‘Van Helsing’ at 20: The Universal Monster Adventure That Didn’t Become a ‘Mummy’-Sized Smash

This week, the 1999 Stephen Sommers Universal Monster blockbuster The Mummy celebrated its 25th anniversary, and for the past few weeks, the film has been playing in multiplexes around the country so that fans can experience it on the big screen. (I’d like to think it was released a little early so that it could recreate the feeling of watching The Mummy while awaiting the release of The Phantom Menace, whose own quarter-century anniversary celebration was timed to May 4th.) But on the exact same day as The Mummy’s anniversary, another related film was celebrating its 20th anniversary – quietly, and perhaps in shame. Then again, maybe not; if it were possible for movies themselves to feel shame, Van Helsing doesn’t seem like the type that would feel it.

It made sense that Van Helsing was presumed to be a possible Summer 2004 box office champion. It was made by Stephen Sommers, the same man who helped create the first weekend in May as a major blockbuster release date via the success of The Mummy and The Mummy Returns. Oh, and the star of the movie that took that May first-blockbuster slot the year before? None other than Hugh Jackman, who was directly following X2 with his presumably swashbuckling and no-nonsense work as Gabriel Van Helsing, noble monster hunter. Having worked his magic on one Universal Monster reimagined for modern audiences, Sommers was clearly in his strike zone, employing another hunk (Jackman swapping in for Brendan Fraser) to square off against three more famous creatures: Dracula, Frankenstein’s Monster, and a werewolf. A star, famous characters, tons of special effects, the weekend to itself… what could go wrong?

As it turns out, Van Helsing could. The movie opened well enough, only to be taken down by middling-o-poisonous word-of-mouth and reviews. It’s easy to see why those reactions might have seemed so unanimous. For one thing, it’s nearly impossible to describe the movie without using the word “mash,” for a number of reasons: because its guest list and lack of scariness recall the novelty tune “Monster Mash,” and because here mashing is Sommers’ primary mode of expression, whether it’s mashing the monsters into each other, mashing the audience over the head with them, or mashing together various unconvincing special effects. The movie is noisy, gaudy, and stupid, closer to The Mummy Returns than The Mummy in terms of coherence and filmmaking, only without the endearing characters played by Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz. Though it technically made an OK amount of money, it is, spiritually speaking, a massive flop.

Also, I like it.

Somehow, Van Helsing stirs feelings of affection in me, rather than disgust. It’s one of Jackman’s weakest performances, wounded immeasurably by the witlessness of the lines he’s 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 surefooted with faux-gothic monsters as he is ripping off Indiana Jones moves for The Mummy; as much as he obviously loves the material, The Mummy was a clever synthesis of monster horror and adventure movie, while Van Helsing very much isn’t.

So what’s worth celebrating, 20 years later?

Maybe it’s the way the opening Universal logo turns to black and white, bursts into flames, and then dissolves into a torch being carried by a member of an angry mob on its way to kill Frankenstein’s monster. Maybe it’s the set design, which includes just enough tactile garishness to convincingly fill each frame with over-many details: cobwebs everywhere, sparks flying constantly, impossibly high ceilings and towers and platforms. Maybe it’s Kate Beckinsale with dark curly hair and a Transylvanian accent, having more fun here than she did in a similar role in the fist Underworld movie, which preceded Van Helsing by less than a year.

Mostly, though, it’s that Van Helsing is made with a kind of demented innocence. Yes, it’s shrieky and technically kind of violent, especially in a sequence where a horde of flying vampire babies descend upon a poor Transylvanian village… but it will also pretty much fine for a lot of nine-year-olds. (Not nearly as many nine-year-olds as Universal would have liked, apparently.) That does, admittedly, drain the blood out of the enterprise as a monster movie, literally and figuratively. There’s no real danger to this version of Dracula, for example, beyond the threat of Richard Roxburgh (the Duke from Moulin Rouge!) popping off the screen and somehow devouring the audience after finishing off all the scenery. There’s opportunity for the movie to consider that thin line separating man and monster, which it promptly ignores. Van Helsing includes more trappings of the classic Universal movies that inspired it than The Mummy, yet it manages to be even more of a slick-mayhem adventure, and it’s endearing that this appears 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 expense. At a time when studios crack down on so many talented filmmakers, it’s kind of delightful to watch Sommers be allowed to go too far.

Jesse Hassenger (@rockmarooned) is a writer living in Brooklyn. He’s a regular contributor to The A.V. Club, Polygon, and The Week, among others. He podcasts at www.sportsalcohol.com, too.