Van Helsing (Widescreen Edition) Reviews

• Van Helsing - The Victorian James Bond? Not!

  
  By A2F3M93RRLFQNJ on 2004-11-19
  How is the movie Van Helsing like a vampire? Both are things that have the semblance of life without actually being alive and are much safer unviewed and kept in a box. How is it like Frankenstein's monster? They are both monstrosities cobbled together from the bits and pieces of better things. As you can no doubt can tell, I was not very happy with this movie.
  
  In Van Helsing, the title character is transformed from the cerebral vampire hunter of the novel Dracula into a standard action hero who hunts monsters throughout Europe. The structure of the film is actually similar to a James Bond movie: we start with a brief action-filled prologue pitting Van Helsing against Mr. Hyde (who is the same type of Hulk-like monstrosity that was seen last seen in the similarly mediocre League of Extraordinary Gentlemen). Then Van Helsing is given his mission and given neat weapons from a "Q"-like character. Finally, we have the main story pitting Van Helsing against the rather standard villain - Dracula - who wants to take over the world and has a whole bunch of monstrous sidekicks. Frankenstein and the Wolf Man also fit into this plot.
  
  The movie fails on a number of levels, most significantly from its poor writing. Sometimes the story is dumb, sometimes it's merely silly, but it's never very interesting. The acting is nothing to speak of either; Hugh Jackman can play a decent hero (as shown in the X-Men movies), but here he is actually rather boring. Kate Beckinsdale looks nice, but is also rather dull.
  
  Most importantly, however, is that Van Helsing fails to capture any of the magic of the original Universal monster movies to which it owes so much. The original movies - released in the 1930s and 1940s - may not all be great (though they are all better than this movie), but at their best, they at least have a nice level of creepiness, even if they can't scare a modern audience. Van Helsing has none of this eerie quality and is merely an action movie with slightly off-beat villains.
  
  If you feel the urge to watch this movie, fight it. Watch one of the original movies instead; I particularly recommend Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein. This movie should be avoided as it will almost certainly disappoint.
  
  
  

• I Hate to Bite and Run...

  
  By A1M4NJYP0WNL8Q on 2004-11-23
  All said and done, this film is a tremendous amount of fun. Director Stephen Sommers takes the stuff of our favorite fictional monsters and blends them together to create a highly imaginative reconstruction of the story of Dracula. Resemblances to Bram Stoker's original tale are entirely accidental. Instead we find Dracula (Richard Roxburgh) using with Dr. Frankenstein (Samuel West) to serve some dark and nefarious purpose. Not very far in the background is a werewolf (Will Kemp) who carries part of the answer to the puzzle - when he isn't trying to chew a hole in Gabriel Van Helsing (Hugh Jackman).
  
  Kate Beckinsale plays Anna Valerious, the last living member of her family, who have been dedicated to exterminating Dracula for some 400 years. Thanks to an oath of her forefathers, the Valerious line is condemned to purgatory as long as Dracula wanders the night. Concerned that this curse is about to become permanent, a secret order of the Catholic Church sends in their best occult assassin - Van Helsing - aided reluctantly by Friar Carl (David Wenham), who plays the mad inventor to Van Helsing's athletic efforts. Gabriel shows up to help Anna, is promptly rebuffed by the woman, whose mind is definitely her own. But the action goes ballistic, and no one gets time to be banished or stomp off.
  
  And of action, special effects, stunts. and computer graphics there is a great muchness. Most of which looks just believable enough to keep the audience staring open mouthed at the screen. An outstanding job is done with Dracula's wives (Elena Anaya, Silvia Colloca, and Josie Maran) and the Frankenstein monster (Shuler Hensley). So good that these characters very nearly steal the entire show. Sets are equally carefully crafted, with a marvelous medieval town and two whole gothic castles. The visual impression of the film often completely overwhelms the story.
  
  The acting is bright, with a slightly crude, sarcastic style of interplay between the characters. The overall touch is comedic, despite the inevitable sour grapes of the ending. Don't look for greatness here. The point is to create an exciting, fun experience, not to recreate the dark and brooding spirit behind the originals. Sommers does well with this tongue-in-cheek, cut-and-run style and Van Helsing proves this once again
  
  
  

• Hugh Jackman, Universal's Monster Hunter

  
  By A17M20ISV4BP07 on 2003-06-19
  One of the most anticipated films of 2004 is the Universal Pictures release: Van Helsing. Hugh Jackman stars as the Bram Stoker character Prof. Abraham Van Helsing. Though many people remember the vampire killer from the Dracula novel to be a bit older and less active, director Stephen Sommers (of movie series The Mummy fame) is revamping the role to a more youthful and energetic age with a no-nonsense dimeanor. Set in the late Victorian age, Abraham Van Helsing is dispatched to investigate strange reports coming from dark eastern Europe. A world-renown monster hunter, this Van Helsing is a killer not to be triffled with. With a huge array of weapons, he appears to be a cross between Indiana Jones, Batman, and Attilla The Hun. Not only does he confront Dracula (played by Richard Roxburgh) on his mission, but also Frankenstein's Monster (played by Shuler Hensley) and the Wolfman (played by Will Kemp) as well. And these aren't your grandfather's monsters either. Universal Pictures has taken their classic horror monsters and beefed them up with modern heirs for the movie. The Wolfman is no longer a man with a hairy face. THIS version of The Wolfman would give the werewolf in An American Werewolf in London a run for his money. The same can be said of the other monsters shown, which Universal has announced you will be seeing all of. As even the movie's narrator proves to be Dr. Jekyll, you can be sure other Universal creatures as Mr. Hyde, Igor, The Creature from the Black Lagoon, and the Invisible Man won't be hard to find either. Buckle your seatbelts, Universal Picture's Van Helsing is gonna prove to be one of the biggest blockbusters of the year!
  
  

• Van Helsing is a fun, tongue-in-cheek, salute to the horror films of the 50's and 60's.

  
  By AZCDCO6KK2T81 on 2008-04-15
  This film is a throwback to those old 50's horror films that had classic monsters doing battle with each other coupled with the wit of the 60's era all combined with the thrills and special effects of today's films.
  
  Entertainment rarely gets better than this. Now stop laughing at my five stars for this kind of film. This isn't the five stars you would give a film like Platoon or The Painted Veil. It's more like the five stars you would you give a film like Aliens or Die Hard. This is fun, thrilling, and engaging entertainment. It's simple popcorn fun that the whole family, for the most part, can enjoy. The CGI can be a little over-the-top, but it is still excellently done and doesn't get in the way of the story.
  
