Dissecting Van Helsing Starring Hugh Jackman and Kate Beckinsale

Hello, horrorphiles. In this episode, we dissect the 2004 Stephen Sommers film, Van Helsing with Hugh Jackman and Kate Beckinsale.

“The famed monster hunter [Van Helsing] is sent to Transylvania to stop Count Dracula, who is using Dr. Frankenstein's research and a werewolf for nefarious purposes,” according to IMDB.

This is Dissecting Horror: Examining the anatomy of fear in film, television and literature with Kelsey Zukowski and Steven Aguilera.

We hope you find it in your cold, black, withered hearts to join our Society of Grotesquery and Loathing and keep our podcast suffering onward:

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/dissectinghorror
PayPal one-time donation of any amount: https://paypal.me/dissectinghorror
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@dissectinghorror
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dissectinghorror
Kelsey Zukowski: http://kelseyzukowski.com
Steven Aguilera: https://www.stevenaguilera.com

Photo credit: Slevin Mors

Transcript

0:03

Hello, Horrorphiles. You're listening to Dissecting Horror, examining the anatomy of fear in film, television and literature. I'm filmmaker Steven Aguilera I'm writer and performer Kelsey Koski. In this episode, we'll examine Van Helsing, starring Hugh Jackman, Kate Beckinsale, and directed by Stephen Sommers. This dissection will be spoiler free. We are the horror whisperers, your champions of horror in our society of grotesquerie and loathing, if you will. I will. And we hope you will subscribe for more, won't you? The famed monster hunter, Van Helsing, is sent to Transylvania to stop Count Dracula, who is using Dr. Frankenstein to research. And a werewolf for nefarious purposes. According to IMDB. I have watched this film many times over the last 20 years. But unlike guilty pleasures such as The haunting 1999, I view this with something of a morbid fascination. It's not hate watching as there is much to be admired in the sets, costumes, makeup effects and props. Put it this way. I've had this film on standard DVD this whole time, never quite feeling the need to upgrade to Blu ray or 4K, if that's any indication. I don't think it's a terrible movie for what it was trying to be. But there's something silly and juvenile about it where we could have gotten something darker and deeper, especially considering the content upon which it was based. I marvel at the enormous production value invested all in a direction that completely missed the mark. Ben House scene, has a strong opening that serves as a funnel match and love letter to fans of the original Universal Monster films, particularly those later and their respective franchises where the stories intersected to depict this bigger universe. The film begins with the prevalent classic gothic atmosphere in black and white as the customary raging, violent mob storms Dracula's castle. There is a twist here with Victor Frankenstein, his monster and Dracula that sets up the story Well, even if tweaking some of the character's roles and how they fall into each other's stories. This style ends with one last look at the sheer horror and pain in the face of Dracula and his brides at the destruction that has occurred. The film initially intrigued me and had me ready to go on a fun McCabe ride of so many classic horror archetypes in one film. However, it quickly reverted away from this fun image and fell deeper into something painfully generic and half baked. Not taking the time with a few more interesting depictions and moments and stretching out the uninteresting ones. Van Helsing was written and directed by Stephen Sommers, best known for The Mummy in 1999, a film I love, by the way, starring Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz. Like Van Helsing. It is a film based on classic horror material, but which tends more toward lighthearted action adventure instead. In fact, according to IMDB, Van Helsing is listed as action adventure. According to box office Mojo, it's categorized as action adventure fantasy thriller. There's something almost tragic about a movie which embodies so many classic horror characters and themes. Yet it's never actually scary, at least not to an adult. Despite all the roaring and hissing and baring of teeth. But perhaps I'm too desensitized to frights at this point. Now, I definitely agree that it doesn't take the horror and invest in it as much. It definitely feels more of an action adventure. And even for that's it, it seems to be the writing and story and character elements were just very one note in lock in. So even if you are going to kind of shift gears and make this strictly just an action film, I know I shouldn't say just an actual action is not my go to my go to genre, admittedly, but I can appreciate them if they're well done and there's something compelling and interesting and exciting about it. So it was interesting mix that there the set sets and costumes and just being in this sort of gothic old world monster, you know, familiar territory was exhilarating. And I wanted I wanted to go there. I wanted it to be something that was I could really sink my teeth into, so to Well, I'm sure someone, somewhere loved this film, I think that the success of The Mummy with its very similar genre or feel spurred him to just repeat whatever worked before. But this time it really it really fell much, much flatter. Yeah, it's been a while since I've seen The Mummy, but I remember really enjoying it. But yeah, this definitely feels like a lesser version. We're just not as much effort was really put in. Even even going from these characters that are so iconic and beloved and feel it felt like it was just such a, I don't know, like half half effort put into them. And like there was little moments of, people love this about this character. Let's throw in one line there and then not really taking the time to show like the layers and what kind of