Bram Stoker's Van Helsing (2021) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
34 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
2/10
Unneccessary and bad remake
RandomTard3 October 2021
There isn't much to be said about this movie. It is the worst version of the story and I cannot figure out why it needed to be done. It adds absolutely nothing new to the story.

If it wouldn't be a remake of an iconic story I'd be more forgiving, but this just feels like an insult. The acting is quite bad and the only piece of action in the end was done so amateurishly it was just laughable.
18 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Don't go into this film thinking it will be similar to Bram Stoker's Dracula
Vaduen31 December 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I went into this film with high hopes. With a name like Bram Stoker's Van Helsing this film had some pretty big shoes to fill. It didn't take 15 minutes into the film to realize that it wasn't going to be as good as some of those bad "B" films of the 1960s, this film is worse.

There had to be little to no budget for this film as there were only three characters that I could see, not counting the dead maid in a later scene. The only major effect in the film during the first hour was when Dracula was implied to have entered Lucy's room. There is some swirling mist, and a figure in a trench coat, or it could have been a cape, I couldn't tell. There apparently wasn't enough budget for the film to pay someone to play Dracula, as the figure seen in the room full of mist is only shown from the shoulders down, and in silouhette.

Now, don't get me wrong, I love independent and lower budget films. There are good directors out there who can be creative, and come up with ways to get their point across, but do it in such a way that doesn't look silly or make the actors on the screen look silly. This film is not one of those.

Later in the film, as we saw in Bram Stokers Dracula, Lucy dies. UNLIKE Bram Stoker's Dracula, our good Doctor Van Helsing immediately starts CPR in order to revive Lucy. He is using a modern technique that wasn't implemented until 1950. On top of that, he isn't administering compressions to her heart, he is administering compressions to her stomach.

I am quite surprised that the actress, Charlie Bond, didn't actually throw up during the scene as the good Dr. Van Helsing was being quite aggressive with those compressions to her stomach. Doc needs a refresher course, as most of us know, compressions are administered to the heart (chest) during CPR.

I could proceed no further with this film. It really is that badly done. I rarely am this harsh with a review, but, unfortunately, it's all I could handle of this film.

The acting is very subpar. I would have to attribute this in part to the film's write/director, Steve Lawson. Mr. Lawson only has 15 films under his belt, and those are very low budget "B" class films. Even so, we should have seen much improvement in Mr. Lawsons technique by the time this film was made. A good director can bring out the best in his cast, a great director, with very low budgets, can make a low budget film appear to be a big budget production and the Director knows how to bring out the absolute best in his cast.

Perhaps with more time, we shall see Mr. Lawson improve his technique, we can only hope. One in his situation has to continue to think out of the box and come up with tricks to fool the camera and audience into thinking a film is more than it is.

Remember, Peter Jackson, one of the best directors in film making started with a film called Bad Taste in 1987. He made the film with friends playing the leads, filming on weekends. It can be done, and has been done. If you know how to make a film, you can do so with literally nothing.

I was generous in giving this film a rating of 2. Go watch something good, and don't waste your time on this film.
9 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Complete disappointment and embarrassing to Bram Stoker's legacy......
DJNormand3 April 2021
After the first fifteen minutes I couldn't take anymore.

The movie horribly drags like it's in slow motion; add to that not one well known actor appears in the film.

I've seen every film interpretation of Bram Stoker's Dracula ever produced and can honestly state this is the worst adaptation to date.

Don't waste your time unless you enjoy torturing yourself.
16 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Dracula fans don't go near this one
joannejerome22 December 2021
Been watching Van Helsing and Dracula classics for DECADES. This was unbelievably, incredibly bad. Shove a few people in a big house and let them yammer away. Blood transfusions from anyway seems to be the way to go.

I tried watching - then I said to my husband, stupidly. "Why is Van Helsing still talking after 50 minutes, saying nothing." I cannot describe how truly bad this movie is. Rotten tomatoes shouid be thrown with wild abandon.
21 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Oh boy..
nimitz54129 March 2021
Oh boy, here we go again.

A very poorly made film of a classic story that does not really need to be retold.