  The film has engaging actors who, while playing their roles with some seriousness, you can tell that it is all tongue-in-cheek and one expects them to wink at the camera at any time. Hugh Jackman certainly carries the film with great charm and coolness that reminds one of Ford's Indiana Jones. Kate Beckinsale is great as his reluctant partner and just looks dang sexy in this role that brings to mind her Underworld character. She just sizzles on the screen. In addition, excellent support is rendered by David Wenham, most known for his roles in 300 and The Lord of the Rings - The Motion Picture Trilogy, Richard Roxburgh of Stealth, Kevin J. O'Conner from The Mummy, and Robbie Coltrane who is best known as Hagrid in the Harry Potter films.
  
  The direction is confidently done and unobtrusive. He combines action and horror very effectively. The photography is appropriately creepy and atmospheric. The set designs are elaborate and the score is compelling. The entire film is excellently produced and is what I call a high octane film. This film gets you running on all cylinders. Watch it and have a blast enjoying it for the kind of entertainment it is.
  
  The film is thrilling and suspenseful with the various classic creature battling each other and at times forming uneasy alliances. This is just old fashioned witty and enjoyable entertainment. The repeat value of this film is what also makes this film worthy of a place in your DVD collection.
  
  

• Van Helsing

  
  By A29R4FCO6RFX4K on 2004-06-12
  Ok, so THE MUMMY was fun, and MUMMY RETURNS was intermittingly enjoyable despite some obvious flaws, and VAN HELSING looked set to be an impressive CGI-fest with heaps of fast-paced action and Saturday night popcorn fun.
  It delivers on its promise for action, there are some great set-pieces and the special effects are great, but the cold hard fast is that Stephen Sommers isn't a very good director. Like Jan DeBont and McG, Sommers is one of those types that likes to throw in as much visuals as humanly possible and BAM! A great movie. Problem is, it doesn't always work. Richard Roxburgh's bad-accented Count Dracula is overly-camp, and while Hugh Jackman is seemingly doing something different, he's really just redoing his Wolverine shtick: Shady guy who dispenses ample amounts of violence and one-liners along with obligatory memory problems. Overall, not bad, just not very good either. Next time Mr. Sommers, can we have a bit more story please?
  
  
• CAN IT GET ANY BETTER THAN THIS?
  By A4QNXB4TRDDNP on 2004-08-18
  Director Steven Sommer's tribute to the old school of horror has Hugh Jackman as a crossbow wielding, vampire %$# kicking Van Helsing in this non-stop horror/action film. The ultimate vampire hunter is on the job in Transylvania. David Wenham provides great comic relief as Carl. Kate Beckinsale rocks as the sword wielding, Princess Anna Valerious.
  
  VAN-HELSING ULTIMATE EDITION DVD:
  It doesn't get any better than this:
  - Special Edition 2 DVD set of Van Helsing LOADED with extras
  - 3rd disc w/Universal's classic Dracula, Frankenstein & Wolfman films
  
  HERE ARE SOME OF THE FEATURES:
  
  MOVIE:
  1.85:1 Anamorphic Widescreen Presentation
  English Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Track
  French Dolby Digital 2.0 Stereo Surround Track
  Spanish Dolby Digital 2.0 Stereo Surround Track
  English, French & Spanish Subtitles
  Commentary w/Dir. Stephen Sommers & Editor/Producer Bob Ducsay
  4 Actor Commentaries:
  Hugh Jackman, Kate Beckinsale, Richard Roxburgh & Shuler Hensley
  
  EXTRAS:
  Filmmaker's Diary: Chronicling One Week of Production
  New World Technology vs. Old World Monsters Featurette
  Designing Van Helsing: A 360-degree IPIX Tour of the Sets
  Van Helsing: The Story, The Life, The Legend
  Love Bites: The Brides of Dracula Mockumentary
  You Are in the Movie On-Location Featurette
  Anatomy of a Scene: The Masquerade Ball
  Creating the Characters and Monsters Interactive Featurette
  The Music of Van Helsing
  Outtakes
  Van Helsing's Monster Map Interactive Featurette
  Time Lapse Footage of Sets being Built, Filmed & Torn Down
  Play The Van Helsing XBox Game (For the XBox Console Only)
  DVD Rom Features
  Stephen Sommer's on Universal's Classic Monster: Dracula
  The Road to Dracula Documentary
  Poster Archives
  
  
  
  
• This deserves no stars, in all honesty - Spoilers ahead
  By A2DWV8N2JFGTP on 2005-02-18
  Where to begin with this film? Universal, well known as THE horror studio of the 30's and 40's made some amazing films; classics like Dracula, Frankenstein and The Werewolf.
  
  Fast forward to 2004. This movie is, quite simply, a piece of drek. It is not even clever enough to rate as a lighthearted homage to those earlier works. It is not worth the polyethylene terephthalate it was filmed on.
  
  We have Abraham Van Helsing's younger sister's cousin's boy, a steam punk super secret James Bond-like Q bunker under the Vatican (!?) accessed by a special confessional, David Wenham of Lord of the Rings fame wondering if this is his future, playing buffoonish side kicks in bad scifi/fantasy flicks, and some really cheesy CGI work. Considering the amount of money they spent on Kate Beckinsale's corset collection they could have kicked in a few bucks for better F/X.
  
  The plot, such as it is, is an unlovely jumble of the three Universal classics mentioned above with a dash of Dr. Jekyll (as someone on LiveJournal put it, escaped from the League of Extraordinay Gentlemen) and James Bond. Dracula wants Frankenstein (rather than Dr. Frankenstein) to animate vampire babies. Nevermind the fact that a) vampires are generally considered, by legend, to be dead and unable to procreate b) and humans, even lightly dead ones, do not incubate their young in pupae. But apparently vampires do. And there's something to do with Kate Beckinsale's family being the last of the gypsies but their connection to the Dracula/Frankenstein/vampire pupae thing is tenuous at best, unless it's simply geographical distance. Van Helsing is dispatched by the Vatican to stop Dracula's evil plot. Or he's dispatched to Kate Beckinsale because... I'm not sure. I think I was still boggled by the super secret lab.
  
