For a while now I’d been watching the previews for “Van Helsing” and wondering just why that movie had been made. Sure, sure, summer blockbuster and all that, but I mean what’s the point? Taking characters out of classic literature, going all League of Extraordinary Gentlemen on them, and making a movie that really has nothing to do with Dracula or Van Helsing other than names—is it really so hard to come up with something original? (Or are they hoping to cash in on that key demographic of English lit majors who also happen to like early twentieth-century monster movies?) It really sounded like something John Carpenter would come up with, and I was wondering about Hugh Jackman‘s choice of movie roles.
Well, we went and saw the movie tonight, and… I’m still wondering why it was made. Oh, it wasn’t out and out terrible—I’ve seen much worse—but I’m still left scratching my head over it. Otherwise, it had big action, the effects were good, the CGI morphing sequences well done, the actors had a good time camping and vamping it up. Some scenes were creative, some were almost painful to watch. And, could someone please explain to me, at about halfway through the movie why Van Helsing pulled out a bottle of what looked like green Scope mouthwash to drink?
Ah, well. It’ll probably be the number one movie in America after this weekend. And you just know they left it open for sequels. They’re aching for sequels. And if they’re going to be pillaging literature again for villains—or even using classic movie monsters—it’s amusing to speculate as to who they would be. The Invisible Man? The Creature from the Black Lagoon? The Blob?