Poor acting and poor cast of said bad acting leave your stomach churning and wanting to press the stop button on this film at almost every point in the movie.

Save yourself the headache and discontent. Pass this movie over twice if you have to.
39 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Poor Bram Stoker....
jonasatmosfera29 March 2021
The guy must be turning in his grave.

This story has been told so many times, I do not see the point of yet another version. Why waste time and money with with amateur actors, poor production and minimal budget to make an amateurish version of Dracula?

There must other stories to be told... But, it seems, people have definitely run out of ideas. Because, all they can do is to do the same thing again and again again....

What next? A film combining zombies, vampires and werewolves and mummies?
50 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Appalling acting !!
samthegreencat4 April 2021
Know how the actors prepared for their parts in this film? They got a chair and each went alone into the most deepest ,darkest forest they could find and sat there staring at the trees for 9 hours none stop !!!
18 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I hope you don't like Bram Stoker's Novel
Nervousvampire16 October 2021
While I could slam the acting and directing, that's obvious and appalling. But what I feel deserves some special hate is the utter contempt for Bram stoker's novel that seems to ooze from this rubbish that would be an insult to student films. From small changes like making Van Helsing english again rather than being dutch like in the book or who owns the manner the film takes place at to large things like Lucy's destruction, the removal of Quincy Morris completely. The kind caring Van Helsing that would bend over backwards for his friends of the book is replaced with a poorly acting twitchy weirdo who jumps at the idea that it's vampires literal seconds after meeting Lucy. Lucy is made a selfish social climber who chose to marry Arthur for his money while trying to jump Seward's bones. Arthur a man of caring and compassion who was a good man thrown into a horrible circumstance with the loss of both his father and fiancée in the same week is now replaced with a raging unlikeable piece of human garbage who hates Van Helsing before even meeting him. The fact they had the gall to drag Bram Stoker's name into this dung heap is applying given it seems to have nothing but contempt for it's source material.

While it is only an hour an twentyish minutes it ill feel like an eternity. Do yourself a favor and avoid this dreck. It's not worth your time if your a vampire fan, a fan of Bram Stoker, a fan of horror or just of movies. It fails on every front. Spare yourself the boredom and annoyance.
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hilarious reviews
danilogateau15 August 2021
I've read the first four reviews about this movie and they're absolutely hilarious. I appreciate the warnings prior my attempts in watching this train wreck of a movie. Thanks in advance guys.
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
The tale of Dracula from Abraham Van Helsing's point of view...
paul_haakonsen11 April 2021
Well, while the 2021 movie "Bram Stoker's Van Helsing" from writer and director Steve Lawson wasn't as bad as I had believed and feared it to be, then it should be said that the movie does suffer from it being a story that has been told so many times before that it is starting to lose its appeal in a new presentation.

"Bram Stoker's Van Helsing" provided me with somewhat adequate entertainment. Sure, the storyline is one that is rather familiar to me already, but it should be said that the atmosphere of the movie and the acting in the movie actually helped make it watchable.

Now, this 2021 movie "Bram Stoker's Van Helsing" is by no means revolutionary, nor is it a movie that was particularly necessary, as the story of "Dracula" has been told many times before. But "Bram Stoker's Van Helsing" takes the story and presents it from Abraham Van Helsing's point of view, and thus effectively putting Dracula out of the equation, for better or worse.

"Bram Stoker's Van Helsing" suffers from its pacing. The storytelling is somewhat monotonous and tedious at times, which makes for a somewhat prolonged viewing experience. And that is the main reason why my rating of "Bram Stoker's Van Helsing" fell below average.

While watchable, "Bram Stoker's Van Helsing" is hardly an outstanding movie, nor is it a movie that you'll watch more than once. Now, it wasn't a bad or poor movie, but it just didn't have enough punch to turn it into a remarkable movie experience.