  To paraphrase the immortal words of Bill Macy in My Favorite Year, there's a lot of leaping and jumping but not so much drinking and humping. There is much running about and CGI brides of Dracula and CGI werewolves and eye-rolling deus ex machina smacking you in the face and it really is never clear what any of them are doing or why they're doing it. It's messy, uneven and laughable in moments where they're not making a pathetic effort at jokes.
  
  In all seriousness this movie exists merely to show off Kate Beckinsale with tight leather pants, a brooding but anemic-looking Hugh Jackman and mediocre CGI work, the premise seeming to be that the movie-going public likes fast things, explosions, leather-clad, sword-wielding chicks and much rope swinging and we'll pay good money to see it, no matter how execrable the plot.
  
  Buy one of the classics, instead, and savor the black and white sinister goodness of old fashioned filmmaking where plot actually mattered.
  
  
• GREAT MOVIE!!!
  By A13930FU6SUGJO on 2004-09-08
  What on earth are all of your problems with this movie? Some of you say its boring?? Well, struth, you must be one hell of a hard person to keep interested. If you thought this movie was boring, then i think no other action movie will ever keep you interested.
  What is this crap about the story was so hard to follow? I am guessing that the people criticising the story, are the people with pathetic concentration spands. Maybe if the director had known you like simpler stories, and not complex ones, he would have made it more easy for you.
  Special effects did not over take this movie. It made it great. I cannot understand the critics of this movie. When i saw these reviews, i hadnt watched it, and didnt want to. But when i eventually did watch it, at a friends house, i couldnt bellieve that these critics were talking about this movie.
  For me, this is a great movie. You critics need to stop knocking a movie that isnt bad at all!
  
  
• Possibly the worst film ever made.
  By A283NP8NG7X11F on 2005-01-08
  Honest to god, I wanted to die while watching this...thing. In the first minute and fourty seconds alone, I was ready for it to be over. There isn't a single thing about Van Helsing that warrants a purchase, let alone rental. In fact, Van Helsing could be the very first movie in which I'll write a letter to the company itself, demanding the 2 hours of my life back. As long as I can warn some of you out there of its poorness, I'll feel better.
  
  Van Helsing starts out with Dr. Frankenstein creating his monster. For some reason or another, Dracula (in all of his poor line-delivery self)shows up, kills off the Dr. and tries to take his monster. The villagers won't have any of that, and chase down the monster. Of course, he runs off to a mill where it catches on fire and collapses. What did Dracula want him for? Something incredibly stupid that we don't find out until about halfway through the movie. Cut to Van Helsing chasing after Mr. Hyde in a church where there's nothing but Hugh Jackman and a Star Wars CG alien reject. Seriously, Mr. Hyde looks like The Hulk, only even less realistic. The two fight and eventually Van Helsing gets the best of him, launching a god damn grappling hook through his body and tossing him off the church. Everyone calls Van Helsing a murderer, and he goes off looking for a new task. But not before getting weapons from Q...I mean a monk-in-training at a lab. After that, he's off to Transylvania to take out Dracula before he can (and get this) create vampires to take over the world. It also turns out that Kate Beckinsale's character has a bone to pick with Dracula. He killed off her early ancestors, and they can't rest in heaven until he's killed. Gee...I guess we should really care about her now. But her and Van Helsing team up and go after Dracula while trying to save Frankenstein's monster, who just so happens to be the key to a machine that Dracula uses to make CG vampires. Confused? Good. Because I was after the first half hour.
  
  Where do I start with the bad? Kate Beckinsale sounds like a good start. If there's any one major problem I had with the movie, she'd be it. Her accent is horrible. Her wig is hideous. She can never keep her mouth closed since she's always busy trying to look menacing with that sneer of hers that looks like a Tauntaun on Paxil. And...she wears pants. That's funny, I don't remember women from this time period wearing pants. And there were so many times when she should've died. She's pratically invincible for the entire movie. She falls 20+ feet, gets slammed head first, face first, neck first and back first into cement pillars only to fall another 15 feet to the ground, and more. And of course, she gets up without a scratch or bruise. Finally, she did the unthinkable and quoted Tuco from The Good, The Bad and the Ugly (loosely) with "if you have to kill someone, kill them. Don't talk about it". I was -this close- to turing the movie off out of disghust there. All the CG is a joke. I remember reading interviews about the movie saying "the CG you see in the commercial isn't the final CG. We're still touching up on it". Well I guess you forgot to put it on the actual film that we saw, because those vampires look pretty bad to me buddy. As for the rest of the revolting things about Van Helsing, I'd leave that up to Dracula, the costumes, dialogue, and unlikable characters. And then there's the part where Dracula somehow knows Van Helsing...from 400 years ago. Did I miss something? And wait until you hear Dracula's brides talk. Your ears, eyes, and ovaries (regardless of gender) will bleed. But there has to be something even remotely positive about this, right? Nope. Even the title character himself isn't convincing. All I see is Wolverine in a silly outfit with Inspector Gadget weapons. And how about his automatic crossbow? Everytime he shot things with that, I kept expecting "NEW HIGH SCORE" to flash on the screen. Actually, now that I [painfully] think about it, there was ONE demi-cool thing about Van Helsing. A sun bomb. Yes, a little bomb that radiates a blast of light equal to that of the sun's. This takes out many vampires, and is a cool idea. It's just too bad I've seen it done 1,000 times before. So that gets the movie .00000000001 star right there.
  
  As for the dvd itself, I was only able to listen to the commentary and watch one other special feature before losing all hope and getting it out of my poor computer's dvd player. The commentary track I listened to (there're two here) was the one with the 3 guys who played the monsters in the movie. They had fun with it and even made jokes about some of the CG here and there. A memorable line was when one guy mentioned how it took 4 hours to get the makeup applied on his head alone, and another goes "a four hour head job? That sounds pretty good to me". Really, that quote alone is better than anything the movie itself had going for it. The other feature I tried out was the Xbox game demo, which is actually decent (compared to the movie anyway. On its own, it's a below average game). The other special features are outtakes, set design tours, a back story on the character of Van Helsing, and one where cameras were thrown on actors to give you a closer look at stunts. 'funny how more time probably went into this dvd release than the movie itself.
  
  I'm going to stop now, because I don't want to keep thinking about this movie. If there is a god, he'll strike it down from movie shelves, and out of existance. But, like Kate Beckinsale, it probably won't have a scratch afterwards.
  