connected to people overall. I've brought this up a couple of times in previous podcasts, but for some reason the production numbers are listed differently now, though my point still stands. The Mummy had a budget of $80 million. Van Helsing cost twice that at 160 million. Yet it was half or even a quarter as good as the mummy, in my opinion. The more budget it seems you give this man, the less imagine native creativity is displayed worldwide. It pulled in just over 300 million. The general rule is that doubling the production budget gives you the actual cost after marketing. If that holds true, this film fell short of breaking even by about 20 million, though I'm sure merchandizing and home video made up for that. on rotten tomatoes. It holds a 24% critic score and 57% audience score. Yeah. To that point after this, he did a film called Odd Thomas, which I really loved, which I imagine was a much, much smaller budget. there might be certain like expectations, I guess you never know what's going on, you know, from certain producers or we want this type of film or, you know, certain demands. But yes, definitely a very uninspired film And odd Thomas was quite good. I agree. And that was 2013. And the last thing he ever directed for some reason. I don't know what that means, but there's something interesting there. The CGI is horrible and incredibly distracting. I love my monsters, but it was hard to even fully enjoy most of the monster focused transformations and attacks. While I normally would be reveling in them, I appreciate practical effects not necessarily against partial or even in some cases, full CGI if it elevates the material and what you can bring alive. That was definitely not the case here. Even little things like a burning effect on the skin, which is incredibly easy and low cost to do with makeup, had such clearly digitized effects that it just felt fake and took me out of any reality or investment. I imagine they had a makeup artist for beauty makeup on set, but beyond that, it almost seemed like they were determined not to use any real effects at all. There are films in shows with CGI that could certainly be classified as less grounded and more over the top cheesy that I still greatly enjoy. The CGI and everything. Looking fake was a big issue, but the writing and characterizations weren't there to make up for it and just really kept me from being engaged in it. This film really drags for me, only giving me small glimmers of characters and writing that would grab you back for a minute and then inevitably bury itself or revert back to the one note quality of story and characters In watching the commentary, the producer slash editor, Dave, do say I'm probably butchering that. And Stephen Sommers would routinely say, now this, here's digital and all this up to here is digital too, until we get to here. And that's real As if the digital effects weren't obvious enough. A major thing that breaks this film is its computer generated effects, and the volume of them, the monsters move way too quickly, so much faster than anything of their actual mass should. And so comes across as mere computer generated entities and not creatures of real physical substance. Even in the mid 2000s, I thought the CG exactly as unworkable as it looks right now, despite the effects being done by premiere effects houses, industrial light and magic, and whether digital among a slew of other independent companies. after the intro of the film and away from black and white and into color, while I love the dark, gothic, gritty look with vibrant color accents that static allows, it seemed a little weird to go black and white, classic universal monster movie visuals to color with the timeline switch only being one year later, I can see the opening was an additional major moment, but they ultimately wanted the film to be in color. But it seemed like it would have felt more consistent and truer to the world of the story, to either be all black and white or all color, at least within this time frame. In 1931, Van Helsing was portrayed on screen by Edward Van Sloane in Universal's Dracula. Originally an elderly academic. Sommers made him cool a cross between Indiana Jones, James Bond and Batman. If I could sum up this film in three words, it would be over the top. Even crossing the line into ridiculousness. Every performance, whether human or computer generated, was so sensationalized and ultra comic book-esque. So exaggerated. Nothing seems real anymore. though, I'm sure nothing in this film was meant to be taken too seriously, the overdramatic action does diminish the stakes when it's all so cartoonish that nothing feels real. Nothing means anything. Physics defying acrobatics, dramatic, swinging across things, Heroic catches and improbable luck. Lots of flips and dives and high jumps and spinning kicks and twirling swords, Swords should be swords because the ws, I'm sure they kept a lot of stuntmen employed on this one. It had more fiery explosions than a michael Bay film. Every action from small to large is exaggerated to absurd lengths. It's exhausting. I continually found myself shouting, fuck off! Or for fuck's sake. Unsurprisingly, Sommers is documented as saying, quote, Don't let them tell you less is more. More is more, unquote. Yet such extreme action does not make something more exciting, but less, if anything. I was at a concert once where multiple bands performed and there was this one guy who would play rock guitar at a dazzling pace, which was amazing at first. But during his 30 minutes of nonstop, blistering play, it actually got quite boring, regardless of his frantic speed. And it's kind of the same thing we're having here. We need we need things to just either mean something or vary in speeds to the point where it's not just a sort of white noise. After a while. even in a well done film, I with action sequences, they they are just not that exciting or enthralling to me. So even when there is a good