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.

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.

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.