First a word of warning. There are a number of people who would be best advised to avoid Van Helsing. If you dislike cgi, if you're a purist, if you're looking for something "realistic", or if you're looking for a slower-moving, understated film that's a deep character study, you'll more than likely hate this film.

Set around the turn of the 20th Century, Van Helsing features the titular hero (Hugh Jackman) taking a break from his usual "monster slayer" activities, which are commissioned by the Catholic Church, to pursue a grand plot initiated by Dracula (Richard Roxburg) involving the Frankenstein Monster (Shuler Hensley), the Wolf Man (Will Kemp), and the two last surviving members of a Transylvanian family that has long been battling the vampire.

Van Helsing is a fast-paced, computer graphics-laden horror/adventure/fantasy film wherein Universal re-imagines its core stable of classic horror characters. I actually like cgi, I'm not a purist, I love the genres--I'm not looking for realism, and I love fast-paced action-oriented thrill rides as much if not more than I love character studies.

As for the character remakes, Van Helsing becomes a slick retro-Matrix-styled macho action hero, part James Bond/007, part Indiana Jones, part Buffy the Vampire Slayer with a secret Catholic Church order filling in for the Watcher's Council and the Bond "Q Branch" combined. Dracula becomes a suave, scheming, mad scientist who looks like a romance novel hero. Frankenstein's Monster becomes much closer to Mary Shelley's depiction of an intelligent, loquacious, tormented, slapdash victim of a misguided doctor. And the Wolf Man, when wolf, becomes a cgi generated over-sized, super-agile, hyperactive beast. That should already turn off all of the purists.

The look of the film is lush, with lots of unusual point of view shots, exotic locations and computer-generated environments. CGI is used extensively for the human characters in the film as well as the monsters--it's frequently employed to enable physics defying stunts and amazing, far-ranging "computer camera" transitions. Van Helsing provides a good argument for such extensive digital assistance, as many of the visuals would be simply impossible to achieve through any other means and substituting some of the creatures with mechanicals, animatronics, special effects makeup and the like would have caused the film to go far over its already outrageous estimated budget of 160 million.

The plot, while not deep on characterization, couldn't be more full of events and action. Combined with the extravagant visuals and quickly changing, sprawling locations, the result is epic in scope. Director/writer Stephen Sommers, who was also responsible for remaking the image of another classic Universal character in The Mummy (1999) and The Mummy Returns (2001) (probably the reason the Mummy is not present in here), begins Van Helsing in a black and white scene that wonderfully recreates the feel of the James Whale-lensed Frankenstein films, including referencing a number of shots, scenes and characters from those classics.

After the titles, we move into a color-filled world ala The Wizard of Oz while we're treated to a brief character-establishing scene of Van Helsing battling Mr. Hyde in the bell tower of Notre Dame. Sommers then quickly whisks us away to the Vatican, where Van Helsing receives his orders.

This whirlwind beginning can be almost overwhelming--it certainly is visually--and it takes a moment to get up to speed and catch our breath, but once we settle into the town square of Transylvania, we're enraptured by the story and the pacing reaches a more sustainable level. Although fantastical at heart, the performances from the principle cast members help anchor the film in "reality". Jackman, Kate Beckinsale, Roxburgh, Henley and David Wenham all turn in nuanced performances that imply the depth of character that the film does not have the time to fully explore.

The intense action throughout the film combined with the cgi and spectacular sweeping camera moves often gives Van Helsing a feel somewhere between a comic book film and a video game. That fact might turn some viewers off, but as innovative, suspenseful, exciting filmic art, this is years ahead of most other recent releases. In fact, the sophisticated technological wizardry and entrancing epic storytelling is somewhat reminiscent of the Lord of the Rings films, which makes me wonder just what other viewers see in those to enable them to consistently sit high on the IMDb Top 250 list while Van Helsing struggles to attain a slightly above average rating. Perhaps Van Helsing deserves a more tempered first or second viewing from those who have summarily dismissed it due to unjustified expectations/preconceptions. This really is an outstanding film that at least deserves to be appreciated on a technical level, and should be easy enough to enjoy for its action-oriented storytelling prowess as well.

If you're a purist-any kind of purist-stay away from Van Helsing. But if you love the Universal horror films of the 30's and 40's or the Hammer films of the 50's and 60's and don't mind re-imagining them, then go. Check your brain at the door, buy a large popcorn and a soda and sit back for a fun ride.

The film is a complete reworking of everything you think you know about all the big guys. Present for your enjoyment are Dracula, the Wolf man, Frankenstein's monster and a guest appearance by Mr. Hyde. And of course, tying the whole thing together is our hero, Van Helsing (yummily played by Hugh Jackman). Named Abraham in Stoker's book but called Gabriel in the film, VH doesn't appear in any book other than Dracula, but in the more than a century since his `birth' we've become accustomed to his presence as the elder statesman of monster killers.

