This week, Stephen Sommers’ 1999 blockbuster Universal Monster The Mummy celebrated its 25th anniversary and for the past few weeks the film has been showing at multiplexes across the country so fans can experience it on the big screen. (I’d like to think it was released a little earlier so I could recreate the feeling of watching The Mummy while waiting for the release of The Phantom Menacewhose quarter-century celebration was scheduled for May 4). But exactly the same day that The MummyOn the anniversary, another related film was celebrating its 20th anniversary, quietly and perhaps embarrassed. Then again, maybe not; If it were possible for the films themselves to feel shame, Van Helsing He doesn’t seem like the type who would be sorry.
It made sense that Van Helsing It was supposed to be a potential summer 2004 box office champion. It was made by Stephen Sommers, the same man who helped create the first weekend in May as a blockbuster release date thanks to the success of The Mummy and The mummy returns. Oh, and the star of the movie that took the top spot in May the year before? None other than Hugh Jackman, who was directly following x2 with his presumably swashbuckling work as Gabriel Van Helsing, noble monster hunter. Having worked his magic on a Universal Monster reimagined for modern audiences, Sommers was clearly in his attack zone, employing another heartthrob (Jackman replacing Brendan Fraser) to take on three more famous creatures: Dracula, Frankenstein’s Monster and a werewolf. A star, famous people, tons of special effects, the weekend alone… what could go wrong?
As it turns out, Van Helsing could. The film started off well enough, only to be brought down by mediocre and venomous reviews and comments. It’s easy to see why those reactions might have seemed so unanimous. On the one hand, it’s almost impossible to describe the movie without using the word “mash,” for several reasons: because its guest list and lack of fear are reminiscent of the novelty tune “Monster Mash,” and because mashup is the main goal here. of Sommers. mode of expression, whether by smashing monsters into each other, smashing the audience over the head with them, or mixing various unconvincing special effects. The film is loud, flashy and stupid, closer to The mummy returns that The Mummy in terms of coherence and filmmaking, only without the endearing characters played by Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz. Although it technically made a good amount of money, it is, spiritually speaking, a huge failure.
Also I like.
Somehow, Van Helsing It awakens feelings of affection in me, instead of disgust. It is one of Jackman’s weakest performances, deeply hurt by the lack of wit in the lines he has given. (It’s one of those movies where the hero repeatedly says the most obvious thing imaginable in a tone that implies he’s saying something clever.) Sommers isn’t as confident with fake gothic monsters as he is when he copies Indiana Jones moves to The Mummy; As much as you obviously like the material, The Mummy was a clever synthesis of horror movie and monster adventure, while Van Helsing much is not.
So what’s worth celebrating 20 years later?
Maybe it’s the way Universal’s initial logo turns black and white, bursts into flames, and then dissolves into a torch carried by a member of an angry mob on his way to kill Frankenstein’s monster. Maybe it’s the set design, which includes enough tactile eye candy to convincingly fill each frame with too much detail: cobwebs everywhere, sparks constantly flying, impossibly high ceilings, towers and platforms. Maybe it’s Kate Beckinsale with dark curly hair and a Transylvanian accent, having more fun here than in a similar role in Fist. Underworld film, which preceded Van Helsing in less than a year.
But above all it is that Van Helsing It’s done with a kind of demented innocence. Yes, it’s loud and technically a little violent, especially in a sequence in which a horde of flying baby vampires descends on a poor Transylvanian village… but it’ll also be fine for many nine-year-olds. (Apparently, there aren’t as many nine-year-olds as Universal would have liked.) Admittedly, that drains the blood out of the company like a monster movie, literally and figuratively. There is no real danger to this version of Dracula, for example, beyond the threat of Richard Roxburgh (the Duke of Red Moulin!) coming off the screen and somehow devouring the audience after finishing the entire scenario. The film has the opportunity to consider that fine line between man and monster, which it quickly ignores. Van Helsing includes more elements from the classic Universal films that inspired it than The Mummy, however, manages to be an even more inventive and chaotic adventure, and it’s endearing that this seems to be what Stephen Sommers wanted to do with his line of credit at Universal. He wanted to play with monsters, and so he did, for two hours, at great cost. At a time when studios are cracking down on so many talented filmmakers, it’s lovely to see Sommers allowed to go too far.
Jesse Hassenger@rockmarooned) is a writer who lives in Brooklyn. He is a regular contributor to The AV Club, Polygon, and The Week, among others. He podcasts on www.sportsalcohol.comalso.