story and characters, I mean I don't mind is part of, you know if something's escalating you're you're that's the big battle Yeah sure I can go there. But definitely a case like this where there's just less compelling or interesting at all. Really. Yeah, it was very over-the-top and Constance and and definitely Yeah. Just took me out of it a little bit more. And there is, as you mentioned, not quite the Van Helsing that we have known in other versions. There's a clear deviation making him more of a glorified God touch action hero here rather than the wise and open minded doctor and philosopher. We know I didn't hate Van Helsing as a character, but I didn't feel very invested in him either. like much in the film, he is very one dimensional. And with all that much of a personality or identity, to give some credit, it is reference that he didn't know much about his origins and things of his past. Well, it gave additional motive to get him to Transylvania on this risky mission to bring down Dracula. It also delivered as somewhat of a throwaway comment. This felt like a missed opportunity to give Van Helsing more yearnings and understanding to at least offer a moment of dramatic impact and potential for character growth. when you watch Stephen Sommers in the behind the scenes interviews or on sets or speaking on the commentary, he has this childlike enthusiasm, which in itself is not a bad thing, though perhaps a bit much for my personal tolerance. My point is, I think he lets his sightedness get the better of them. Even on the commentary his eager nature caused him to continually cut off the producer so he could interject, which was somewhat annoying, frankly. Now, I'm probably in the wrong for this, but it actually takes a lot to get me intrigued about anything. I like to think this works to my advantage since something has to be really compelling for me to consider it in any story of my own. I am not easily pleased, but you could say to Sommers, Hey, look at this popsicle stick. We should use this in the movie. And he'll grab it and say, Yeah, yeah, this is so cool. We can use it for it. And you're like, Dude, no, I'm fucking with you. It's a terrible idea. But he with it anyway. And so you end up with a story written with all the enthusiasm and sophistication of a 14 year old boy, a PG 13 kids movie, basically. And there's no reason why you can't make a film with that aim. It's a family friendly and fun thing. To a certain audience, I'm sure. At the same time, it almost feels dispassionate just because there is. If he is enthused, you would think he'd be enthused with the characters that were already established so well. And of course, the original. But there have even been many different variations, some independent films with creative sort of twists or what these characters would look like in modern day. There has been much more inspired versions of these characters. So you would you would almost think if it was someone, maybe it just was about everything. You just enthused about making a movie and that's all he cares about. And cool action scenes and flips and things like that. But yeah, it's almost a little bit of a weird thing to take characters in source material that have so much depth. And if you're if you are passionate about it and come up with something so lesser, but maybe, maybe he doesn't have seems like he doesn't have that passion because that's usually you see it a lot in a lot of horror remakes where they're just cash grab and bring what's familiar without really having a true understanding or a passion about what connected to fans and what what made it so lasting and compelling and powerful. When you listen to him on the commentary track, he talks about how much research he did in all the books he read, and he was just totally into it, trying to find out all the mythology and I don't know where that ended up, but in this film it is just bizarre and it feeds into this whole morbid fascination I have with this film in that obviously a lot of money went into it and a lot of people worked on it and a lot of effort went to exaggerating every single action. Yet. Like, what the fuck? Like, what is this supposed to be? Who's this supposed to be for? What genre is this? If it's if it's so hinged upon these characters and it was even used to promote the rerelease of all the universal films on DVD, you would think that it would at least be scary or take advantage of the core elements that made those so special. And it it really doesn't at all. this film kind of reminded me of as far as the tone, some genre and what they were trying to repackage the film Dracula untold about ten years after this, which was God awful and I would say was even worse than this film. I didn't catch that one. Consider yourself lucky. But yeah, it as far as like who this is for those again, that one's even worse. But it kind of seems like whoever it is, you know, producers again, you can you can see it from a Hollywood moneymaking perspective of trying to make the universal monsters something similar to the success of Marvel of especially, I would say even more so Dracula untold. It had this very, I don't know, sort of basics superhero versus villains. But also the weird thing about that one was they specifically focused on Vlad the Impaler as an historical figure and tried to make him a sort of woe is me melodramatic. I did this for the greater good, like I pillaged in wreckage all these people because it did good in the long run. It's like and it was just a mess. But they definitely had a similar tone and seeming like they were trying to make these classic universal monsters and repackaged them into a hero and villain sort of story and where, you know, a lot of Marvel films, obviously there has been great financial, you know, turnaround and that the fan base usually tends to show up for each one and likes, this someone from this other film might show up at the end where it seemed like that's what they