My rating of "Bram Stoker's Van Helsing" lands on a four out of ten stars.
13 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The worst
K_Rad8824 July 2021
Seriously this film was so boring I fell asleep. I have never done that before. I went to watch it again and it happened again, it's slow, the acting is bad the effects are awful. I do not recommend this awful, boring movie.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Book fan
animfan-1180831 December 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I read brian stoker's Dracula. This version is almost straight out of the book. Its great. I do hope there is a part 2 for the rest of the book. I would like to see Mina.
3 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Hammer Time - great stuff
willrob-7746926 April 2021
Would love to see more of these - with giant budgets and lavish gothic sets. Bring back Hammer Horror and definitely keep Charlie Bond on as a Scream Queen - she's got that House of Horror vibe.
7 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Poor acting masked an even poorer script.
azcomicgeek17 April 2021
I was ready to quit this before the initial titles due to the poor acting. I should have followed my initial impressions and saved myself the time wasted on this travesty of a movie.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
what is this???
zzaga19 September 2022
Worst acting ever!!

You can find better actors at a preschool theater around the corner. Mark Topping ("Van Helsing") could easily be replaced by any random person in the streets who can't fake an accent and had not read the manuscript or perhaps just a ventriloquist's dummy, I promise it would be a huge improvement to this. Its a mystory how someone as bad as his work as he is still can get a (any) job.

Its painful to watch and I had to turn it of not to make my eyes bleed. I would rather spend time watching dumb home made videos on Tiktok with annoing music than this.

There should be some kind of penalty for making crap like this.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Unforgivable
thestot-113 April 2021
No matter how much would-be filmmakers protest : you either can make a movie, or you can't.

Some people can sing.

Some people can't.

This team cannot make a movie.

Having access to a camera makes you as much a photographer as does me being an astronaut because I happen to have stood near a Saturn 5 rocket.

The same applies to every skill.

Learn your craft before publicly launching your garbage.

This film is typical of the slide into unforgivable dross that modern technology has allowed.

There are much more finely-tuned productions on TikTok......
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
you make me feel good...
ops-5253529 March 2021
But this was lard instead of shredding machine oil to the shredder ,therefore it will last for ever and ever and poor bram and van helsing,will turn in their lead coffins viewing this wormwork of british 2021 production. Just like a bad piece of 1970's tv theater on the national broadcaster...

omg from tgom.
17 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I thought this was ..
jeffk-524162 April 2021
Going to at least be of a certain quality... got the Bram Stoker name attached.. but the opening scene.. seemed a bit 'cheap'. The framing just seemed off. Bad lighting, should have gone with the master shot, not the mid closeup. The actor didn't seem to have any screen presence... didn't even make it past the first minute... looked up the film and good thing i saved myself the time..
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
How dare they attach Bram Stoker's name to this utter rubbish
sime-arsov1 April 2021
This movie was full of cringe, bad acting and it felt like very poor amateur production. I've seen worse horror movies than this one, but at least they were original, funky and had a cult fan base. This movie attempts to be taken seriously and that's what makes it worse. I don't see how anyone could enjoy this, besides the people that made it and their relatives and friends. That's about it.

Throughout the whole movie I felt dread and couldn't wait for it to finish as it was just the same predictable cliché situations. The actors made me have goosebumps cringes, you know, that feeling when their acting is so poor that you want to turn your head way and it makes the hair on your arm stand up.

I like to believe that I'm a fan of amateur low-budget horrors and this was so much for me, that I had to go to IMDb and leave a review.

Bram Stoker's family has forbid using their name in Nosferatu, that's why we have great movies like Nosferatu. They didn't allow that movie to use Bram Stoker or Dracula, so the Nosferatu crew had to come up with their own ideas for what it's worth. I'm not sure how the Director is allowed to use this name and why isn't he sued yet. The movie is so bad I want to get a lawyer and sue them. I mean, what else can you expect from a click-bait titles that the Director comes up with like: Nocturnal Activity, Hellriser, Texas Machete Massacre and The Exorcism of Karen Walker. And one of these movie titles was a fake one I came up with, but I bet no one can tell which one it is. This is why Steve Lawson's whole filmography is a prank and I won't be surprised If his next title were to be named Ripper Untold. Yes, that's a real movie this guy is producing and people are actually in it.
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
*yaawwwwwnnn* What? Oh, the movie is still going?!
kardosma25 April 2022
Apologies for being harsh but there's one sin of sins in my book when it comes to movies, and that's being dull.