  
• Hammy and Entertaining
  By A197VGQEZ8R2W0 on 2004-05-07
  Alright anybody could have acting in this movie. Wasted performances, well mabe not, the over articulation of the transulvanian accent got to be a little much, Hollywood kiss moment, come on, This thing starts very Universal Old time Horror stuff, Yeah to that, Draculas Wifes are worth the watch, The wolfman, well I felt outta place but they used 'um for the story line, Whats with Draculas helpers. ??!! whaaa.... Do you think Hugh is chasing down Wolverine here again I mean he gets hooked up as a wolfman (:) OK not to mention the Frakenstien monster. New look like it or not when he gets zapped in the tower I thought I was watchin the old newer improved version. It was cool. The movie has a Burton quality but leaves me dry on the performances say a 2 but 4 on the effects gives 4 to see it. Querky hollywood I wanted so bad to give it a 5 but I'ts not as bad as Extrodinary Gentlemen. Egor is the only laughing moment. Universal owns these characters and I don't need to remind anybody whos seen enough of the old black and whites how many munipulated story lines over the years. One point felt like an old Christopher Lee B-Movie which I thought was cool
  
  
• Fun Redux of the old days of Hammer Studios!
  By A2EQRK21C2WFI6 on 2004-08-01
  Don't go into this film expecting oscar material. If you throw this movie on with the expectation of a fun remix of old monster movies with much improved effects, then you are going to love it!
  Stephen Sommers does it again. If you liked "The Mummy", you are going to love "Van Helsing". Beginning with the most famous scene for the original "Frankenstein", this film dives into all the old favorite monster movies combined into one story. There are quite a few scenes with the "Yeah, right..." factor (such as the automatic "machine gun" crossbow, and the horsedrawn carrage jumping a destroyed 50' span of bridge), but like I say, as with many of the '50's movie, if you just turn off your brain and enjoy this film for what it is, you are going to have a good time. The effects are great, and the story is about a "B" rating. IF you are a fan of old monster movies like myself, this film is well worth the price. If you are one of those geeks that likes to pick apart everything, or is expecting "Lord of the Rings" grade story material to accompany the top notch special effects, you may want to skip it. This is a Summer(Sommer) fun movie, noting more, nothing less.
  
  
  
• Cool
  By A1WO1OA1EAGE5G on 2004-05-06
  I think people are expecting too much if they demand realism. Like all stephen sommer productions this movie is about remaking the legends of the Hollywood monsters. Roxburgh is quite the man as Dracula, and I had a good laugh when V. Helsing uses all the tried and tested anti-vampire methods to kill him. My favourite villain is the wolfman, he's so agile and aggressive, so unlike the 60s monsters. There's a twist at the end which I won't spoil for you guys, my only gripe is that Frankenstein should have had more screentime. And they didn't really explain clearly how Dracula and V. Helsing are connected. In a nutshell it's popcorn entertainment, just sit back and enjoy the ride!
  
  
• Well Done.......
  By AMTS3N2PTKEA6 on 2004-08-19
  As a "classic Horror" fan who grew up in the '60's, I really expected very little from this movie....other than "billion dollar" special effects. Well...that was delivered and so much more. My two teenage sons loved this movie and so did I. The characters portrayed were done so with skill and articulation...the story line was effective and and "to the point". The special effects were amazing but did not overtake the story being told. I am looking forward to the release of this DVD...as are my kids! It will be a welcome addition to our collection of "monster movies". I'm sure Mr. Karloff himself would whole-heartedly approve.
  
  
• Not perfect but perfectly entertaining
  By AQP1VPK16SVWM on 2004-10-20
  When "Van Helsing" came out in theaters I was pretty harsh. I don't know what I expected certainly something different than this campy popcorn movie. That was probably part of the problem. "Van Helsing", like "The Fearless Vampire Killers", packages camp, classic horror, satire and action all into one seamless package. Is it the worst film of the world? Well, yes if you were expecting enlightenment or something deep and meaningful. But if you were expecting adventure, humor and a startling mix of traditional special effects and CGI to support some truly looney and over-the-top performances, you'll have a blast with "Van Helsing".
  
  Abraham Van Helsing (Hugh Jackman) is a man with no memory. Working for the Vatican to rub out evil throughout the world, he faces his most difficult task--facing Dracula who has been supporting Dr. Frankenstein's research into creating life for his own nefarious reasons. Van Helsing also has to save the souls of the family that has been fighting Dracula for centuries. Anna the latest in a long line of vampire killers is in danger and Van Helsing is directed to help her. Playing Q to Van Helsing's James Bond is Carl a Friar who comes up with all the wonderful toys Van Helsing must use to dispatch evil.
  
  Stephen Sommers' monster hit movie was completely misinterpreted by most critics and, yes, by lots of moviegoers. It's not a perfect movie but it's perfectly entertaining. There's always going to be mindless fun movies created for the 12 year old in all of us. Sommers' movie is an attempt to recreate that feeling (which he, no doubt, had as a kid as well) for adult movie audiences as well as kids.
  
  The quality of the DVD varies a bit. While the colors are vivid throughout most of the movie, the beginning of the film looks particularly soft with a lack of sharp detail. It does improve, however, as the movie progresses. My guess is that it's due both to the transfer and the large amount of detail in the images as well as the compression. Some of the sequences are startling clear and are among the best I've seen on DVD. The sound has tremendous presence. Sommers and Ducsay his producer/editor provide a delightfully informative audio commentary as do three of the main actors from the film Richard Roxburgh, Shuler Hensley and Will Kemp.
  
  The big difference between the two region one editons as simple--1 extra disc. Both editions have outtakes, "You Are in the Movie" (which tries to create the impression that you're part of the production crew on the set), "360 Degree Tour of Dracula's Castle", "The Legend of Van Helsing" (which discusses the character as portrayed through films), the first level of the "Van Helsing" Xbox game (which can be played on your DVD player) and the "Bringing the Monsters to Life" featurette.
  
  The extra disc has a number of features not included on the disc disc set. An interactive map, "Darkness Falls: Dracula's Lair is Transformed" which looks at the production end, a short documentary "Van Helsing: The Story, The Life and The Legend". Most importantly for old horror movie fans is the inclusion of three classic Universal horror movies Todd Browning's "Dracula"(1931), James Whale's "Frankenstein" (1931) and George Waggner's "The Wolf Man" (1940). "Dracula" is essentially the same as the first disc in the "Legacy" series with commentary, trailers and a short documentary. "Frankenstein" and "The Wolf Man" arrive bare bones with just the feature films.
  