were trying to go for, like trying to make this the universal monsters into the next marvel, which they were kind of going for with the Dark Universe reboot with the, you know, newer ones, which originally they were kind of in between Dracula Untold and The Mummy, ultimately, which I think is the 2017 Mummy with Tom Cruise. And that one just failed so abysmally. They they kind of pulled back And luckily since Universal Monster films that are more modernized or a different take have been singular and I like the idea of a bigger, overarching sort of horror universe. Like it was fine to have Jekyll and, well, I guess just Hyde, Hyde and Frankenstein's monster and Victor Frankenstein and Dracula and in the same film. And that's kind of throwing back to some of the later sequels of some of the original franchises, too. So the idea is fine, but you have to keep those dark roots of of what they were and not try to repackage it into entirely different genre, in my opinion. Yeah, The Wolfman with Benicio Del Toro went a little more in that darker direction and I was was okay. I guess there was some stuff in there that I liked, like the the, the vibe and the atmosphere, but I don't really remember much about the story. The Mummy with Cruise, that one, I don't know. They just went to almost Stephen Sommers in that with your, your comic sidekicks and your I don't even I watched it again a couple of months ago and I just it, it was worse than I remembered it but that one made something like 400 million actually made back its money. And I'm surprised that it wasn't enough to continue it, but I'm glad that they didn't. The Invisible Man. That was a good one with Invisible Man, that was the best. But they kind of they took it seriously. They were. And what what would be horrifying about it if this was happening today in this other perspective, and it was more like even kind of psychological horror in a way. Yeah, that was definitely a next level script. And you are a bigger fan of the superhero genre overall. What would you do? You feel like those should just be separate things. Well, how do you feel about a horror universe maybe adapting more of a traditional horror and villains, as you would see in a lot of superhero movies like Marvel? Because there were a lot of crossovers very early on, even with Abbott and Costello and that sort of thing. Or Your Wolfman meets Frankenstein and there's like every variation there exists and there's a precedence for that, which I think works and historically has been successful. But for the sake of just emulating a successful action by Marvel I think is the wrong inspiration. But it's possible. I think it's it could work, but it just starts to feel too formulaic and at the expense of really telling the story There was a little. I would say this film was less so I guess I'm. But there was a little bit of an element, especially in Dracula. Untold, but a little bit here too, where, I don't know. It's like the, the characters that they weren't fully fleshed out, but it seems like with this hero instinct, it's almost trying to tone tone down sort of some of those dark roots and who these characters were of, there has to be a reason, or they they do these things, but it's for the greater good or Dracula just can't help it or, you know, something like that where it's like there's some some villains to just be dark and ill, intent and vicious. Like, not everyone has to be the anti-hero, I guess. There's an unsung hero element which they seem to have, or self-sacrificial. And another movie that was very actually close to Van Helsing. Was I Frankenstein. Have you seen that one? I have. I remember liking at the time, but I might have to go back. I do like it more than Van Helsing, but it's still basically an action movie dressed or a horror film dressed as an action film. it does lack the character depth and the proper credit given to the source material. But it is very, very similar and very much an action film in itself. Dracula, while I have seen worse depictions left much to be desired, his predatory, suave and ruthless. But also comes across as unremarkable and empty. The hypnotic, mesmerizing, reveling in his nature charming vampire with subtleties is gone. He works as a dangerous foe, but comes off as more style over substance and less of an intriguing character than in many other versions. I wasn't crazy about the casting and performance of Richard Roxburgh, but I think it was more the writing direction and vision of this version of the character. Dracula's brides were perhaps my favorite portrayal of the characters in the film. They nailed the range of emotions and qualities These characters should embody ghastly horror, utter devotion, cunning treachery and maniacal glee. As horrible as the visuals of the CGI and the voiceovers were, there was something about them coming into their platforms that offered a nightmarish power and relinquishing. I inherently feel a deep connection and protectiveness of Frankenstein's monster in any version. There were some moments with the monster here I could appreciate such as his desire to simply exist in a world that is against him. After no more than a glance, there are occasional moments of dialog and an overall emotive heir to the monster that reference what made the original Frankenstein's monster so powerful. But it feels like an afterthought, sprinkled in lazily and often immediately undermines itself. I don't expect every character to be exactly the same in a film reboot many decades later that is clearly taking liberties with the genre and tone. But it's a shame to include such a multifaceted and beloved character that is among the most legendary and loved monsters and do so little with him. Contrary to the zombie like 1931 Karloff performance, The Frankenstein monster here is portrayed as laughably operatic, continually wailing and philosophical. The film begins with him loudly lamenting the death of his father, as he calls