to begin with.
But in a movie that thrives on over the top action, Winnum's sly humor and awkward bravery offer a refreshing counterbalance.
(25:02):
And if he looks familiar, he also played Faramir in Lord of the Rings and was Harold Meacham in Iron Fist.
And who am I kidding? Nobody actually watched Iron Fist.
Let's talk a little cultural context here.
When we talk about Van Helsing, it's worth considering how the film was in many ways ahead of its time.
Today, we're all familiar with the idea of a shared universe, thanks to the Marvel Cinematic Universe and its meticulously interconnected stories.
(25:24):
But back in 2004, Van Helsing was attempting something remarkably similar, just in a different way and with a lot less success.
Universal Studios, of course, was already a pioneer of the shared universes with cinema with their classic monster films from the 1930s and 40s.
Movies like Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man and House of Dracula brought various monster characters together, creating a shared mythology that delighted audiences.
(25:46):
With Van Helsing, Universal was clearly trying to recapture that magic by weaving together a host of iconic figures.
Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, the Wolf Man, even throwing in nods to other characters like Jekyll and Mr. Hyde or references to H.G. Wells' Dr. Moreau.
The movie was a modern mashup, hoping to introduce these monsters to a new generation and reignite that shared universe spark.
(26:08):
But Universal's ambition for Van Helsing didn't stop at the film.
They aimed to expand that universe through multimedia approach, something that has become a hallmark of today's biggest franchises.
As previously mentioned alongside the movie, the animated film, the comic book, the video game, the ill-fated TV series, which fell through.
In many ways, this multimedia strategy prefigured what Marvel would later masterfully accomplish with its TV shows, comic books, and tie-in media.
(26:31):
Of course, Van Helsing didn't quite pull it off.
While Marvel's universe building succeeded thanks to carefully interconnected storytelling and character development,
Van Helsing felt more like a wild, manic jumble of monsters and lore that had little thought to laying a foundation for future stories.
In that sense, it might be fair to call Van Helsing a missed opportunity, a film that had ambition but not quite the execution to set up a truly connected shared universe.
(26:55):
It reminds me a little of Batman vs. Superman.
DC had the Man of Steel films, but they tossed in a new Batman, and then Wonder Woman, and even quick appearances of The Flash and Aquaman into this garbled mess of a film.
It didn't completely sink the franchise, as we still got a DCEU, but I don't think even the staunchest fan is going to say it's accomplished what Marvel has.
(27:16):
What's even more intriguing is how Van Helsing served as a precursor to Universal's later, and ultimately ill-fated, attempt to reboot their monster property, the so-called Dark Universe.
This time, they decided to kick things off with The Mummy in 2017, which starred Tom Cruise.
The plan was to create a shared universe featuring modern retellings of their iconic monsters.
But we all know, The Mummy was a critical and commercial flop, and it led Universal to, again, scrap the entire project.
(27:40):
Looking back, Van Helsing was trying to accomplish something similar over a decade earlier, and it seems like neither one of them landed.
Interestingly, in Van Helsing, we see the early seeds of what a shared universe could actually look like, albeit spread across different media rather than just film and TV.
But it's a mix of iconic characters, an animated prequel, a video game tie-in, a crossover into comics.
Van Helsing was Universal's initial attempt at expanding a story world just beyond the movie screen.
(28:06):
Today we have franchises like Marvel, DC, even Godzilla, King Kong. They do this all the time.
They use a wide array of media to flesh out their universes.
But in 2002, that kind of multimedia storytelling was relatively rare, which does make Van Helsing somewhat of a pioneer, and that concept, I guess, just, again, did not stick the landing.
Even though Van Helsing stumbled in bringing the universe to life, it's fascinating to consider how it fits into the broader trajectory of Hollywood's obsession with shared universes.
(28:31):
It's almost like a missing link between the classic Universal monster crossovers of the 30s and 40s and the modern interconnected worlds that dominate today's blockbuster scene.
If Van Helsing had been a bigger success, perhaps Universal's Dark Universe might have taken off years earlier, shaped the cinematic landscape in entirely different ways.
Instead, we get Van Helsing, existing as a relic of what could have been frantic and overstuffed, an attempt at universe building that was a bit too far ahead of its time.
(28:56):
Alright, surprise, surprise, I'm running long. I think I say that every episode.
So we get into the trivia segment. I want to start with the chosen critic, not the film itself.
Did you know Joe Morgenstern was married to Piper Laurie for 20 years? I found that more interesting than many of you will, but still, I just had to share that.
The same thing is probably true about this next one. The actor who plays Vulcan is named Will Kemp.
(29:17):
In the Elizabethan London theater scene, Will Kemp was a famous actor known for his comedic roles, usually taking up that of the clown, such as Dogberry in Much Ado About Nothing or Peter in Romeo and Juliet,
and a humorous touch that is pure Tom Stoppard. In Shakespeare in Love, Kemp is portrayed as begging the bar to write him a tragedy.
In Shakespeare's response, they would laugh at Seneca if you played him Will.
(29:38):
Mr. Hyde, though completely CGI, is voiced by Robbie Coltrane, best known for his role as Hagrid in the Harry Potter series.
Silvia Coloca? I hope I'm saying that right. The Italian actress, the one who plays Verona, one of Dracula's brides, is actually married to Richard Roxberg, the actor who plays Dracula.
And yes, the two did meet while shooting this film.
(29:59):
Jam-packed with characters as this film is, it could have even been more so. Originally, Sommers wanted to have a cameo by Gill-Man, the monster and the creature from the Black Lagoon, but it was eventually cut to save money on the special effects budget.
According to IMDb, this film eclipsed Interview with a Vampire to become the highest-grossing vampire film of all time, which was a spot it held until, unfortunately, Twilight.
(30:22):
Then again, can you really call the Twilight vampires vampires? Vampires don't sparkle.
We'll move into the final segment then. Gotta put this thing on a shelf, right?