I watched grass grow for half an hour once, and compared with this movie, it was an absolutely riveting, tension-filled thrill ride.

The actors all feel as though they're waiting for their cues and then, when given them by some poor desperate movie equivalent of a stage prompter, they seem reluctant to deliver any lines in a way that would catch the audience's attention. It's the verbal equivalent of camouflage - it just disappears into the background noise.

Don't get me wrong - if I had to deliver that supremely wooden dialogue, I would be reluctant too. But please, won't someone think of the audience! Just a little zest would have gone a long way.

It also claims to be from Van Helsing's POV which is a weeeee bit inaccurate, since Van Helsing plays a fairly limited role and disappears frequently, without any narration of the story from his supposed POV.

In fact, most of the first half of the movie is Lucy lying around moaning like she's having the time of her life with her best buddy Buzz under the sheets. Albeit somewhat unenthusiastically.

I have to admit, I nodded off at one point somewhere after the 50 minute mark - probably my brain trying to protect itself from a boredom-induced coma. But then I woke for the last 10 minutes, which included the most abrupt and boring ending... which was not really a surprise, come to think of it.

Rating - 2/10: would not recommend even as a sedative, since the potential for lasting boredom-induced brain damage is far too high.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Another Take On Dracula Without Dracula
zardoz-1313 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Theatrical movie posters and cover art for straight-to-video DVD & Blu-ray releases share one thing in common. Apart from naming the stars and the title, each misleads you about the film's narrative content. Typically, what you see in the cover art appears nowhere in the film. The cover art for seasoned British horror director Steve Lawson's chiller "Bram Stoker's Van Helsing" is a prime example. The art department makes "Bram Stoker's Van Helsing" look like the poster to "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter" (2012). In the moonlight, a man wearing a formal suit, tie, and coat sits on a tombstone while bats are swarming the night skies. Hundreds of skulls are strewn about his ankles. Not only does he have an ax propped on his left shoulder, with blood dripping off its blade, but he also clutches a large knife in his right hand. He sits slightly hunched forward so the brim of his stovepipe hat obscures his eyes. First, nobody wields an ax in Lawson's film. Second, you never see any bats during the film's 86-minute running time. Third, nothing as frightening as this image of a demented man occurs in Lawson's film. Fourth, Dracula enthusiasts will shrink in horror because Lawson's adaptation of Stoker's novel confines the eponymous vampire to a cameo. Dracula appears only momentarily when he approaches Lucy Westenra's bed. Indeed, the notorious Count is shown only from the shoulders down. Like Stoker's novel, the shape-shifting Dracula enters Lucy's bedroom as white mist. Never do we see a close-up of the Count with his fangs bared. Basically, "Bram Stoker's Van Helsing" is a Dracula movie without Dracula! Otherwise, this unrated film does take place in Victorian England.

"Bram Stoker's Van Helsing" begins outside London, at Hillingham House, one of Arthur Holmwood's many properties. Lucy has chosen Holmwood as her fiancé over Dr. John Seward. Sitting at a bedside desk, she pens a letter to her dearest friend Mina Murray. Mina's fiancé Jonathan Harker is recuperating with her in faraway Budapest. Only those familiar with the novel will know Harker escaped from Castle Dracula after the Count imprisoned him. In Stoker's novel, Harker was the real estate agent dispatched to Transylvania to finalize the Count's purchase of Carfax Abby in England. In Lawson's film, Lucy writes Mina (Helen Crevel of "Survival Instinct") that she hasn't been feeling well. Arthur believes Lucy is afflicted with "pre-wedding nerves." Lucy pauses when she hears a soft growl outside her window. A gust of wind carries an ominous white mist that hovers dramatically outside Lucy's bedroom window. Creeping in through the fissures in the window, the mist clouds up the room. Arthur summons his friend Dr. Seward (Joe Street of "Escape from Cannibal Farm") to examine Lucy. When Seward discovers Lucy the next day, she is sprawled on the floor of her room. Seward requests that his mentor Professor Van Helsing (Mark Topping of "Jekyll and Hyde") travel to London and observe Lucy. During the evocative opening credits sequence, Van Helsing is shown riding in a train through rural countryside, with the locomotive's huge wheels churning up the miles.