him Dr. Frankenstein, who only brought him into existence a moment before a man he never even conversed with, a man he could not possibly understand his relationship with regardless, would you say this version of the monster is perhaps more in keeping with the original Mary Shelley novel? Well, I think there wasn't enough time because like as as you say, he probably it and you know, reality wouldn't even be understanding anything at this point in the beginning. He doesn't even understand language. You know, like he it's after he is sort of abandoned and his immediate moments of being in this world is his creator, his father rejecting him. So that part is very inconsistent, I guess you could say he didn't get the chance yet, but it's not until he's very much alone and isolated and learning what humanity is and finding himself thirsting for knowledge and love and understanding and culture as a whole, that he slowly sees both things that intrigue and enlightened him and seen caring, you know, relationships with other people and seeing that this can exist. So it does he doesn't really have the time or space to really get there. But yes, I would say that's a bit forced and almost like they were just rushing, you know, like, there needs to be be something dramatic here. He needs to be well well win over something And that's there's plenty of other things that would be very in tune with the character for him to be lamenting over and the loss of someone who he wouldn't even really know. And in in reality is someone who would have turned his back on him is is yeah, not the best choice. and he shouldn't even know who he is himself. What the fuck am I doing here? I mean, he was just pieced together from all these body parts. What's going on? Things like that. Not just instantly cradling is, quote unquote, father like that. It was it just seemed like you say a very, very rushed. Yeah. At least one moment of bewilderment. What is this? Who am I? Life, you know, like at least have a little moment there. But yeah, they they really didn't really put a lot of time or investment into that character. It was like he was there and there was certain certain lines that were almost like, okay, this is what the fans like of him. So we'll throw in one line of, you know, like, I think he has one moment of what do you want to exist? Which, okay, that's consistent with the character. He just wants to be, you know, he's been brought into this life, which wasn't his choice, and he just wants to exist and have some form of what it is to be human in his skin. But then he immediately gives them reasons to kill them off after. So it was just like, yeah, just very sloppy, lazy writing and probably things that this character in reality would never say. Yeah, I think he was even quoting Shakespeare a a few times and for me personally, it was the Karloff performance that I loved so much because he didn't say anything in that first movie. Anyway, it was this whole it's like when you look at your dog and you're like, What are you thinking? Like, are you just sitting there? What's going on in your head but in the monster? it created a sense of mystery and intrigue about if he's even alive or is he just dead, what level of awareness does he have? But when he's just so flamboyant and self-sacrificial and heroic, yeah, he's got muscles, but there's not really much there that makes sense. Yeah, I agree with that. Now, there's something off, generally speaking, about the casting I can't quite put my finger on. They're all good actors. But besides being your overly attractive leads, few of the cast really possess that sort of Tim Burton, ESQ or Coen brothers level of distinctiveness in their characters, the exception being Igor, who was my favorite in the film. So for me, Igor, I really didn't like the look of him more so I don't know, they almost it was almost like they were trying to make him another Frankenstein's monster just in the visual. Like there was at times where I had to remind myself that it wasn't Frankenstein's monster. Again, he I guess he overall played the role of. Yes, Master Lackey, but I don't know, the the character was just very lacking for me. I wasn't aggressively like, my God, this is a horrible portrayal of Igor, but it just didn't do a lot for me. So what did you enjoy about the character? He had some lines that actually made me laugh, despite all the other humor that fell flat in the film. And according to the commentary, those lines were ones he improvised. So There's there's something about the fact that the funniest lines were the only lines that Stephen Sommers did not write and some he just made up on the spot. yeah, I liked him, But I agree is make up was was a bit too much and I don't remember I think he should have had a a hunch or something. I don't remember him having a hunchback and that was a key point for me, although was it Fritz was the actual character with the hunchback and they later adapted it for for Igor or Igor, however you want to pronounce it, Yeah. I think that character for me was Mr. Hyde as short lived as he was. But he was wonderfully voiced by the talented Robbie Coltrane, which took me a minute to realize that I was looking through the cast as a huge Harry Potter fan, and specifically an avid Hagrid fan. It was fun to hear a such a different voice acting role from Coltrane. His moments were tongue in cheek and over-the-top, but still fun and seemed to really embrace the monster and dark lore in a way that was equally elated and nonchalant, like his response. We all have our problems. Response to being accused of being a deranged psychopath. There was just a sort of fun tongue in cheek quality to it. I kind of feel like this film would have been more fun and interesting if it was Van Helsing versus Jekyll and Hyde, with the preferred emphasis on hide their energy, banter and antagonistic nature towards one another while short lived was a lot of fun I liked a lot about the