Shelf Esteem. A reminder of the way this works. My DVD Curio has five shelves on it, so I simply use the bartender's model. Top shelf for the good stuff, bottom shelf for the rot guts, and you have second shelf, mid shelf, and fourth shelf in between.
(30:45):
Alright, so I've made it no secret I really like this film. It's not good, but I think it's deliberately so. It's clear from the writing direction, musical score, plotting, everything else.
It's deliberately campy and embracing that silliness, encouraging us all to leave logic and, frankly, taste at the door.
When a viewer does this, I think it makes for a pleasurable romp. And I can hear the critics and gainsayers, and honestly, I agree with most of them. And even when I don't, I can see where they're coming from.
(31:12):
I just think the critiques they make are not really as detrimental as they make them out to be.
There are a handful of films that I watch repeatedly. Precious few, like Wonder Boys, I make sure to watch at least once a year.
Van Helsing will always be a part of my October rotation, as it has been for over a decade now. If I were to go solely on my appreciation of this film, I'd stick it on second shelf easily.
Even I couldn't justify doing that though, because part of the description of that tier reads,
(31:36):
These films strike a notable balance between compelling storytelling and distinctive style.
While even the most strident of critics of this film, while perhaps denying the compelling storytelling part, cannot deny, there is a style here that's all its own.
Then again, Zack Snyder has a distinctive style, and I loathe his films. If you like them, good for you. Just not for me.
Heck, Uwe Boll has a distinctive style, and I once described him as a boil in the butt of filmmaking.
(32:01):
Uwe Boll. It just hit me. I like that.
At any rate, before I get carried away, here's my point. The shelving system is not here merely to cater to my own unorthodox cinematic eccentricities.
I have a rubric for these shelves for a reason. Sometimes I do let my own personal opinions influence the shelving slightly, but only if I take great pains to justify why.
Here, I'm not going to stray from the formula, so I'm placing this film on the...
(32:30):
...fourth shelf. I know. I know. Heck, it hurts a little to do it, but honestly, I don't even know why I like this film.
Nine out of ten times you give me crap like this on celluloid, and I'm just going to absolutely loathe it.
But whatever that sweet spot is this film hits for me, I realize it probably is not going to appeal to most.
It's not the worst of the worst. Certainly not an early-aughts, made-for-Canadian TV film.
(32:53):
God, I hope I never have to see another one of those. I might actually lead a happy life.
But it's also not exactly a good film.
By definition, the fourth shelf is reserved for films that may have significant flaws or only appeal to specific tastes.
Watch if you're interested or a fan of the genre.
If everything from the bad accents to the overacting to the shaky CGI to the booming scores and non-stop frantic action,
(33:16):
if all that appeals to you, then you're going to love it.
Everyone else, it's probably best you just ignore it.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to tease the next episode and go pop this DVD into my Xbox so I can play the first level of Van Helsing game.
Curse you, Universal Executives, and your advertising.
If Van Helsing leans into the campy, carnival-esque nature that is This My Favorite Holiday,
the next selection on deck embraces the dark and macabre.
(33:40):
I'm not sure I could have chosen two more tonally different films to consider back-to-back.
Next episode, we'll be looking at a film that is also decidedly not everyone's cup of tea.
I haven't looked at it yet because it's my custom to watch the film again before I do any research in order to approach the viewing with the cleanest slate possible.
But I am going to conjecture that this one is also not going to be a critical darling.
There's a distinct style, maybe even some overacting and over-the-top moments, but camp? There's going to be no camp.
(34:06):
Next on the docket is the 2012 Rob Zombie film Lords of Salem.
The film is currently streaming on Freebie, Pluto TV, and Tubi, and you can also watch it with a subscription to AMC+.
If you do watch it and want to talk about any points, feel free to shoot me an email at steven at ShelfCriticism.com.
That's S-T-E-P-H-E-N.
You can also find the podcast on Facebook at ShelfCriticism.
(34:27):
Don't forget my other podcast, Real Lit, where I'm joined by my colleague, The Incomparable Mackenzie.
You can find it just about anywhere you get your podcast fixed, as well as our official website, RealLitPodcast.com, and social media at Real Lit Podcast.
Remember, that's R-E-E-L like a film reel.
Last week, we dropped our sixth episode, gazing up at the Neil Gaiman novel 2007 film combo Stardust.
(34:49):
And like ShelfCriticism, Real Lit will also be getting spooky later this month when we sort through Susan Hill's 1983 novel and the 2012 film, The Woman in Black.
So until next time, DVD aficionados, remember to treat yourself to a little shelf indulgence of your own.
Amelia, sing us home.
(35:19):
ShelfCriticism is an Owls of Palace production.
This podcast is in no way connected with the educational institutions the host is employed by.
The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the host and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other organization with which he is affiliated.
Most images displayed are public domain.
Images and stills from films, descriptions of scenes and passages from books are used for educational and critical purposes and not for profit and therefore fall under the terms of fair use.
(35:59):
I have no heart. No, I have no heart. I feel no love, no fear, no joy, no sorrow. I am hollow.
I can tell the character of a man by the sound of his heartbeat.
(00:07):
Usually when I approach, I can almost dance to the beat.
Strange that yours is so steady.
(00:36):
Welcome to Shelf Criticism. Meet your host, Stephen, a scholar of literature and film by day.
And by night, a cinematic archaeologist with a penchant for everything from art house to popular to outright trash cinema.
Over the past quarter century, Stephen has amassed an eclectic DVD collection, now occupying five shells of a Curio cabinet in his living room.
(00:58):
Each week, he bravely selects one of these titles to dissect, doing him as he unearths everything from obscure gems to cinematic missteps.
From blockbuster hits to forgotten flops, each film gets the critical once over it probably doesn't deserve, but will absolutely receive.
So grab your popcorn and settle in. It's time to dive into the diverse world of Shelf Criticism.