  The big question will be whether or not the deluxe edition will be worth it? Only if you don't have the three Universal classics included. The featurettes and extras on disc three aren't all that impressive overall considering the price. If you don't have the three classic films and only want those (vs. ponying up for the "Legacy" boxed sets), then this would be the way to go. It's a pity that this editon doesn't have a "Director's Cut" (if one exists) along with Hugh Jackman and Kate Beckinsale's commentary on the film.
  
  Overall, "Van Helsing" is a great movie to watch on Halloween (and there's only one minor bad word that I recall hearing and it's pretty minor)with kids 6 and older. It's a way to revisit the classics you grew up enjoying without having your kids get bored watching old black and white movies that with pacing from another era.
  
  
• Horrible, more Hollywood crap
  By A2FPUTQFNR003W on 2005-03-21
  I can't waste my time typing anything about this garbage. Don't buy it.
  
  
• VAN HELSING... Not The 60 Year Old Fart You're Used To!
  By A2JNXVBV0C4380 on 2004-03-10
  On May7,2004,Hugh Jackman will play Gabriel Van Helsing.The Monsters will be Updated,Makeup,Costumes(Even Van Helsing)will be changed. It takes place years after he met Dracula.Dracula (Richard Roxburgh)has risen from the grave to seek revenge on Van Helsing,who is now a famed monster hunter.In the process,Dracula and Igor (Kevin J. o' Connor)Ressurect the Monster (Shuler Hensley)created by Frankenstein (Samuel West).He teams with a friend,Carl(David Wenham) and Anne Valerious(Kate Beckinsale.Anne wants to kill Dracula to save her bro.,Velkan(Will Kemp)from his werewolf curse.
  
  
• Van Helsing Vampires
  By A1LRMNRH837XEW on 2004-04-10
  I was at the screening of Van Helsing last Tuesday and my first impression is that the movie is quite amazing.
  The CGI stuff looks like it needs more work (pygmy bats look quite silly), but the werwolf and the brides are fantastic.
  As far as the actors, my praise goes to Mr Richrad Roxburgh who created a new Dracula, whose sadness and hollowness is rather touching.
  Kevin O' connor is great as usual, hidden in the heaviest make up you would imagine.
  Kate and Hugh team up very well even though Kate's beauty is challenged by the three stunning vampire brides, especially by the charm of the dark head vixen ( Sylvia Colloca, I think).
  On the whole, a very good job that will hit the box office!
  
  
• "Blockbuster" or "lackluster"
  By A3NGJCB16TEU8K on 2004-05-05
  I interviewed a lucky, or rather unlucky, viewer who happened to be chosen for the sneak preview of "Van Helsing". This special effects porn (see note below) might appeal to naive kids who have never heard of Mary Shelly, or Bram Stoker; but, it just goes to proove the point that "a sucker is born every minute." Let me explain.

  This travesty attempts to merge the various monster myths from antiquety; but, does so poorly a job at it that the ludicrous "Clash of the Titans" held truer to the base myths. Within the monster myths, "Abbot & Costello versus [insert monster here]" movies were closer to the mark.

  Here are some paraphrases of the comments I heard:

  A silver stake through the heart of one of the brides of dracula, and she puffs up in green goo and explodes when the others when pierced with the same stake crumbled to dust? Excuse me, a silver stake does not kill a vampire! The myth says that "only something which once lived" could be used as material for a stake. Also, where is the cutting off the head and burning it; which is also required to prevent the vampire from rising again?

  Okay, no myth has ever had Van Helsing kill Dr. Jeckyl/Mr. hyde, or any werewolves, for that matter. The myth tells us that Van Helsing is a bookwork/geek type doctor that studdied the vampire myth for decades and gave advise. He is not a 30-something appearing importal "left hand of God" who has lived hundreds of years. How does someone think this excrement up and expect to shove it down our thoats.

  As for the werewolf myths, the transformation scene in "American Werewolf in London" is far more believable, though my source applauds the flexibility of the actor. Unconvincing special effects include Van Helsing-turned-werewolf grabbing two people by their necks and jumping 2 stories up! Then jumping down and landing with the peoples feet and his hitting the ground at once. Come on! A human neck would either fracture their larrnyx, crack instantly, or be ripped off with that kind of lifting force. Even if they could have correctly filmed the scene whith him grabbing them around the chest and under the arms, the jump down would have likely broken their legs. Sure the werewolf might have survived unscathed, but the humans would be toast.

  The only good things I have to say is that the actors do an excellent job of acting. It is too bad they were saddled with such a contrived script. And the artistry in the ending credits is quite good, if you can manage to make it that far. Frakenstein's exclamation "I want to live!" might better be stated "I want to leave!".

  Note: Special Effects Porn is a term that applies to a movie that appears to be wholly created for special effect extraveganzas with a contrived or thin plot (if you can even call it that) linking the special effects scenes in a similar fashion to the so called plots between sex scenes in porn movies.
  
  

• Absolutely horrible
  By AIBRTGBN07D6A on 2004-05-10
  I was looking forward to this all year long. What a great premise for a film. And with one of my favorite actors in it, Hugh jackman, how could they go wrong? Unfortunately, they do.

  Jackman produces a fairly good character in Van Helsing. He's likeable, a bit brooding, and mysterious. Unfortunately, we don't know anything about him. How strong is he? How can he fight monsters when other humans can't? This isn't explained in the film though. Just one of the MANY plot holes that make up this movie. And this movie is filled with them. Director Stephen Sommers tries to build a romance around the two main characters, but literally waits until the last 5 minutes fo the movie to start. There is not a single spark of interest between the two characters before then. They might as well have both been male for all the romance there was. There are numerous other relationships that are hinted at during the film but never explained. Not small relationships, but seemingly major plot developments that are not explained. They're not even set up appropriately for a sequel.

  But Van Helsing doesn't appear to be about a good story. After all, it's a summer blockbuster. I can be content with a good popocorn movie. "The Mummy" was horribly written too but it was enjoyable to watch in the theater. Van Helsing isn't. 160 million on this film. Where did it go? Certainly not in the special effects. The CGI is decent in some parts of the movie, and in others just plain absurd. It looks unfinished, and there are effects that I could have done a better job making with a flipbook and some crayons.

  If you watch Van Helsing, be prepared to suspend your belief in the laws of physics. At one point, a team of 6 horses jumps almost 100 feet over a chasm. They actually show this effect from a distance, which further emphasis the absurdity of it. It might as well have been Santa's sleigh because that's exactly what it looks like. And this is just the most obvious flaw. Characters jump 20 feet in the air, climb up walls like Jackie Chan, and accomplish other feats only possible with the help of computers and a bad script.