conceptualization of the monsters, especially the Goblin fairy like that. Forms of Dracula and his brides. But the execution was painful. In a moment of attack, Dracula reveals a mouth full of large, razor sharp teeth that expand. These were a bit more Bistro monster than the subtlety of the original Dracula, to say the least. But I can give them some leeway here for having the desire to amp up the level of deadliness and just for the sake of presenting a different version of what a vampire might look like. Still, it was a very cheesy, over-the-top moment. the biggest error for me is not that the effects are dated, but that they show us too much in vivid detail, leaving nothing to the imagination. And I would even argue this to be the film's biggest flaw. CGI or not, art is based around communication, and any communication is most fulfilling when it's two way. But this film only clobbers you with one way communication. It doesn't let you contribute anything back into it, any meaning, anything from our own imaginations. It doesn't let one think about anything. It just bombards us with excessive visuals and sounds. The result is not a particularly engaging experience and leaves one feeling beaten down for 2 hours and 14 minutes. Again, not unlike a michael Bay film. Yeah, I definitely can't say I felt really any connection in any that I did or was more in fleeting moments of was already established in these original characters and then was really only a letdown with what they did with them. There definitely is a lack of subtlety, and that was I understand, you know, to a degree a modern horror film, big budget, which is not not to say that you can't have suspense and artfully create a horror film. That's ideally what we want. But I guess it's understandable to have a little different of an expectation. But what you're should be honoring and building off of. There was a lot of subtlety especially and well, really all of these films. But just even, for example, Dracula as a character, he was really nothing was very overt. And of course, a lot like there was very little, you know, shown at all at that time. But even beyond what was shown, if you were just to play out what this scene would have been like and what what it would have looked like in your mind, there was a little bit more of a almost his hypnotic power was almost in some ways the most daunting and horrifying that if you were placed under his spell, that he could just have total control over you, which is very psychological and body horror. There's a lot of different types of horror and how evasive that that can be. yeah, there was a certain, weaving and slowly coming into his spiderweb soda, so to speak, where just having everything, everything shown and the brutality and even the brutality is like I almost feel like if that like that was kind of there, but it was like you're almost like numb to it just because it's so overdone without really just letting the horror of the character itself and certain complexities and the power that he has. It was it was just kind of erased and you just kind of become numb to everything. this film uses homage after Omar's many of the most remembered moments from the Universal classic films, but creates the most bombastic versions of them. The dialog is fairly atrocious, and for his many stabs at lighthearted humor, although it did lighten the tone, there was little funny here. To me, its humor was more broad, which is to say, obvious humor, complete with a bungling comic sidekick. yet I cannot condemn this film entirely. Part of me appreciates the grandeur, the spectacle and sheer scale of all the work that went into it from its many craftspeople. Barely, though perhaps the ten year old me would have loved it regardless. I have to say, the ending to me was as cringeworthy as the end of the rise of Skywalker and even includes the cliche of riding off into the sunset. Literally What's most lacking in Van Helsing is the story and emotional investment. If you simply want a film with a lot of action, heavy battle moments and some supernatural elements thrown in, this might be enough to satisfy you. It just didn't do it for me. For me, this does not feel like it was made for the fans. It feels too watered down, generic and lacking in identity. I think the standard of writing and depth just needs to be higher. Hold on to the horror and complexities of these characters. You can explore that in new ways, times or settings, but you must honor the roots. Some genre mixes work and some don't and come off as a lesser version of both. overall, while the style and origins of the characters that were enthralling from what I knew of other versions could have caught me, it just was disappointing and didn't do enough with the material. The music was composed by the legendary Alan Silvestri, who wrote the iconic scores for Back to the Future, Forrest Gump Predator and The Avengers. It was distinctive enough but could not save this movie. Instead of elevating it to a higher state, the rest of the film brought the score down to something more generic when set against all the cringeworthy actions portrayed the score, like everything else in the film, felt very swashbuckling, meaning, depicting excitement and adventure, especially in a historic setting, not sure how swashbuckling fits with universal classic monsters, but that's what we got. I didn't notice the score for a lot when I was watching it. I did listen to it after. Overall, I think it works. It wasn't anything exceptional, but a build atmosphere and had upped the the drama Ante had certain moments. I briefly looked on some of the awards for this film. There were a lot of nominations or a couple awards, and I think the music was the only legitimate award that it won. It was also nominated or won some awards for being the worst in very selective categories. Let me say Fangoria Chainsaw Movie Awards, it was nominated for Worst Horror Film of the year. It did not