Completely re-imagined in this new production, VH is now young, handsome, and virile and apparently as immortal and indestructible as the creatures he chases. Don't expect great resolutions or deep explanations here, there are none. Don't expect Academy Award level acting, some of the actors apparently phoned in their performances while others decided to take up the slack. The resultant scenery chewing is uneven, but never boring. The dialogue, not to put too fine a point on it, is absurd and sometimes unintentionally, howlingly funny.

The makers of this film are clearly fans of the genre. The subject matter is treated with a loving sledgehammer. As the film progressed my companion and I made a game of naming all the classics represented. In addition to those you might expect, we were able to recognize allusions to `Young Frankenstein,' `Star Wars,' `Aliens,' `Raiders of the Lost Ark,' `Gremlins,' `Romancing the Stone,' `Lord of the Rings,' `Buffy the Vampire Slayer,' `Twister,' "Wild, Wild West" and any James Bond film you care to name among others. If you go, try it yourself.

If the producers were intending to frighten us, they failed dismally; but if they only intended to entertain us they succeeded, if not brilliantly, at least admirably. I'm uncertain if they intended quite so much humor, but both my companion and I laughed out loud most of the way through.

In addition to inside jokes, the film is filled with extraordinary visual images. From the opening encounter between VH and a startlingly oversized and athletic Edward Hyde, physicality is the order of the day. Everyone, including Van Helsing's friar sidekick is a magnificent specimen. Even Frankenstein's monster (who I nicknamed `Sparky' for the electrical discharges from his partially exposed brain) is hideously beautiful. Also, the cinematography is breathtaking. Both real scenery and CGI imagined are dazzling. I especially loved the castles Dracula and Frankenstein. Both edifices were Mad Ludwig's Neuschwanstein Castle as imagined by Tim Burton. I'd almost say that if the film had no other virtues at all, it would still be worth the price of admission for the incredible beauty of its backgrounds. However, the real star of the film is the (you guessed it) special effects.

Transformation scenes abound. At any point in the film you are only moments from watching someone turn into something. And what wonderful things they are. Vampires don't become simple bats, but snake-jawed, full size harpies. The Wolf man sprouts saber tooth fangs as he rips the human skin from his body. Frankenstein's monster's flesh partially peels from his skull and is smoothly pushed back into place and Mr. Hyde morphs from grinning giant menace to pitiful human corpse.

Not to put too fine a point on it, everyone-vampires, villagers, heroes, even horses and cattle go airborne sometime during the film. Dracula's three brides take the prize for most hang time. These ladies would be a wonderful asset to the Transylvanian Air Force with their dizzying dives, spins and barrel rolls. The camera gives us a bat's eye view of their deadly aerobatic ballet. When not in full flight Dracula and his wives walk up walls, across ceilings and carry on family quarrels while hanging from the rafters by their toes. Those characters that do not fly on their own power are lifted aloft and usually dropped soon after. The rest are climbers, scrambling up and down castle architecture like houseflies on speed. Interestingly, no one is ever seriously hurt or even has a hairstyle mussed.

The scenes shift so rapidly that it becomes difficult at times to follow the story. Fortunately, the gossamer plot is as deep as a kiddie's backyard swimming pool, so it isn't too much of a problem. Only the barest bones are needed to carry us from one action sequence to the next. Although there is no nudity and not a cussword is uttered, the film is violent. Well, of course it's violent--and about as traumatic as a Road Runner cartoon. Still, it earns its PG-13 rating. Leave the little 'uns home. The throbbing, pounding soundtrack keeps the attention even when not very much is happening.

Is Van Helsing a great film? No. Absolutely not. Is it a good film? No, not really. Is it entertaining? Yes. And maybe, just maybe, that's enough.

I saw Van Helsing when it first came out in theatres. It had everything I like in a good movie - I mean vamps, werewolves and Hugh Jackman - what's not to like. Surprisingly, a lot! The story was confusing (say what, Dracula can only be killed by a werewolf's bite and the antidote is locked far, far away), the acting was less than stellar to say the least, especially the guy playing Dracula whose name I have thankfully blocked from my mind, and the CGI, while impressive did nothing to improve my opinion. And, what's with all the rope swinging? And how come Van Helsing's name was changed - what, to protect the innocent? And, really, was it fair that the Kate Beckinsale character survives so much just to die when thrown on a love seat. Man, they really must have built furniture hard back in the day. I could go on and on about the weird sacs hanging from the ceiling, the dead undead vamps, the whole Frankenstein thing but I think you get my drift.

Well, it's been several years since I saw this film and, when I saw all the rave reviews on this site, I decided to give it another chance. Boy, am I sorry I did. it was even more boring on a repeat watch but, at least, I didn't pay good money this time so, come to think of it, it was better the second time around.

Gabriel Van Helsing (Jackman) is a man cursed with a past he cannot recall and driven by a mission he cannot deny. Charged by a secret organization to seek out and defeat evil the world over, his efforts to rid the world of its nightmarish creatures have been rewarded with the title that now follows him: murderer.