  One of the most atrocious aspects of this film is the acting. Tremendous melodrama from Dracula and his brides. He might as well have been wearing a cape, rubbing his hands together and saying "mwahahahaha." Jackman and Beckinsale are the only actors who don't do a horrible job with the already horrible script they were given, although beckinsale is close. And don't get me started on Van Helsing's trusty sidekick, Carl. This guy is a dictionary of bad puns and one liners. They could have replaced him with Shaggy from Scooby Doo and you wouldn't have noticed much difference. Heck, the animation would have even looked better. This character should have been cut from the film completely.

  Overall, a film I wanted to enjoy, but just couldn't. The novelty aspect of all of these monsters together didn't even hold up for me. If you like mindless action and don't think too much about movies or care about the realism of them, and if you are a fan of "The Mummy" and "League of Extraordinary Gentleman," you might enjoy Van Helsing. But for the rest of us, there comes a time when you can't just sit back and ignore a crossbow with a never ending supply of amunition or a team of flying horses.
  
  

• VAN HELSING DELIVERS!!
  By A24KZBAAUTC83R on 2004-09-22
  VAN HELSING, though a tadbit weak in storyline, is a great popcorn fun fest that is sure to please action/adventure fans.
  
  Full of hair-raising special effects, Van Helsing is fast-paced and fun to watch. But the weaknesses were mainly semi-weak plot with Dracula being portrayed by a B-movie actor.
  
  But I'll be buying it mainly because I dig Hugh Jackman and Stephen Sommer's style of movie making. I hope he just get's grittier stuff than the Mummy type movies. I liked Van Helsing better than the Mummy movies myself, because the look of this film and it's pacing were excellent.
  
  Great mix of horror characters. I will be looking forward to his next endeavor in films...
  
  
• what a letdown, all flash and no interest
  By A2EERM752BMSQD on 2005-03-19
  All CGI hype and pizazz, but not much of a story to keep you interested. As the movie goes on, it bogs down horribly, making you look at your watch. But it just goes on and on, all effects and fighting and so on, but no compelling characterization to keep any interest. I have to say, I hated this movie. I wanted to love it. The atmosphere and look of the movie was brilliant, but what needed serious polishing wasn't the look of the movie, but the script itself.
  
  
• This should be fun
  By A3P121GNV5QYIN on 2003-12-06
  Directed by the man who brought us The Mummy series,Stephen Sommers,Van Helsing should be interesting to see.Based on the famous character from Bram Stoker's Dracula Van Helsing,played by Hugh Jackman,who we all know is the vampire hunter in the story.But in this film,he doesn't just go after Dracula,he goes after the famous monsters to grace both books and the silver screen like Frankenstien,The Wolfman and others.I don't think the film will be scary,but I think it will be a fun movie to watch.
  
  
• Homage will leave you breathless with excitement
  By A1HX00DL0SZM1G on 2004-08-05
  In 1999 director Steven Sommers presented the hit movie THE MUMMY to movie audiences (which opened to an amazing weekend take of $43 million May 7th). With so much success a sequel THE MUMMY RETURNS (2001) was inevitable.
  Sommers, a big fan of the classic Universal monster/horror movies made the movie as a homage to the earlier Universal movies and in 2004 he paid tribute to the other staples of the genre -Wolfman, Dracula and Frankenstein's monster - all in one movie. The movie VAN HELSING even had Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde in a cameo role at the outset of the movie fighting famed monster hunter Van Helsing - portrayed by Hollywood star Hugh Jackman.
  Ignore what you may have read or heard about the movie, it's a thrill ride of a rollercoaster of a movie that owes more than a tip of the hat to both the Indiana Jones and James Bond franchises. The movie never lets up, traveling along at breakneck speed right to its tumultuous, suspenseful, wrist-clenching climax.
  The movie opens in 1887 and follows legendary vampire hunter Gabriel Van Helsing as he travels to the mysterious land of Transylvannia - home to his most famed opponent Count Dracula and a land that has been overrun by werewolves and vampires.
  Prior to his departure we have a scene unabashedly influenced by the Q-scenes from the James Bond series. Equipped with such `futuristic' weaponry and gadgets as an automatic `machine gun' style crossbow, Van Helsing, with comic relief Carl (played by David Wenham) as his bumbling assistant in tow, heads to investigate the reports coming out of eastern Europe.
  Upon arrival Van Helsing meets Anna Valerious (played by the impossibly gorgeous Kate Beckinsale). Valerious is the last member of a family that is under a curse that can only be broken by the death of Dracula. After some initial mistrust Valerious realizes that Van Helsing shares her goal of defeating the evil count and the two enter into an alliance.
  I admit that my initial interest in the movie was sparked by the involvement of Beckinsale. A fan of the British actress since I noticed her alongside Clare Danes in BROKEDOWN PALACE, I have enjoyed a number of her movies (SEREDIPITY and UNDERWORLD) and had to endure some terrible movies (PEARL HARBOR and TIPTOES). Thankfully VAN HELSING falls squarely in the positive column and ranks unquestionably as my favorite Beckinsale movie to date. She gives an excellent and stirring performance as a determined fighter of the monsters that inhabit her land.
  Opposing Van Helsing, Carl and Valerious is one of the all-time best screen portrayals of Dracula in Richard Roxburgh. Roxburgh is simply superb and steals every scene he is in with his deliciously evil rockstar take on the character. Aiding Dracula are his three vampire brides (Josie Maran, Silvia Colloca and Elena Anaya) who fly around the country doing his bidding - the interplay between the three I found to be constantly entertaining. Also under the spell of the count is Wolf man (Will Kemp), a character Van Helsing has sworn to kill, but one which causes some emotional drama for Valerious and an interesting subplot for the movie.
  With a budget of $148 million, Universal really threw a lot of effort into this movie and it shows. A total of 980 special effects accompanies some well honed action scenes, amazing stunts and sumptious costume design in a movie that really delivers the goods. It's an incredible trip that will leave you breathless until the end credits roll.
  This movie was criticized widely for its improbable script. Yes, it's a B-movie script but then it is supposed to be. It's a homage to the black and white Universal classics. That's what you go expecting to see, only with updated special effects and a larger budget. In those respects this movie is a triumph. Sit back and enjoy and remember those wonderful Lon chaney and Bela Lugosi movies of yesteryear. This movie isn't one that works if you try to overthink it. It's fun and played to be fun.
  Delivering possibly two of their best performances is Jackman and Beckinsale and I really felt a chemistry between the stars, easily more so than Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz in the two MUMMY movies. Sommers sets his story against a spectacular scenic backdrop that worked for me as far more breathtaking than the desert vistas of Sommers most famous earlier work.
  VAN HELSING is an achievement and my favorite movie of 2004. I am eagerly awaiting the release of the widescreen anamorphic DVD on Oct. 19 in a release that Universal has understandably seen fit to shower with special features. Including two audio commentaries, a 360-degree tour of Dracula's castle, You are in the Movie, the tantalizingly titled `The Legend of Van Helsing' and (perhaps most enticing) some deleted scenes, October cannot come soon enough.
  I'm hoping for a VAN HELSING 2, but even if one doesn't get made at least I will have this immensely entertaining movie to enjoy.
  Well recommended.
  Be aware that the studio will also be releasing an Ultimate Edition DVD on the same day. This three-disc set will also include the classic horror movies DRACULA (1931), FRANKENSTEIN (1931) and THE WOLF MAN (1941).
  Other special features included on the Ultimate Edition are: 'VAN HELSING, THE STORY, THE LIFE THE LEGEND'; 'TRACK THE ADVENTURE: VAN HELSING'S MAP'; 'THE MUSIC OF VAN HELSING' and 'DARKNESS FALLS: DRACULA'S LAIR IS TTRANSFORMED.'
  Which ever version you pick up, the regular edition or the Ultimate Edition be assured that you will be well pleased with the movie itself - a must-own!
  
  
• PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE BUYING
  By A344SE02DOITVY on 2004-10-23
  I just watched Van Helsing. After reading about twenty or more reviews of the movie from all over the Internet I was a bit apprehensive that I would like it, but I like the genre and thought I would give it a try. Well let me tell you I thought it was a GREAT MOVIE! Many of the reviews I read spoke about how campy the movie was and how bad the acting was especially by the actor that played Dracula... Well my take on this is it was meant to be campy. The movie starts out in black and white just like the old movies from yesteryear (this should have been a red flag to everyone but I guess a lot missed it) and then we are introduced to Dracula and he is way over the top with his acting ... but just in the beginning of the film... to set it up as campy. It's a wink and nod to the past. Many also complained that the story line just never could happen... that Dracula could never be lead man of both Wolfman and Frankenstein and that Van Helsing could never be a Missionary from the Vatican. With that said, It's called poetic license... those that trash the movie because they don't like the set up I think went into the movie with preconceived ideas on what they were going to see. When they were not rewarded, they trashed the movie. Sorry to say, I think this has happened a lot to this movie. The reason I am writing this review is so that those that may be interested in possibly purchasing the movie but are scared away with all the negative reviews... Don't listen to them... The movie is intended to be watched with popcorn with the lights out and sound up... lots of action, monsters, and a little love... but this is not a horror movie as some I think thought it was, its just pure fun not to be taken seriously... the film doesn't take itself seriously ... why should you?
  
  
• Absolute piece of crap
  By A2VSM3PGE1ZJ31 on 2004-12-08
  Stephen Sommers has quickly proven himself to be a hack director with zero talent and zero respect for his subject matter, or his audience for that matter. I cannot recall a film as bad and as offensive as this since the last Star Wars film. I'm a huge horror and fantasy film fan, but this movie had nothing. Once again, as has become the norm for films in this genre today, an over dependance on CGI effects in lieu of a good script. Nothing like human beings bouncing off stone walls like rubber balls or flying through the air to sustain belief. Hugh Jackman must have been high on goofballs when he read this script. 2 hours of uninspired, unemotional dreck. A true insult to the films it supposedly pays tribute to, and proof positive that $148 million, cheezy computer effects, or wooden acting does not guarantee entertainment.
  
  Somebody put Sommers down like a wounded horse, please!
  
  
• Van Helsing packs quite a bite
  By AOAKTVLMPB52X on 2004-05-12
  Although one may be inclined to cast Van Helsing as a knock off of Hollywood Classics, based on the previews, once you've seen the movie it's easy to see that it's not so. They have taken cinematic legends such as Dracula, the Wolf Man and Frankenstein and given them new dimensions and linking plot lines.
  The movie, at nearly two and a half hours long, has enough fight (or if you will in the case of Dracula's brides, flight) scenes, and enough mystery that it only suffers from slow moments in a scene or two. The high points are that while the plot is interesting, it is not too complex to follow, and the cinematography is visually stunning (although a bit dreary at times, but what do you expect given the subject matter.) Also, while it is a movie that brings in horror classics there is very little of the associated blood and gore that goes along with the genre, a good point in my book.
  The low points of the movies are that the charatacters are not always very fleshed out, particularly Beckensale's "Anna Valeria" but again, with the speed of the plot it is easy to forgive that; and that the soundtrack's instistant volume occassionaly makes it hard to understand the dialouge.
  A point that could be both good and bad is the reliance on CGI to make the movie more visually spectacular but at the same time does take away from some of the realism (again though, with the subject matter what does what expect, documentary?)
  Don't discard this movie based on what professional critics are saying or by the admittedly hard to understand previews. See it and judge for yourself.
  
  
• I Used The Fast Forward on My Remote a Lot
  By ACIBQ6BQ6AWEV on 2004-11-14
  In the 1940s Universal Studios attempted to re-energize horror films at the box office by churning out movies that crammed as many famous monsters into the plot line as possible. The result was usually more notable for being silly than effective, and in spite of its highly touted CGI effects VAN HELSING is sillier still.
  
  Suggested by the vampire hunter of Bram Stoker's novel DRACULA, the film presents a young and sexy Van Helsing (Hugh Jackman) who is in the employ of a secret sect of the Roman Catholic Church run along James Bond lines. After a little run in with Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in Paris, Van Helsing is sent to Transylvannia along with a trusty Friar as sidekick. There they promptly meet a sexy vampire hunting gypsy princess, and the three promptly encounter the Wolf Man, the Frankestein Monster, Dracula, Dracula's Brides, and even Dracula's Babies. Who would have thunk it?
  