win. Actually, The Village won, Really? I like the village, too, Wow. So it angered some people. So I guess that makes sense. And then as well, Richard Roxburgh and Kate Beckinsale were both nominated. She was they were both nominated for worst accents and Beckinsale was also nominated for worst actor. Roxburgh took the win on that one, which I didn't like him particularly. Again, I didn't love that version of Dracula, but it wasn't. It seemed more what was written for him and just their vision of Dracula just didn't do a lot for me more than his performance being noticeably like, just horrible. in the back of my mind. I actually pictured you as seeing him and going, I. I know him from all of these other movies that he was in and would have said, I liked him, but maybe he wasn't that great in this role. But somehow I don't know why him specifically. I thought you would like, and I personally always thought he was not Dracula at all. And that extends to most of the characters in this film. For me, it feels like there's a it's just an odd sort of polished, shallow sort of casting procedure that everyone is just too pretty. Or it just, I don't know, I didn't love the look, but like his look and I don't even know if it was his acting abilities. It was I it was very like him and all all of the characterizations were very style over substance. So almost like this is the feel or like, be predatory, be creepy, and then like that was it. Whereas that's not necessarily what's interesting and compelling. And so last thing about these characters who, you know, made an impact 100 plus years ago and still you see young children who still know Dracula and Frankenstein and are still taken by these characters. It's more of those complexities within them. Even, you know, Frankenstein is a little more sympathetic, but even a lot of like Creature from the Black Lagoon, I think was as well. A lot of them have that. But like Dracula, it wasn't really meant to be sympathetic at all, but there was still this complexity and this allure and mystery. And there was just just a lot more to the character You mentioned liking the brides. I thought they were too melodramatic for my taste. You know what? I'm a big fan of vampires who embrace their nature, and I very, very much hate the woe is me or like, even lackluster vampire. So really, I just loved the passion and whatever they felt. They felt it fully. The and it was a little bit of nods I think more to like the hammer horror kind of period of Dracula where a little over the top ghastly horror but still they went there they committed and it just fell. It brought some liveliness and the horror alive a little bit for me. Did you think like the haunting 1999 this was going to be a guilty pleasure of mine? did you think I suggested this film? Because it was a film that I liked that aligned with your perception of my taste in horror? Or were you just not really sure when you watched it? Like, fuck should I should I say something good about this film or should I just tear into it and be honest? Well, you know, we we don't really discuss what we think about films beforehand, so sometimes it's a bit of a surprise or usually it's like, I wonder. I wonder what Steve thinks about one. And definitely when, you know, when we were about to hit record on this today, I was definitely interested, intrigued to see what you would think. I you know, I know you say you're harder to be intrigued definitely as a film fan. And if it's if it's tapping into something, I'm already a fan of, not necessarily that I'm easy to please, but I'm definitely the optimistic viewer and critic. And I had some very, very negative sentiments as this movie was ending. So, yeah, I figured again, I kind of felt like definitely very tongue in cheek. And I know obviously you're a universal monster fan, so it felt like there could have been a little bit of at least when I was first watching it, a little bit of like, it's a marriage and it's just having fun with these beloved characters. But yeah, as it went on and I hadn't seen the film before, but you know, a little bit of the reputation was that it's not very good, it's not very highly rated. So I figured you weren't going to be like, this is a masterpiece. But yeah, it was interesting to get the full view and you actually were a little bit on the same, more negative, but Yeah, less enjoyment than I might have expected, but that makes sense that it was a film that was a wasted opportunity, which I definitely can agree on. During the commentary. Stephen Sommers and the editor slash producer, they say that they're recording it a week before the film is released and they have no idea how well it's going to be received. And I something about that just makes me feel kind of like bad for them. They seem very pleased with it. And they were talking about test screenings and all the cheering and laughing constant, uproarious enjoyment by everyone who watched it and seems to be like there seems to be some fans sometimes. I'll, you know, we'll log in, see other people's opinions. I think letter box is one platform and yeah, I just saw some comment that really enjoyed it and thought this is a film really made for Universal Monster fans. And I'm like, really, really isn't. But you know, it I guess it, it hit with some people, but overall definitely doesn't have a very high approval rate. All right. So I have a couple of plot holes. First there was a weird thing with the vampires and werewolves where they would transform back into human form and their clothes would sort of morph back into existence. I don't think we're meant to think too hard about these things, but it did stand out to me. I mean, that's pretty bad. Even even Twilight covered that. They're like, No, he's going to be naked when he wakes up. He's going to grab some clothes. That's a pretty I mean, you don't have to see it. But yeah, the yeah, that's a again, it's just another example of nothing really living