Adventures of Young Van Helsing: The Quest for the Lost Scepter (2004 Video) User Reviews

Hi, I'm Kevin Summerfield, director of The Adventures of Young Van Helsing, and I've just taken a dump on your lawn. Can I have five dollars?

[bigfanofthebob42 · 1/10 · 2 June 2006]

This is to director Kevin Summerfield what the Holocaust is to Hitler--a masterpiece.

This seems to be a film made for tweens, but at the same time it's rather bloody and gory. If I were a tween, I'd think this film has the worst acting, ever. As an older and more mature person, I can say that it just has the worst acting I've ever seen. The back of the box advertises that the story involves a "whimsical" professor. Now, I've seen some whimsical professors in my day, but nothing tops this guy. He looks like they walked into Whimsy Mart, asked him if he ever had a hidden passion for acting, and then superglued an Einstein wig to his head. At one point, there's a closeup where he opens a door, and his head moves in and out of the frame, as if saying "HA! I AM FAR TOO WHIMSICAL FOR A MEASLY CLOSE-UP!" It's also hilariously, ineptly racist. I can't possibly believe that in the year 2004 a movie was made that features a black man looking at something and shouting "DAAAAYYYYUUMMMM!", but this movie does. The plot, which helpfully has a flashback at the beginning, and a bizarre tangent of a flashback near the end that make the plot only even more retarded. There's a time-telling device that is obviously a CD player painted tan with jewels on it. I really wonder if this wasn't a student film, but Kevin Summerfield has been making movies for a few years before this one.

If you see this in the five dollar bin at Wal-Mart (which thankfully I did not have to go through the trauma of, and saw this through a friend), you probably will not want to pick it up. Unless, of course, you are a racist, retarded sort of pre-teen.

Don't watch alone!

[my_sockpuppet · 1/10 · 20 August 2004]

I saw this film late one night after some friends saw it in the $5 bin at Wal-mart.

This is quite possibly one of the worst films ever made - acting straight out of a home movie, dialogue apparently written by an 8-year-old, and the most clichéd and ridiculous plot imaginable.

Don't watch this unless you're with a group of friends that likes to make fun of bad movies.

Oh, and btw, the last 20 minutes are basically a bad music video, so feel free to turn it off as soon as the characters show up at the school dance.

Vampire's are on the loose, and only bad acting can stop them.

[corrie-2 · 1/10 · 25 April 2004]

There's a reason you this movie only cost $3, and that's because it's horrible. But there's no excuse for it being sold at all. Vampires are on the loose, and only bad acting can stop the onslaught. Wait, no, apparently bad special effects and writing will do it too. This might be a fun movie to mute and talk over though, as it won't distract you with a stimulating plot or anything. One chick is hot, as long as you don't listen to her and imagine her naked, and hot.

Here's an example of how bad this film is, they use a CD player as a countdown to the final confrontation. When it spins like crazy, the vampire's are coming!!! And of course, it only spins like crazy.

Read the book!

[RickAdamson52 · 5 February 2005]

Actually, as bad as the movie THE ADVENTURES OF YOUNG VAN HELSING is, the as-yet-unpublished novelization is very good. I was fortunate enough to obtain a copy of the novelization by R.H. Jones before I saw the movie, and can say that this is one instance where the writer took tremendous liberties with the script...and the result was excellent! In fact, this is a better movie novelization than many I've read. It has a Buffy, the Vampire Slayer feel to it, and I felt like I was reading a TV novelization. Should you have the opportunity to read the novelization if it ever gets published, don't bother ever seeing the movie!

Horrible Less than Amateur Mess

[WWalrus · 1/10 · 1 August 2004]

There is not one good thing that can be said about this awful film. The "acting" was horrible. To even call it acting is an insult to real actors. It was worse than kindergarten kids reciting a poem. The professor character pushed his glasses up on his nose so often the you wanted to super glue them to his face to stop the annoyance. The direction was so bad that it seemed not to exist at all. The pace was so slow that a scene that should have taken 1 minute went on for 4. The last scene of this atrocity was an extended music video of a tuneless song done at a high school dance that went on forever. The only good part of the film occurred when "The End" flashed on the screen.

awful

[fluffy12988 · 1/10 · 7 January 2008]

I watched this movie with my friends because they wanted to show me one of the worst movies of all time. They were exactly right! Not only does this movie have awful acting, the special effects (like for explosions they used firecrackers!) and music was terrible. It's hard to believe that this low quality of a movie was put into works. I will give this movie an A for effort. I think I know how they casted this movie. First, they went to a random high school. Then, they got onto the loudspeaker and asked if the entire school wanted to be in a movie. Then, they shot this movie like a low-budget porno. People who read this, understand that I love all types of movies, but this one did not wow me, it didn't keep me entertained, and all I could do was laugh at how awful this movie was. A 1 out of 10 is the perfect score for this movie.

Can I give it less than 1 star?

[enewton4 · 1/10 · 19 December 2010]

I bought this DVD at a yard sale so I'm only out two bucks but I was tempted to return to the yard sale and demand my money back. I must admit that I did not watch the entire movie. I couldn't make it past the first 5 minutes. The fat kid with black face makeup on (to fool into believing he was Indian or Pakistani) was too ridiculous to continue watching.

How do movies this bad get made? Is there really a market for movies that can only be called an embarrassment? How is it that this movie DID NOT make your 100 worst movies. Are there really at least 100 movies worse than this? God help us.

Take it for what it is!

[jay5051 · 4/10 · 22 May 2004]

I notice that this movie has received a few pans. Lets give Keith Jordan a break. Looks like he is paying his dues in the industry. If you remember Arnold in Conan the Barbarian (can we say "wooden"?), he wasn't exactly the brightest bulb in the movie industry. He has certainly improved! Keith should at least rate a C (even if it is just for cute), and guess we have to give the professor an E for effort (call me an optimist). The idea is good, and though this movie reminds me of a college film project, perhaps they deserve a chance to improve. One does learn from doing. I really liked the music that was at the rolling of the end credits. The xylophone was reminiscent of bones, which I am sure was the intent. I bought this with my granddaughter in mind, as I think it is aimed at a young teen audience. Lets see if they improve with the next one. Give 'em a chance, people!

A Valiant Effort

[piepenbrinkr · 4/10 · 21 September 2005]

Clearly filmed on a broken shoestring. I had the impression it was some film school's class project, and the effects reminded me of low-budget pre-STAR WARS science fiction. But it's not a bad premise and it had its moments. Certainly more could have been done with the old professor and his graduate student. Joss Whedon could have made a very respectable film out of this by tweaking the script a bit and tightening up the direction, but a week or two of his time would probably have exceed the entire budget. Still, it makes you itch to see what the same people could have done with better direction and a slightly tweaked script, or what the director could have done with more time and practice. It's not one of my regulars, but I don't regret the (cheap) purchase price.

Action/Adventure Horror film for kids!

[JoeyD56 · 10/10 · 27 April 2004]

Just got finished watching this film with my 9 year old son. My son loved it and actually was quite scared at times. He was laughing along with me, (though I was laughing for different reasons) He was laughing because of the cheesy lines and I was laughing because I couldnt believe he actually liked the movie. The acting was hit or miss. The professor was terribly over acting the entire time, along with some other small characters. The main kid was very good, and came off very natural. The monster played his role good, even though he didnt speak a word of english the entire time. The kid who lost the scepter was good as the comic relief he played the not so smart side kick. The music in the backround was very repetitive and got quite annoying at times, the writing was very cheasy, and there were many gaps in between dialogue. Overall I think this movie was good for what it was, a kids horror film. Anyone over the age of 13 will think this film is something they could have made. But overall if you have kids pick up this film, its a good film for them.

Not good enough for toddlers....

[calltheball8 · 11 August 2004]

One word: crap. An excellent definition for the most terrible "movie" ever made. The acting was as good as a school play, the special effects were little better than home movies, and the only reason anyone should ever watch this movie is if they want to watch something so stupid it's terribly funny. It is not even close to being as good as Saturday Night Lives sketches, but what's even more funny is that SNL is supposed to be funny! So, I recommend it for widdle kids who have ADD and want to watch it with some pizza. Other than that, it deserves the Golden Turkey Award. And I remind you what I said earlier. CRAP. And more Crap. Nothing more, remember crap and its smell have always been funny to people, and, of course, mostly leetle kindergarten-goers.

Fun For the 'Tween set...

[mightycrom · 2 May 2004]

If your kids like the "Goosebumps" series, this made for video flick is for them! Decent production values, a likeable lead, a terrific villain (played by Indy "scream king" Joe Zaso!), a few cute chicks (loved the southern belle) and great horror special makeup effects (especially the cut "zombie dog" sequence - bravo!) add up to a fun flick for the 'tween set (those between kid and teenager, of course). Also enjoyed the fun music video! All in all, a fair film hampered only by clumsy editing and overacting by some of the supporting players. Writer/director Summerfield caters to the intended audience, while throwing horror and adventure film buffs a few bones. The DVD has some nice extras as well. Older horror film fans will likely groan a bit, but the kids will get a kick out of it! A fun rental for a stormy night sleepover!

The Young Van Helsing: Horribly Excellent

[yoda189 · 10/10 · 2 January 2007]

This movie is horrible, no doubt about it. But it is horrible in a way that makes it great. You can't watch this movie expecting a big budget, Hollywood movie, but you can watch expecting laughs. Going in, your expectations have to be pretty low. I bought this movie for $2.99 at Wal-Mart, so there we go. You have to appreciate the funny things in the movie; the "hot" girl who has a Texan accent while everybody else sounds like they are from Conneticut (to be fair, she only really has it on the word 'Okay'...which she ends practically every line with.), her boyfriend looks like a cross between a stoner and a jock and she has a much better care than he does, the fact that the Professor repeats gestures on every syllable (for example, when saying "You're right, my dear boy, you're right" or something to that effect to Estabon, he would pat him on the shoulder seven times), the fact that the singer of the songs that the band are playing sounds nothing like you would imagine the guy who is lipsynching them to sound like, the African-Americans are horrible horrible stereotyped and you can actually see one of the actors rolling his eyes after he says a line, the fact that they spent most of their budget creating an anamatronic "demonic dog" and ended up cutting the scenes that the dog was featured in - leaving it in for just long enough that you get to see it but not long enough to figure out how the dog came to be demonic or how the main character escaped from it or even if it contributed to the plot in some way (here's a hint, it doesn't), or the fact that at some of the cheesier points of the movie the guy doing the background music had obviously had enough so he makes the volume of the music almost to high to hear the actors in an attempt to help the viewer cope.

All in all, this movie is horrible. But if you are looking for a movie to mock mercilessly, this one is for you. Careful though, the more you watch it (because trust me, you will have to share this with your friends) the more you will love it.