  The CGI effects are impressive and the occasional hommages to the original Universal Studio horror films of the 1930s and 1940s are occasionally amusing--but the whole thing very quickly collapses into a lot of visual and audio noise, and there isn't much to hold it together. After about half an hour I began to use the fast forward button on my remote a lot. It's a case of the director, actors, and special effects people having more fun than the audience.
  
  The transfer is quite good, although to my eye CGI effects do not work as well on the home screen as they do on the big screen. There are also a handful of bonuses, none of which are greatly interesting or particularly well done. Final take: this a movie that seems to be made by and for a bunch of hyperactive fourteen year old boys without a whole lot of imagination.
  
  GFT, Amazon Reviewer
  
  
• Laughable
  By A2UYT5TNUKNYCX on 2005-03-02
  We went to see this in the theatre. We saw the previews and were very excited to see it. We wound up laughing the whole way through the movie...
  
  I will say this, it was ambitiously bad. It was as if they let a couple of very excited and imaginative 12 year old boys write the script. The characters were cartoonish and over the top the plot was ridiculous. The CGI was overused ( you can literally not go 5 minutes in this movie without seeing CGI ) and the most intense scene in the movie was when Hugh Jackman's crotch get too close to a wagon wheel...Will his crotch survive? Buy the movie and see.
  
  And a few minor aspects of irritation...
  
  The vampire was so wimpy that the singer for The Cure could kick his butt, he was like a melodramatic goth kid.
  
  The lead actress's hair, costume and make-up remain spotlessly perfect throughout the movie.
  
  And there was enough rope swinging that I was begining to think it was a tarzan movie. I swear if I never see another perfectly molded butt swinging from a rope, it will still be too soon.
  
  Don't watch this movie, unless you are into doing the home version of Mystery Science Theatre.
  
  
• Nothing but noise
  By A2UVJD6OOLKEBR on 2005-11-19
  Back in the 1940s, Universal Pictures combined their classic horror creations for all-star monster rallies like HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN, HOUSE OF DRACULA, FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN, and ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN. The decision-makers at Universal decided to update this formula in VAN HELSING, which turns the legendary vampire hunter into a buff James Bond/Indiana Jones figure and pits him against Dracula and his brides, the Wolf Man, the Frankenstein Monster, and even Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. All this brings a new dimension to the term overkill.
  
  Writer-director Stephen Sommers is responsible for THE MUMMY (1999) and THE MUMMY RETURNS (2001); both films, particularly the latter, sacrificed any trace of characterization and plot development for the sake of gaudy special effects. VAN HELSING ups the ante considerably with a nonstop parade of migraine-inducing visuals and a chalk-scraping-on-blackboard soundtrack. This is certainly the noisiest monster movie ever made, if not the noisiest film ever made, with enough action scenes for a dozen films. It's like sitting through one l-o-n-g theatrical trailer.
  
  The early sequences provide the best moments; the opening scene set in Dr. Frankenstein's laboratory (presented in black & white) effectively establishes the film as a revisionist take on the classic monster themes. A little while later, Van Helsing (Hugh Jackman) arrives in Transylvania just as Count Dracula's three vampire brides attack the village; it's a thrilling, exciting, and beautifully paced set-piece. It doesn't take long, however, for exhaustion to set in. The film, like its title character, takes no prisoners, as one shrill action scene is piled upon another at a furious rate: Windows are smashed, walls crumble, bridges collapse, carriages explode, gunshots reverberate, lab equipment crackles, blood splatters, everyone swings from an assortment of conveniently placed ropes and cords, and all victims die screaming. (Imagine being locked in a room with a group of hyperactive children and you'll get some idea of what to expect.)
  
  The real shame is that lurking somewhere in the midst of all the yelling and carnage is the makings of a reasonably entertaining horror picture. Hugh Jackman, Kate Beckinsale (as a female vampire hunter), and Richard Roxburgh (Count Dracula) are good leads, although there's precious few opportunities for them to really act. The standard monster clichés are cleverly incorporated into the story line, but without any quieter moments, the film lacks the sense of dread that's integral to any successful horror tale. Most of the fun comes from anticipating a shock scene, allowing your imagination to run wild; unfortunately, VAN HELSING offers nothing but shock scenes, utilizing slick computerized images to spell everything out for you.
  
  A younger generation of film fans now find the Universal monster movies from the '30s and '40s too slow and tame to sit through. If that's the case, VAN HELSING may be perfect entertainment for them. As for me, I'll take slow and tame any day. At least my hearing won't be impaired.
  
  
  
• The combination of old-school monsters with the incredible special effects held my attention
  By A3C6CZC2JP67VK on 2006-05-09
  Obviously this movie got mixed reviews. Either viewers loved or hated it. I cannot understand the hate.
  
  First of all, this was a typical Stephen Sommers film - you take a film classic and remake it with sarcasm, better effects, and you poke fun at the campiness of it all. Apparently some people were expecting something more Gothic, or serious, or historically accurate. Well, guess what? That has been done to death - no pun intended. What Sommers does here is far more entertaining: he takes these great characters of European Folklore, and he attempts create a nineteenth century world where they actually live, and attempt to intermingle with civilization. It's an amusing concept, or like Dracula says "Why can't people just leave us alone? We never kill more than our share!" I think, actually, the humor in this film and its actual folkloric parallels may have been over the heads of many viewers. Based on the reviews, those that hated it obviously did not understand or grasp the humor. I do feel that this film presents the best performance of a Dracula character. No, he is not a brooding Gothic figure; rather he is an egotistical, sarcastic, obviously flawed individual whose eternal life in the dark fog of Transylvania is beginning to get to him.
  Bravo to Richard Roxburgh for his treatment of this character! Anyway, if you enjoy a higher-developed dry sense of humor coupled with parodies of folklore (or have any back ground in the actual myths regarding the characters of this film) then you will truly enjoy this film. Mind you, the action scenes stretch the bounds of reality, but then again, so does the existence of a were-wolf, or the Frankenstein Monster.
  
  I do enjoy the exchange between Dracula and the were-wolf, who in the form of a man is a noble chivalrous soul, and upon hearing of Dracula's plans declares that he would "rather die!" Dracula's response? "Oh, don't be boring. Everyone who says that dies." If you like vampire-monster movies, you need to add this to your movie collection! Enjoy!!!
  
  
  

• The Mummy (Widescreen Collector's Edition)
• The Mummy Returns (Widescreen Collector's Edition)
• Underworld - Evolution (Fullscreen Special Edition)
• Underworld [Region 2]
• The Chronicles of Riddick (Theatrical Widescreen Edition)