No sooner does Van Helsing arrive than he annoys Holmwood (Tom Hendryk of "The Mermaid's Curse") with his lack of transparency about Lucy's condition. Van Helsing hypnotizes Lucy, and Holmwood is infuriated. Meantime, the Professor suspects demoniac possession may account for Lucy's anemia. Lucy almost dies after Dracula visits her 16 minutes into this 80-minute epic. Had it not been for their maid taking Lucy breakfast, Arthur's fiancée would have died. Hurriedly, Van Helsing arranges a blood transfusion for Lucy with Seward as donor. Predictably, Holmwood is upset because he wasn't the donor. An undercurrent of jealousy and reproach creates friction between Seward and Holmwood. Not surprisingly, Holmwood dismisses Van Helsing as a rank charlatan. Later, when he returns, the Professor places a spray of obnoxious garlic flowers in Lucy's bedroom window. He watches as the mist gathers outside, but the garlic blocks its entrance. Sadly, the clueless Holmwood removes the garlic, and Lucy must undergo another transfusion. This time Arthur is the donor. This time things go awry, too. Later, Lucy emerges as a vampire with fangs, but Arthur cannot believe his eyes. While maintaining a vigil by her casket, Arthur is stunned when the lid rattles, and he cannot prevent Lucy's departure. Unlike Stoker's Lucy who quenched her rabid thirst for blood by feeding off street orphans, Lawson has her imitate Jack the Ripper and attack White Chapel District prostitutes. Naturally, Arthur wants to redeem himself. Eventually, he confronts the abject horror of Lucy as an 'undead' vampire. Lucy fails to convince Arthur to join her and feed eternally off the blood of others.

Lawson deserves kudos for taking a different approach to Stoker's oft-filmed masterpiece, but both his low-budget and small cast prompted those disparities. Dracula is never glimpsed more than once and then only from the shoulders down. Anybody familiar with Stoker's novel will understand writer & director Lawson's discrepancies. In the film, Arthur removes the flowers. In the novel, Lucy's mother confiscated the flowers. Production values are borderline. Apart from Van Helsing's train trip, Lawson rarely allows his characters to venture beyond Hillingham House. Produced in the United Kingdom during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, Lawson, his cast, and his crew worked around safeguards imposed by medical authorities. The ultimate flaw in "Bram Stoker's Van Helsing" is Lawson's reliance on dialogue rather than melodramatic action to depict its horror.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
It's deliciously aweful!
els-1405429 July 2022
It's so bad that it's good.

It's very poorly made, doesn't have the best acting (could be a lot worse though) and they keep showing the same fountain to let us know it's daytime. I have to admit it's a nice fountain.

I loved it!!!!!!

A must-see if you're in the mood for a silly movie.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not a new telling but not the worst either
kristen_2258 March 2022
This movie doesn't let you see Dracula, it's more from the point of view of those he affects, though Mina and Jonathan Harker are not included. The story isn't a new telling but the multiple 1 star reviews on this movie show that obviously none of them have ever seen a truly bad movie. It wasn't the best Dracula movie I've ever seen, but I was entertained and felt the acting was actually good. The overall rating of 3.5 is absolutely ridiculous and completely unfounded.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
The Beast must quench its thirst
nogodnomasters17 September 2021
Warning: Spoilers
The film opens in England and Lucy (Charlie Bond) has already been bitten and Van Helsing (Mark Topping) soon appears and doesn't tell anyone what is going on for a long time.

The film was slow but well constructed for a low budget. They left out any scene that might require special effects which consisted of a lone set of pointy teeth. They had better vampire special effects before they had sound for crying out loud. I would have rated it higher except it is a vampire film or at least one about Van Helsing from the title and they never really achieved either one.

Guide: No swearing, sex, or nudity.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
I've seen better high school productions
adey1110 September 2021
They acting was forced, juvenile, unconvincing and false. The story dragged slowly on with empty, feigned climaxes. Prop's and staging are contrived with electricity in some parts and candles in others. Most of the movie centred around a small staircase, albeit pretty, but totally lacking in any presence or theatre. The poorest movie I have seen in many years.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed