|Page 1 of 35:||          |
|Index||349 reviews in total|
52 out of 64 people found the following review useful:
Better Than You'd Think......(avec some spoilage), 27 June 2004
Author: (Big-Swifty@mailcity.com) from Prince Edward Island, Canada
So...the title is a bit dodgy. "Dracula 2000". Ick. Nevertheless, I was
pleasantly surprised by the quality of the film. To begin with, an
interesting cast. Christopher Plummer has, previously, suffered from
what I call "Michael Caine" syndrome; making any film that will write
him a cheque, Johnny Lee Miller was amusing in "Trainspotting" and,
let's not kid each other, there is no mystery as to why Jennifer
Esposito and Jeri Ryan were cast. Round it out with some second and
third tier young "Actors du jour" and you probably haven't spent too
Now...the most irritating aspect of the film is the almost surreal amount of flagrant Virgin Records placement. Seriously....Mary works in one of the stores which means we get prominent t-shirt coverage....not to mention the gawdy neon sign, the truck in the garage etc.....however, Dracula needs virgins, right?
By far the most interesting part of this film was the story behind the creation of Dracula. Taking the myth back to the time of the crucifixion, with Judas Iscariot suffering some fairly serious guilt issues leading to his suicide and eventual "re-birth"....good angle: it helped to explain the vampires aversion to all things holy and dislike of silver (as in 30 pieces of...). Still don't get the mirror-phobia but hey....
Someone on the creative team of this film has a sweet little visual gag in store. Check out the scene in the Laffayette Cemetery...there is a crypt bearing the name "Spencer Hepburn". Nice one.
The ending is a little rushed and it seems that Miller might have left the set early that day, since he apparently vanishes. It also leaves blatant amounts of room for a sequel, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
That I even considered seeing this film was primarily due to Wes Craven's participation. However, I found it to be an imaginative and fairly tasteful modernisation of one of the all-time cinematic horror legends.
56 out of 77 people found the following review useful:
Nice hair, shame about the plot, 29 March 2004
Author: Tom Clarke (firstname.lastname@example.org) from http://www.amateurscribe.webeden.co.uk
Being a poor hen-pecked loser who isn't allowed cable television, I
found myself in the rather alien position of being spoilt for choice
over which movie to watch last Sunday night. British terrestrial
television rarely throws up such a dilemma, so I had to consider
carefully which one to select. In the corner marked 'safe option' we
had Mel Gibson's Ransom (seen it; dull; can't really remember what
happened but am assuming they eventually get the kid back), second was
Man on the Moon (seen it; vaguely remember being a bit disappointed),
and third was Wes Craven's Dracula 2000 (never seen it; presumably a
straight-to-video job). Almost without hesitation I plumped for that.
A maverick choice, you might say - but there was method to my madness. On more than one occasion, drunken and deluded girls have approached me in bars and accused me of looking like Jonny Lee Miller. They are wrong of course - those close to me have taken sadistic pleasure in assuring me I look more like a cross between Woody Harrelson and Kelsey Grammar - not particularly good for my sex-symbol status, but useful if I ever wanted work as a stunt double on the set of Cheers.
Anyway, it turns out I chose wisely - Dracula 2000 is a hoot. More Schlock than horror (as you might expect from the creator of the Scream franchise) it has the kind of kitschy charm of Buffy the Vampire Slayer only with worse dialogue and a sillier plot. Those purists who prefer a more classic Peter Cushing/Christopher Lee tussle between good and evil are unlikely to stay beyond the first reel, but there are rewards for those who stick it out.
Miller plays Simon Shepherd the protégé of the mysterious Matthew Van Helsing (Christopher Plummer). A gang of thieves infiltrate Van Helsing's secret stash of old relics and unwittingly release Dracula from his silver coffin. Big mistake. The dark lord makes a bee-line for New Orleans in search Van Helsing's daughter Mary. On his way, he creates merry hell crafting a few undead henchwomen (mostly blonde) and enjoying unspeakable depravity in the middle of the Mardi Gras carnival. Unsurprisingly, Miller and Plummer pack their crucifixes and silver bullets and hurry over to save the day.
This being a sexed-up modern-day version of Bram Stoker's classic, Dracula himself is far from the urbane older gentleman with the black cloak and the widow's peak - this one is young and spunky and has the kind of barnet you might find in a L'oreal commercial. Try to imagine a bastard hybrid of David Copperfield and Alan Partridge and you won't be far off. Dracula's hair is not the only highlight though: There are some brilliantly awful modern cultural references - Sweet and innocent Mary works in Virgin Megastore (geddit?) - and an audacious religious sub-plot which goes some way towards explaining Dracula's hatred of silver.
All in all it is great fun. It was inevitably mauled by the critics, but I guess they don't have a sense of humour. Poor old Jonny's been in some turkeys since he made Trainspotting, but I'm backing him to hilt on this one - it certainly beats watching Mel Gibson and Rene Russo blubbing for two and a half hours.
62 out of 91 people found the following review useful:
It wasn't that bad., 25 November 2002
Author: Clint Wardley from Melbourne
I saw this on cable the other night. C'mon give the movie a break, it
that bad. This is not Shakespeare; it's a Vampire movie, for Pete's sake.
It's not after the Oscar, its entertainment. Sometimes a lot of the User
commentators lose sight of what some movies are about.
An example of this is a review of Santa Clause 2, where one guy wrote `The North Pole was a very distracting, annoying place to be. It seemed so far from reality'. Well I don't want to spoil his Xmas but Santa isn't reality. It was a MOVIE!
Dracula 2000 was a lot better than the old Hammer movies or in fact a lot better than a lot of other Vampire moves. If you could ever do an original story on Vampires, this was close. I mean, what is in a Vampire script. Spooky guy/girl gets out of coffin, kills people (usually girls with great bodies) another guy/girl tries to kill them before they kill again. Oh and I forgot the part about the heroine is a reincarnation of the Vamps long lost love. (See Blacula, Fright Night, Dracula 1992 etc etc)
Dracula 2000 was more original. At least he had a real reason for wanting the Heroine (his blood, her blood) and his origin was an interesting concept, better than Coppola's, which I still find confusing. This was never going to be An Interview with a Vampire, but it was a hell of a lot better than Queen of the Damned. If you like Vampire movies this should be on your viewing list.
57 out of 82 people found the following review useful:
Fast, fun decent vampire flick, 26 December 2000
Author: Wayne Malin (email@example.com) from United States
The story is very convoluted but it comes down to Dracula (Gerard
Butler) is search of Van Helsing's (Christopher Plummer) daughter Mary
(Justine Waddell) in modern day New Orleans.
Let's get the negatives out of the way: Jonny Lee Miller is TERRIBLE; Plummer's accent is pretty obviously fake; there's far too much product placement for Virgin Records and the vampires crack terrible jokes. All that aside the movie is quick, it's fun, beautifully and atmospherically shot. The script is interesting--it gives Dracula a new origin which fits but is pretty silly too. Dracula is a reanimated corpse...trying to give him a different origin is pretty dumb. Also, crosses don't affect vampires anymore...it just annoys them. Also there's plenty of blood and violence on hand and erotic sexual seduction by Dracula.
With the sole exception of Miller the acting is good. Plummer works (despite the accent); Omar Epps is having a whale of a time; Justine Wadell is good and Esposito, Ryan and Fitzpatrick make a good team of scary (and sexy) vampires. Gerard Butler is fantastic as Dracula. He's young, VERY handsome, has curly black hair and a buff body. Also he portrays Dracula's sexuality and violence very well.
So a slick, fast-moving and fun vampire movie. Worth catching.
29 out of 39 people found the following review useful:
The Butler did Dracula: Gerard perfect---, 30 March 2005
Author: Ishallwearpurple from United States
---in a campy sort of way.
First, watch the DVD deleted scenes, extended scenes and audition featuring Gerard Butler. That will get you in the right mood! Then start the film.
The first 30 minutes are a mess. After the opening scenes with Christopher Plummer as Van Helsing, that lays the groundwork for the story, they could have skipped all the scenes about the stealing of the coffin and just had Plummer tell Simon (Johnny Lee Miller) "we been robbed!".