(01:29):
Welcome to yet another October edition of Shelf Criticism. Thank you all for tuning in. And if you're new to this podcast, welcome. Good to have you aboard.
All this month, I'm doing something a little special in that I'm making sure I grab horror films or at least films that are appropriate for this particular holiday, which may be more of what today's falls into.
(01:50):
It's not like I would call it scary, even though there are werewolves, vampires, Frankenstein's monster, plenty of creepy crawly critters. But naturally, to have that kind of cast, it certainly makes it fall into the October category, correct?
We will get back to true gut wrenching horror on the next episode. But for this one, we're going around to a film that I never spend an October without a rewatch on. Today, we're looking into Van Helsing.
(02:15):
All right, as usual, I take the DVD, talk a little bit about the front and back cover. So the DVD front reads Hugh Jackman, Kate Beckinsale, a Stephen Sommers film.
Van Helsing. Jackman aiming his crossbow, Beckinsale standing behind with a sword or both on the front cover. There's a flying creature, which I'm assuming is Dracula in one of his forms above their head.
(02:36):
In the right corner, there's a werewolf kneeling, Castle Frankenstein or perhaps Castle Dracula, but I think this one is Frankenstein looming in the upper right hand.
We have a quote, nonstop action, a breathtaking thrill ride, says Jeffrey Lyons of NBC TV on the DVD back. Hey, there's Mr. Lyons again.
One of the most visually thrilling movies ever made. Exclamation point Jeffrey Lyons, NBC TV ever made. That's high praise. I'm not sure if we would go that far.
(03:03):
It is visually thrilling, though. Our synopsis reads legendary monster hunter Van Helsing, Hugh Jackman is summoned to mysterious Transylvania on a mission that will thrust him into a sweeping battle against the forces of darkness with nonstop action and electrifying special effects.
Van Helsing is an adrenaline powered motion picture event. Roger Ebert calls spectacular.
(03:25):
Their exclusive special features after that explore Dracula's Castle through an innovative 360 degree self guided tour discover the stunning environments of Van Helsing that you couldn't see in theaters, bringing the monsters to life from pencil sketches through complete digital composition.
The experts in industrial light and magic show how the Van Helsing monsters were made. You are in the movie experience movie making magic through the miniature cameras on the set that give you the actor's perspective on the filming of a scene.
(03:52):
The legend of Van Helsing, the evolution of the legendary character feature commentaries with director Stephen Sommers, Bob Dusk say Duke say I'm sorry if I mispronounce your name, sir.
Richard Roxberg Schuller or Schuyler Hensley. I perhaps the guy who played Frankenstein and will camp play the Van Helsing Xbox game.
Put this DVD into your Xbox console and play the first level of the Van Helsing game. And then we have outtakes.
(04:18):
So how I came to own it. This was absolutely another film that I saw in theaters. Part of it had to do with the fact that it was a universal film and clearly from the trailers it was incorporating many of those old universal monsters that I so loved as my childhood.
And just FYI, I mean going back and watching them. They were old at the time I was a child. I'm not that ancient, although my students might say otherwise.
(04:42):
On top of that, I'd already been a fan of Kate Beckinsale for a long time at that point. I'd seen her in the Golden Bowl and Emma, you know, an English major, right. And to this day, her Emma Woodhouse may still be my favorite portrayal.
Sorry, Gwyneth Paltrow. I like to haunt it a lot. And to this day, I will fight for Laurel Canyon is one of the most underrated films of the early aughts giving mad props to Beck as well as Francis McDormand and Lisa Cholodinko.
(05:05):
I do have that DVD, so that's probably one that I will be covering at some point as well. So criminally overlooked. Such a good film. Beckinsale had already played Celine in the first underworld, which was in no way anything close to a good film.
But it's one, who am I kidding? It's a franchise that I still adore, no matter how cheesy and formulaic it gets. I mean, I am such a Beckinsale fan that I'm willing to forget Pearl Harbor.
(05:27):
So maybe the Universal Monsters and just a little teeny tiny, not at all significant bit of Beckinsale were the reasons I was there on opening night to witness this film. I walked away with a big smile on my face. Even back then, I realized it wasn't exactly good, but I loved every moment of it.
I was leaned back in that chair with eyes glued to the silver screen. This was a time, as I think I've said before, when I was working at Best Buy to supplement my paltry income while teaching adjuncts.
(05:50):
I bought this one as soon as it was released, even brought it home and made my ex-wife who'd already watched it in theaters with me watch it again. As I recall, she didn't love it the way that I did. Still, she weathered my geeky fawning. So kudos to her.
That same year, a very good friend of mine, a fellow grad student and adjunct professor with whom I shared an office, was involved in the local theater scene as well.
Through a series of contacts, he knew the likes of Ray Bradbury, Norman Lloyd, Forrest J. Ackerman, the guy who coined the term sci-fi, and the film scholar David J. Skall, author of such books as Death Makes a Holiday, A Cultural History of Halloween, and Hollywood Gothic, The Tangled Web of Dracula from novel to stage to screen.
(06:27):
Each year around Halloween, his theater troupe would stage a showing of something creepy and gothic, and he'd bring someone like Bradbury or Ackerman or Skall to do a discussion and Q&A around the stagings.
And being friendly with his colleague, I always offered to take whichever guest was with us out to eat, at least once.
I was doing him a favor by keeping them entertained, and as for me, I am never not going to seize an opportunity to hang out with brilliant and fascinating people.
(06:49):
I mean, I've broken bread with the author of Fahrenheit 451 for crying out loud.
The year of Van Helsing's release, Skall was visiting, and during our dinner together, as he was quite familiar with the old Universal Monsters, the conversation turned to the film.
He was not a fan, to put it mildly. Everything I enjoyed about it, from the frantic pacing to the ridiculous accents, the over-the-top chewing on the scenery from essentially the entire cast, he abhorred it.
(07:14):
Of course, he was a super polite fellow, so we did the scholarly thing and just politely disagreed with one another.
Still, around this time of year, I always think of Skall. Not only do I usually thumb through one of his books and read a few chapters, but I also remember that long and depth conversation we had over this film, as well as many other interesting topics we breached.
And sadly, while researching this episode, I came across some tragic news. On New Year's Day of this year, Skall was in an accident involving a drunk driver and unfortunately passed away.
(07:40):
I was gutted. We hadn't spoken since October of 2011, the last time he visited my corner of the world, but his scholarship's always been at the forefront of my approach to film studies.
So, big thank you, David, for the conversations we had, the knowledge you shared, and the impact you had on me and countless others.
You'll be sorely missed. And also, if you've been drinking, call an Uber. There's no excuse to get behind the wheel.
(08:04):
And after that somber note, we'll move on to critical reception. We'll dive into what the critics thought, and let's just say Skall wasn't alone in his disdain.
It holds a 24% on Rotten Tomatoes and only scores 35 on Metacritic. The audiences are always kinder, but not too kind here.
The popcorn meter of Rotten Tomatoes ranks it at an almost passing grade, but not quite at 57%. And Metacritic users rank it at 6.4.
(08:28):
Incidentally, the number of reviews on Rotten Tomatoes for this film is over a quarter million. Needless to say, I did not go sifting through any of those.
The critical zinger of the bunch belongs to Gregory Weinkauf of the Dallas Observer who says, and I quote,
This beast is as subtle as a Red Bull enema, but it succeeds magnificently as compulsively watchful spectacle.
(08:49):
Red Bull enema. Where do the people come up with this stuff? I don't know, but please, for the love of all that's holy, just keep churning out jewels like that. I love it.
Joe Morgenstern's review and the Wall Street Journal is where I want to spend my time, however.
If you know Morgenstern's work, you know that it too is filled with some clever turns of phrases, beginning with the headline.
The horror. Van Helsing turns Hunt for the Undead into a dreary monster mush. Dracula returns and he wants you to buy an action figure.
(09:16):
Morgenstern, of course, is a well-respected critic and Metacritic scored his review a zero, meaning he didn't have a single sentence that expressed a positive sentiment for this film.
That's not unheard of, but generally speaking, a critic finds at least one jot or tittle of something to commend. I knew when I saw that goose egg, this was a review I was going to look into.
He begins by mentioning, to use his words, the quote, elaborate restaging of the scene in James Wales Frankenstein at the beginning of the film, that famous moment when Victor shouts, it's alive.
(09:45):
Only Morgenstern contends it isn't. Nothing's alive, he says, in this trash heap travesty of warm weather entertainment.
Despite the frenetic pace, everything is either deadening or dead, starting with a basic notion of Professor Van Helsing, the venerable vampire hunter from the Bram Stoker novel.
First, nice alliteration in that opening sentence. Second, the following sentence is not exactly correct. This is not Abraham Van Helsing, but Gabriel Van Helsing.
(10:11):
It appears to be implied in the film and even stronger in the supplemental material that he's actually the archangel Gabriel who's lost his memories. I don't think I'm being pedantic in stressing that. Accuracy does matter.
Morgenstern's insistence that it is dead is curious. He does acknowledge the paradox, I suppose, that this is in spite of its pace. Incidentally, the word frenetic he uses is one of the adjectives that Skal used when we talked about it as well.
(10:34):
I just have a hard time squaring that circle. Either a film is dead or packed wall to wall with action, but both can be deleterious, but it's hard to fathom exactly what he means by claiming both.
He continues to harp on the kineticism. The computer generated effects, accompanied by a four aspirin orchestra pumping out of a two nexium score, are numbing in their repetitiveness and twilight grunginess.
(10:55):
Kids may go along with a relentless action, but still feel trapped in a funhouse devoid of fun. We do need to talk about the effects. During the early encounter with Vulcan and the werewolf, I remember thinking this was some nice CGI.
Werewolves, whether practical or computer generated, are so hard to capture on film. Most of the time they look awful. And I'm looking at you Oz from Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
In that scene, the werewolf is constantly in motion, often obscured by trees or the net that he's momentarily caught in. I think this serves a great advantage to the film.
(11:23):
What we do see looks impressive, but from there the effects only devolve, including Vulcan and the new werewolf, as well as Van Helsing when he's transformed.
It's their pointy ears. They look like Batman's mask, not lupine appendages.
Some of the sets, Castle Frankenstein, the Windmill, Castle Dracula, do look terribly phony, but I also think that's fine.
There's a sense of artificiality about the entire film anyway, and this is the same observation that I made about Stardust's representation of Stormhold in the town of Wall on my other podcast, Real Lit.
(11:53):
And this is not at all, but totally is, a shameless plug. Wink, wink.
What really bothers me is everything else. The vampire brides when they transform into their winged state, Dracula when he morphs into whatever the heck bat hybrid thing that was, the little demonic baby bloodsuckers.
During the first scene where the brides attack, there's a moment where one grabs Anna, Kate Beckinsale's character, and flies off with her and flings her into the air, and it just looks so fake I chuckled and shook my head.
(12:19):
Now understand this is 2004, and CGI has grown leaps and bounds since.
I cut Stardust, which is a 2007 film, the same slack in my other podcast, wink, wink, for this reason as well.
Still, it's worth noting the effects have not aged well at all.
As for the pounding score by Alan Silvestri, whose scores in films are a murderer's row of bangers, Back to the Future, Predator, Forrest Gump, Marvel's Avengers films, I agree it's pretty much pure pounding, adrenal stimulant, a Red Bull enema perhaps.
(12:48):
I actually like that about the film though.
During the scene where our heroes are trying to transport Frankenstein's monster away from Dracula, I particularly noted how pulse-pumping it was.
And my thought was nothing to do with aspirin or nexium.
Rather, I smiled and just thought about the pure spectacle that this film is.
Like the Universal monster films of the 30s and 40s that this film pays homage to, from the sweeping landscapes to the ridiculous action sequences to the score, it all begs to be seen on the big screen.
(13:15):
I don't know that we get that quite in that scope anymore in film.
I can't think of anything since Avengers Endgame that's had a similar feel to me.
So devoid of fun? Come on, Morgenstern.
This is not a good film, at least from a critical eye, but it doesn't get much more apt to be standard popcorn fare.
Morgenstern goes on to claim that it's really pointless to think about this as a narrative film.
Rather, it's, and I quote,
(13:37):
A merchandising engine and a marketing ploy designed to exploit among other corporate assets many of the great and not so great horror flicks in Universal's vaults. The new film was a centerpiece or a presenting symptom of an onslaught that will include video games, a TV series, a theme park attraction and action figures, as well as DVD reissues of the back catalogs of the Universal monster films.
(13:59):
Now, this is a fair critique.
Universal assumed a smash blockbuster with this film and planned to have it kick off a full blown franchise.
They were given a budget of $160 million, a price tag which Morgenstern seems appalled by.
How much has changed in 20 years, eh? I mean, that's not cheap, but it's certainly not what's being spent on some major blockbusters today.
The film brought in just under $52 million on opening weekend and brought home a domestic gross of $120 million.
(14:23):
Worldwide yields did push that into the black, topping $300 million, but still it was far from a runaway success.
In fact, shortly after its less-than-stellar showing, the plug was pulled on the planned TV series. And I didn't mean to do that alliteration.
Incidentally, if you're wondering, the sci-fi series Van Helsing is completely unrelated to the film.
There was a line of toys released, video games and, yes, Universal Studios opened an attraction called Van Helsing Fortress Dracula.
(14:49):
That opened in 2004 and closed in November of 2006, being replaced by Universal's House of Horrors, which also includes a lot of the classic Universal monsters.
There was also an animated film, Van Helsing The London Assignment, which Phil's in the back story alluded to in the film when Gabriel tells Mr. Hyde,
I missed you in London. There is also a one-shot comic book from Dark Horse, Van Helsing from Beneath the Rue Morgue,
(15:10):
which has him doing battle with H.G. Wells' famous antagonist, Dr. Moreau.
Incidentally, for both the video game and the animated film, Jackman provided the voice work.
And, no joke, there were Van Helsing slot machines sent to many casinos.
Though it was a disappointment on a number of levels, there's no doubt the film did exist much to drive the supplemental sales of other merch,
at least as much as there was there to entertain.
(15:33):
As I mentioned earlier, the DVD contains a preview of the first level of the Van Helsing video game for Xbox.
And while I will concede this is frustrating, essentially we just paid for tickets to watch a two-hour commercial,
it's also surprisingly familiar to me. I mean, I grew up in the 80s, so our Saturday morning cartoon fair was, what, He-Man, G.I. Joe, Transformers, Thundercats, and that ilk.
Wasn't it always strange how when they released a new G.I. Joe, for example, as an action figure,
(15:57):
he somehow always managed to show up on the cartoon right around the same time?
It was downright dastardly, but also incredibly effective, as children are extremely susceptible to advertising.
By the time the Children's Television Act was passed, I wasn't really watching cartoons anymore, but I can't deny the effectiveness.
How often did I go digging through couch cushions or begging my mom for chores for hire, just so I could snag that soldier I saw up in the G.I. Joe cartoon for that Saturday morning?
(16:20):
But with Van Helsing's PG-13 rating, it wasn't really children being targeted.
I suspect a lot of the action figures were even purchased by adult collectors who never even took them out of the box.
And a cursory search on eBay tells me I might be on to something.
So yeah, it's frustrating to think that the big corporate machine has its tentacles all in this film and uses it to push sales of more junk and milk every last dime it's able to out of the consumer.
(16:42):
That said, I loved G.I. Joe and the like back then. If it was a 30-minute commercial, well, it was one that was darn fun to watch.
And I think the same holds true for Van Helsing.
And perhaps the most amusing part of all is that Morgenstern sees this film as symptomatic of the dumbing down of society writ large.
He says, quote, Yet Van Helsing will be seen as a narrative movie by kids who don't know any better and will contribute with its invincible stupidity and video game incoherence to the ongoing desensitization of young audiences.
(17:09):
Universal is a studio that trashed two treasures from Dr. Seuss, How the Grinch Stole Christmas and the Cat in the Hat.
Now they're using the same brain busting techniques in Van Helsing.
If only we were saying, OK, boomer in 2004. And even that would be incorrect.
Morgenstern is 92 years old. He predates the boomers. Does that make him more grumpy?
I don't know. I'm not all that up on Internet parlance.
(17:31):
And I joke about this critique, and I think it's a bit reactionary and overdramatic.
And that said, I myself for a good two decades have also bemoaned the perceived slide into Philistinism, cretinous offerings with large explosions, hollow plots, completely lacking substance or nuance.
Usually with the name Michael Bay slapped somewhere on there.
But I guess that's the nature of the beast. If you like a film, it's spectacle.
(17:53):
A reminder of why we gather around the big screen instead of sitting at home thumbing through Netflix titles with a bovine interest.
If it's, say, Pirates of the Caribbean, Curse of the Black Pearl, then it's brain rot that's shaving off IQ points with each passing action sequence.
I just don't like that film. To my credit, I guess I at least fully acknowledge that movies like Van Helsing or the Bad Boys franchise or the underworld films are not really well done, perhaps even stupid.
(18:19):
I just sometimes like to turn my brain off and watch things explode.
I do wish we were turning out more thoughtful films and that there was currently a market for smaller, more intellectual offerings specifically on the big screen rather than going direct to streaming.
But I also acknowledge it's a bit preposterous to assume Van Helsing and its ilk are chipping away at the next generation's appreciation of a complex, intelligent story.
(18:41):
As we move on to my take, I will say with Morgan Stern's review, I've already called attention to many of the numerous shortcomings of the film.
It's loud and stupid and one big advertisement. Though it features some of the best-known movie monsters, it can't really be called horror.
In fact, IMDb lists it as action, adventure, fantasy, and thriller. Honestly, it's just mostly action. Not that there's anything wrong with that genre.
It's just that going into a film like this, you didn't expect quite so much of it, I think.
(19:04):
I also find some of the plot contrivances to be just way too convenient.
Van Helsing and Carl arrive in town just as the brides of Dracula attack on the first full moon after Vulcan's bite.
Then he and Anna conveniently fall into Frankenstein's lair despite no one having seen the creature for over a year. Talk about perfect timing.
And okay, I get the Vatican knows more about Van Helsing and Dracula's past.
(19:25):
The Cardinal who sends him even says that he might find out some answers to his missing memory.
But still, making those two foes old friends who used to fight together on the same side and all that history in between them, it feels so cliché.
And this is without mentioning the equally contrived notion that Gabriel has lost all his memories,
keeping the audience in the dark and leading us on a journey of discovery at the same time our protagonist is figuring things out.
(19:46):
It's also just sort of silly to think that the only way Dracula can be killed is by a werewolf.
Also, by the stroke of midnight on a werewolf's first full moon, the creature falls under the complete control of Dracula.
And just to continue with the conveniences, Van Helsing just so happens to get bitten by a werewolf.
Oh, and Dracula has a cure for lycanthropy.
However, it's not like anyone watches this film because the plot is excellent and airtight, right?
(20:07):
I would like to praise the pacing of the film, something that many of the critics bemoaned.
It is frantic or frenetic to use both Skal and Morgan Stern's terms, but it works.
There's never a dull moment.
Over the past few episodes, I've talked about films that drag or feel overlong, most recently just a couple of days ago with my consideration of mirrors.
Wink, wink.
I'm almost starting to sound like I have no attention span and can't weather any film over 90 minutes.
(20:31):
That's not the case at all.
I could sit down right now and watch Godfather 1 and 2 in one sitting.
But it's about pacing.
Mirrors checks in at an hour and 51 minutes and it feels glacial.
Orange County is 82 minutes and it feels too long.
Conversely, Van Helsing is two hours and 12 minutes and it doesn't feel overlong.
Perhaps the fight between our titular hero and Mr. Hyde could have been saved for the animated version.
But this is the first part of the film where we meet Van Helsing and it does a great job of setting up his character.
(20:56):
Besides, it's nice to have another famous monster wedged in there.
Likewise, the entire masquerade scene, while providing some action, is a bit of an indulgence.
Instead of having Allira capture Anna and demand a trade for Frankenstein's monster,
it could have just as easily captured the monster instead.
That would have cut out probably enough to keep it right at the two hour mark.
However, we would miss out on such a lovely set piece and some of the most sumptuous images.
(21:19):
And Hugh Jackman on a Trampese. You can't cut that.
The film is so action packed and visually stunning that it holds your attention from opening to closing credits, which is no simple feat.
Now I should dial back some of my praise here, however, because we're moving into the next segment.
Standout performance. How bad is the acting here?
The accents are deliciously terrible across the board.
I think Kate Beckinsale's changes three or four times during the course of the film.
(21:43):
Morgan Stern actually says that that accent is, and I quote,
somewhere between Hedy Lamarr and Ariana Huffington.
And I'll see Hugh Jackman is playing a European.
So, yeah, makes sense. Let's just give him an American accent.
None of the cast are Eastern European.
A few of the actors during the masquerade scene are Czech.
But did you know Prague is actually west of Vienna?
Seriously, look it up.
(22:05):
Still, the Aussies, the Brits, the Americans, one of the brides is Spanish and another one's Italian.
But they all affect some sort of Transylvanian tinged brogue.
This could be in part a nod to Bela Lugosi and Todd Browning's Dracula.
He was Romanian born, spoke very little English, and he learned his lines phonetically.
But that cadence and that accent has been mimicked mostly poorly by every kid on the playground pretending to be a vampire.
(22:27):
I want to drink your blood. Right. We all did that.
We're playing vampires. It's what we think of.
The accents, however, are not even the craziest part of the acting.
If the action is over the top, the performances are doubly so.
Richard Roxberg plays the counts melodramatically, hissing and growling and baring his fangs every chance he gets.
He can't even compete with the brides.
(22:48):
How they scream and writhe when Mariska is killed by Van Helsing and his nifty gas powered silver steak crossbow.
The way they yell in agony elicits a chuckle as opposed to actually feeling the grief at losing a sister wife.
Frankenstein's monster is equally hammy with his groans of agony and also I think provides some unintentional humor when he's just out of the blue.
When he's captured begins reciting the 23rd Psalm.
(23:11):
What are you doing? You must find a cure.
My friends are doing it for me.
Trans! Yes. You want one?
I cannot screw the bolts. This is going to hurt.
I am accustomed to pain.
I want you to know you're alive.
In no way am I critiquing any of these actors.
It's clear that's the way they were directed.
This was a tone Stephen Sommers wanted to achieve.
(23:33):
And I think it works.
As I said when teasing this episode in the last episode, this film does not want us to take it seriously.
Except for the two top build performers.
Morgenstern calls Jackman a quote dreadful bore and says Beckinsale is the same.
And I quote again, a Romanian vampire huntress whose defining characteristics are cheekbones, breasts and boots.
Still good writing, but I don't know that it's accurate.
(23:56):
Actually, it is kind of accurate, but I think that's the point.
Jackman is deadpan, mostly laconic, but what would you expect from a grizzled monster hunter?
It fits his idiom to show no emotion.
Beckinsale, on the other hand, wears her heart on her sleeve.