in this world of reality again. Yes, it's fantastical and some other worldly elements, but you have to create some sort of realism in any, in any scripts, you know, or any story period. the premise centers around Dracula and his three brides desperately trying to procreate. These three women somehow birthed thousands of enormous cocoon like pods which bear flying back like infants, each somehow capable of lifting a full grown human into the air. Beyond the math, not mapping there. That's just not how vampires reproduce. They do so by biting others into becoming vampires and thus spreading their numbers. Yeah, that's a pretty key element of a vampire, is that they can't procreate. Or if they do, even even with humans for the most part, you know. So yeah, I guess if you're going to go there, I'm going to say that we all know our vampires can like give a little bit of a reason of what this phenomena is. Yeah. And you look at this huge space filled with cocoons that are about the size of my torso or bigger. And how how were those secreted from these three women? I mean, your mind goes into some pretty dark places and the volume of them, it doesn't make any sense at all. Maybe they burned them in their back Goblin fairy form or whatever you want to call that. It could be. It does actually remind me of the X-Files movie Fight the Future, where they had a similar scene, but they were aliens in the end and they were all bursting out and coming after our protagonist. So I don't know if that was lifted from that, but it did come out at least five years after X-Files, so you never know. I think by the time we got to the ending and I was, I mean, I was still watching. I was trying to see where they went, but I was kind of subconsciously checked out of like just nothing in this movie is working and I'm not going to think too hard or take too much seriously. But yeah, there was some turns at the end with, you know, without saying too much Van Helsing identity and just where they went with it. It seems kind of forced in last minute. And it just it's like if you're going to go there like have some a little bit more exploration or reason and didn't really like that angle. And yeah, there was just a few sort of lazy tacked on things at the end. Apparently Gabriel is a biblical reference and I don't know my Bible well enough to tell you who, but they are. Well, they say he'd been around since the Romans and that sort of thing, which again stretches Van Helsing character, so much far removed from what I presume was in the book, much less in the Dracula film. And they never explore that. They just they just acknowledge that him and Dracula knew each other centuries before, and there was something that caused him to wipe his memory. He doesn't remember it, but they never touch that again. And maybe there was an intent to make this into a franchise where they would explore that in future films. But that left me scratching my head and feeling a bit a bit frustrated with the writing. Yeah. He really never has any exploration or growth or dimensions or anything in his character. It's kind of brazenly kind of thrown of, I don't really remember who I am or my family or my origins early on, which is, okay, a little odd, but you think that especially once they reveal all this is who you are, that you have some impacts. You know something, whether his memory comes back or not. But it's just like, okay, well, I'm just going to keep on being Van Helsing here on Monster Slayer, and they keep treating him like he's just a normal human being. They don't say that he's got some sort of special strength or power or ability to withstand pain or suffering. So I'm not sure. Is he just frozen at that age forever, or does he have some sort of angelic or godlike capabilities? Like who is he at the end of the movie? I still have no idea who this guy is. seemingly he should. I mean, I guess they could have established that like, he was an angel. But now in its human form, he only has human capabilities. But yeah, that's something that could have been very easily established that wasn't, something else that came up was the basically downfall or weakness of vampires in this lore felt very forced and convenient with like kind of the werewolf. Well, okay, now touching upon that, we have many vampires that die in this film by the means that they should be killed. Yet they say specifically that they've tried everything on Dracula and none of it worked. And we see attacks which kills other vampires in his vicinity but have no effect on him, apparently. why would he be exempt from those same weaknesses from all other vampires? There's no there's. What the fuck Stephen Sommers like this makes no sense. It's kind of how I felt when the credits roll and it's written and directed by. I'm like, okay, when Dracula dies, I don't remember how he died. I couldn't figure out why did he died. I played it back a couple of times, like what happened just now that made him die. So even when he does die, it's confusing. Yeah. Yeah, I agree. It was just kind like, okay, the movie's over. It's time for him to be dead. But yeah, if you're going to, you would think again that the whole thing is this action and hero verse, you know, or angel versus the demon is essentially if you're making this big huge battle building up to it as you would think they would just let that be a big clear moment And he would go on about having no heart. He feels nothing while screaming it in the most emotional, dramatic argument with his brides. Like, I feel nothing, you know, know that was makes no sense. One of many. if you would like to join our Society of Grotesquerie and Loathing, subscribe now and give this podcast a like and be sure to comment your wretched thoughts below. Keep our podcast suffering on by finding it in your cold, black withered hearts to support us on Patreon. A link to our PayPal is also below for one time donations of any amount. It was nice knowing you.