I'm not sure at all what Morgenstern found boring about her performance.
I certainly wouldn't rank it anywhere near her best.
Better than Pearl Harbor, though, but that's an awfully low bar.
(24:19):
She gets the job done.
What stands out with these two is the way they're surrounded by performers chomping down so hard on the scenery, they're cracking their teeth.
And these two are just playing it straight.
It's like they aren't in on the joke.
For some reason, however, I think that works even better.
That they aren't in on the joke is the joke.
So I think I'm giving this standout performance, however, to David Winnum, who plays the cowardly Friar Carl.
(24:41):
He's just the right amount of wormy and mousy.
He's clearly a scholar, not a fighter.
He gets a nice arc, shows a little bit of bravery with a barmaid and then later in the showdown at Castle Dracula.
But mostly he serves as comic relief in a film that's mostly comedic to begin with.
But in a movie that thrives on over the top action, Winnum's sly humor and awkward bravery offer a refreshing counterbalance.
(25:02):
And if he looks familiar, he also played Faramir in Lord of the Rings and was Harold Meacham in Iron Fist.
And who am I kidding? Nobody actually watched Iron Fist.
Let's talk a little cultural context here.
When we talk about Van Helsing, it's worth considering how the film was in many ways ahead of its time.
Today, we're all familiar with the idea of a shared universe, thanks to the Marvel Cinematic Universe and its meticulously interconnected stories.
(25:24):
But back in 2004, Van Helsing was attempting something remarkably similar, just in a different way and with a lot less success.
Universal Studios, of course, was already a pioneer of the shared universes with cinema with their classic monster films from the 1930s and 40s.
Movies like Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man and House of Dracula brought various monster characters together, creating a shared mythology that delighted audiences.
(25:46):
With Van Helsing, Universal was clearly trying to recapture that magic by weaving together a host of iconic figures.
Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, the Wolf Man, even throwing in nods to other characters like Jekyll and Mr. Hyde or references to H.G. Wells' Dr. Moreau.
The movie was a modern mashup, hoping to introduce these monsters to a new generation and reignite that shared universe spark.
(26:08):
But Universal's ambition for Van Helsing didn't stop at the film.
They aimed to expand that universe through multimedia approach, something that has become a hallmark of today's biggest franchises.
As previously mentioned alongside the movie, the animated film, the comic book, the video game, the ill-fated TV series, which fell through.
In many ways, this multimedia strategy prefigured what Marvel would later masterfully accomplish with its TV shows, comic books, and tie-in media.
(26:31):
Of course, Van Helsing didn't quite pull it off.
While Marvel's universe building succeeded thanks to carefully interconnected storytelling and character development,
Van Helsing felt more like a wild, manic jumble of monsters and lore that had little thought to laying a foundation for future stories.
In that sense, it might be fair to call Van Helsing a missed opportunity, a film that had ambition but not quite the execution to set up a truly connected shared universe.
(26:55):
It reminds me a little of Batman vs. Superman.
DC had the Man of Steel films, but they tossed in a new Batman, and then Wonder Woman, and even quick appearances of The Flash and Aquaman into this garbled mess of a film.
It didn't completely sink the franchise, as we still got a DCEU, but I don't think even the staunchest fan is going to say it's accomplished what Marvel has.
(27:16):
What's even more intriguing is how Van Helsing served as a precursor to Universal's later, and ultimately ill-fated, attempt to reboot their monster property, the so-called Dark Universe.
This time, they decided to kick things off with The Mummy in 2017, which starred Tom Cruise.
The plan was to create a shared universe featuring modern retellings of their iconic monsters.
But we all know, The Mummy was a critical and commercial flop, and it led Universal to, again, scrap the entire project.
(27:40):
Looking back, Van Helsing was trying to accomplish something similar over a decade earlier, and it seems like neither one of them landed.
Interestingly, in Van Helsing, we see the early seeds of what a shared universe could actually look like, albeit spread across different media rather than just film and TV.
But it's a mix of iconic characters, an animated prequel, a video game tie-in, a crossover into comics.
Van Helsing was Universal's initial attempt at expanding a story world just beyond the movie screen.
(28:06):
Today we have franchises like Marvel, DC, even Godzilla, King Kong. They do this all the time.
They use a wide array of media to flesh out their universes.
But in 2002, that kind of multimedia storytelling was relatively rare, which does make Van Helsing somewhat of a pioneer, and that concept, I guess, just, again, did not stick the landing.
Even though Van Helsing stumbled in bringing the universe to life, it's fascinating to consider how it fits into the broader trajectory of Hollywood's obsession with shared universes.
(28:31):
It's almost like a missing link between the classic Universal monster crossovers of the 30s and 40s and the modern interconnected worlds that dominate today's blockbuster scene.
If Van Helsing had been a bigger success, perhaps Universal's Dark Universe might have taken off years earlier, shaped the cinematic landscape in entirely different ways.
Instead, we get Van Helsing, existing as a relic of what could have been frantic and overstuffed, an attempt at universe building that was a bit too far ahead of its time.
(28:56):
Alright, surprise, surprise, I'm running long. I think I say that every episode.
So we get into the trivia segment. I want to start with the chosen critic, not the film itself.
Did you know Joe Morgenstern was married to Piper Laurie for 20 years? I found that more interesting than many of you will, but still, I just had to share that.
The same thing is probably true about this next one. The actor who plays Vulcan is named Will Kemp.
(29:17):
In the Elizabethan London theater scene, Will Kemp was a famous actor known for his comedic roles, usually taking up that of the clown, such as Dogberry in Much Ado About Nothing or Peter in Romeo and Juliet,
and a humorous touch that is pure Tom Stoppard. In Shakespeare in Love, Kemp is portrayed as begging the bar to write him a tragedy.
In Shakespeare's response, they would laugh at Seneca if you played him Will.
(29:38):
Mr. Hyde, though completely CGI, is voiced by Robbie Coltrane, best known for his role as Hagrid in the Harry Potter series.
Silvia Coloca? I hope I'm saying that right. The Italian actress, the one who plays Verona, one of Dracula's brides, is actually married to Richard Roxberg, the actor who plays Dracula.
And yes, the two did meet while shooting this film.
(29:59):
Jam-packed with characters as this film is, it could have even been more so. Originally, Sommers wanted to have a cameo by Gill-Man, the monster and the creature from the Black Lagoon, but it was eventually cut to save money on the special effects budget.
According to IMDb, this film eclipsed Interview with a Vampire to become the highest-grossing vampire film of all time, which was a spot it held until, unfortunately, Twilight.
(30:22):
Then again, can you really call the Twilight vampires vampires? Vampires don't sparkle.
We'll move into the final segment then. Gotta put this thing on a shelf, right?
Shelf Esteem. A reminder of the way this works. My DVD Curio has five shelves on it, so I simply use the bartender's model. Top shelf for the good stuff, bottom shelf for the rot guts, and you have second shelf, mid shelf, and fourth shelf in between.
(30:45):
Alright, so I've made it no secret I really like this film. It's not good, but I think it's deliberately so. It's clear from the writing direction, musical score, plotting, everything else.
It's deliberately campy and embracing that silliness, encouraging us all to leave logic and, frankly, taste at the door.
When a viewer does this, I think it makes for a pleasurable romp. And I can hear the critics and gainsayers, and honestly, I agree with most of them. And even when I don't, I can see where they're coming from.
(31:12):
I just think the critiques they make are not really as detrimental as they make them out to be.
There are a handful of films that I watch repeatedly. Precious few, like Wonder Boys, I make sure to watch at least once a year.
Van Helsing will always be a part of my October rotation, as it has been for over a decade now. If I were to go solely on my appreciation of this film, I'd stick it on second shelf easily.
Even I couldn't justify doing that though, because part of the description of that tier reads,
(31:36):
These films strike a notable balance between compelling storytelling and distinctive style.
While even the most strident of critics of this film, while perhaps denying the compelling storytelling part, cannot deny, there is a style here that's all its own.
Then again, Zack Snyder has a distinctive style, and I loathe his films. If you like them, good for you. Just not for me.
Heck, Uwe Boll has a distinctive style, and I once described him as a boil in the butt of filmmaking.
(32:01):
Uwe Boll. It just hit me. I like that.
At any rate, before I get carried away, here's my point. The shelving system is not here merely to cater to my own unorthodox cinematic eccentricities.
I have a rubric for these shelves for a reason. Sometimes I do let my own personal opinions influence the shelving slightly, but only if I take great pains to justify why.
Here, I'm not going to stray from the formula, so I'm placing this film on the...
(32:30):
...fourth shelf. I know. I know. Heck, it hurts a little to do it, but honestly, I don't even know why I like this film.
Nine out of ten times you give me crap like this on celluloid, and I'm just going to absolutely loathe it.
But whatever that sweet spot is this film hits for me, I realize it probably is not going to appeal to most.
It's not the worst of the worst. Certainly not an early-aughts, made-for-Canadian TV film.
(32:53):
God, I hope I never have to see another one of those. I might actually lead a happy life.
But it's also not exactly a good film.
By definition, the fourth shelf is reserved for films that may have significant flaws or only appeal to specific tastes.
Watch if you're interested or a fan of the genre.
If everything from the bad accents to the overacting to the shaky CGI to the booming scores and non-stop frantic action,
(33:16):
if all that appeals to you, then you're going to love it.
Everyone else, it's probably best you just ignore it.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to tease the next episode and go pop this DVD into my Xbox so I can play the first level of Van Helsing game.
Curse you, Universal Executives, and your advertising.
If Van Helsing leans into the campy, carnival-esque nature that is This My Favorite Holiday,
the next selection on deck embraces the dark and macabre.
(33:40):
I'm not sure I could have chosen two more tonally different films to consider back-to-back.
Next episode, we'll be looking at a film that is also decidedly not everyone's cup of tea.
I haven't looked at it yet because it's my custom to watch the film again before I do any research in order to approach the viewing with the cleanest slate possible.
But I am going to conjecture that this one is also not going to be a critical darling.
There's a distinct style, maybe even some overacting and over-the-top moments, but camp? There's going to be no camp.
(34:06):
Next on the docket is the 2012 Rob Zombie film Lords of Salem.
The film is currently streaming on Freebie, Pluto TV, and Tubi, and you can also watch it with a subscription to AMC+.
If you do watch it and want to talk about any points, feel free to shoot me an email at steven at ShelfCriticism.com.
That's S-T-E-P-H-E-N.
You can also find the podcast on Facebook at ShelfCriticism.
(34:27):
Don't forget my other podcast, Real Lit, where I'm joined by my colleague, The Incomparable Mackenzie.
You can find it just about anywhere you get your podcast fixed, as well as our official website, RealLitPodcast.com, and social media at Real Lit Podcast.
Remember, that's R-E-E-L like a film reel.
Last week, we dropped our sixth episode, gazing up at the Neil Gaiman novel 2007 film combo Stardust.
(34:49):
And like ShelfCriticism, Real Lit will also be getting spooky later this month when we sort through Susan Hill's 1983 novel and the 2012 film, The Woman in Black.
So until next time, DVD aficionados, remember to treat yourself to a little shelf indulgence of your own.
Amelia, sing us home.
(35:19):
ShelfCriticism is an Owls of Palace production.
This podcast is in no way connected with the educational institutions the host is employed by.
The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the host and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other organization with which he is affiliated.
Most images displayed are public domain.
Images and stills from films, descriptions of scenes and passages from books are used for educational and critical purposes and not for profit and therefore fall under the terms of fair use.
(35:59):
I have no heart. No, I have no heart. I feel no love, no fear, no joy, no sorrow. I am hollow.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.