But the young people and the robbery and taking the coffin by plane and it crashing - all could be handled by voice-over. This is just a mess and not one of the actors are interesting or have any charisma. Especially Solina (Jennifer Esposito) going into the vault, dark and creepy and skulls and gad! you get the picture. We are in for a fright! Bah!!! So lame.
Our first great shot of Dracula (Butler), is on the plane when he walks into the section of the plane and reaches out for Solina - and like any sane woman, she goes right to him. The love bite is next. Um Hmmmm! In the meantime, Mary Van Helsing (Justine Waddell - child like and innocent) is having dreams/nightmares seeing Dracula in her mirror. She is speechless, and we are too. OMG! She keeps saying "wake up - you're dreaming" but then he comes close and sniffs her and says "you're real" and I have to pause the film and fan myself.
Troubled Mary goes to the church in New Orleans where the priest is a childhood friend, to get some answers about her Mother and as he is putting the candles out and turns to Mary - it is him, the big D. A gaze to die for. The next is Dracula perched like a gargoyle on the church parapet above the Mardi Gras revelers and he says "Farewell, Princess." Perfect!
Down at street level, he walks among the drunken revelers with a bemused look. There is a giant TV screen showing dancers silhouettes, there are beads and coins tossed at him as he looks on with a knowing smile. He watches the giant screen flash images of atom bombs, rock stars, lingerie ads and women mud wrestling and says "Brilliant." Great satire!
His walk through the "Virgin" record store is iconic, with all the young gals turning to look as he passes by. He gets Lucy, Mary's friend to take him to their home. His comment to Lucy, when she can't come up with a word to describe Mary's mothers decor of the house "catholic?" is priceless. And to her query "would you like some coffee?" he says " I don't drink----------coffee." Timed perfectly with just the right look. And of course, he has her on the bed and on the ceiling! Faint!!!
It is like there are two films here - one a brilliant satire with great lines. And the other an incoherent teen/slasher/blood-fest. But it is almost possible to just start anywhere after the first 30 minutes and the story is interesting and makes sense of the Jesus Christ/Judas theme.
The cinematography has some beautiful scenes. The Red Hall - the curtains blowing and the eastern theme music for the desert and cross scenes. The few lines Dracula(Butler) utters are great and with timing and marvelous expression. "The Bible is propaganda." "You think you can defend her with the Bible." To Mary "Everything I have is yours; and all you are is mine." (Shades of The Phantom.)
Dracula to the Jesus Cross "I give them (revelers below) what they crave most. All the pleasures you denied them." And his gesture to Mary - arm and hand out as the camera pans away and he says "come let us feast" and the kisses. Wow!! Nellie bar the door. I want some of that!
(8/10 - would have been higher but that first 30 minutes is just bad!)
24 out of 34 people found the following review useful:
Don't believe movie critics about this one. It's great!, 28 July 2007
Author: dmcmillan01 from United States
This is such a beautifully filmed and acted film that it's a shame for
anyone to miss it. The cast is just excellent, especially Gerard Butler
as Dracula. His role is slightly underplayed which works beautifully
for THIS Dracula whose real self is only discovered at the end of the
movie. Wes Craven used everyone in the film exactly the way they should
have been used.
This is not a slasher movie. Although there is violence and blood the rest of the movie actually subdues this. It is a thoughtful movie that sets up the ending slowly, step by step.
If you haven't seen it, by all means, give it a try and watch with an open mind and see if you can figure out WHO Dracula really is. (besides the hot Scot, Gerard Butler, who is just fascenating in this film)
15 out of 19 people found the following review useful:
Another in a long line of vampire movies, but watchable, 4 August 2004
Author: Dando83 from United Kingdom
An interesting take on Dracula--You might get a kick out of the end when you
find out Dracula's true origin.
It struck me as two movies in one. There was a very passionate vampire story going on, covered up by a high-tech monster movie (think Bram Stoker's Dracula coated with a layer of Underworld or League of Extraordinary Gentlemen).
Considering the double tone of this film, I'm not surprised to see Christopher Plummer co-starring along some very fresh-faced young actors. Any fellow Canadians will notice a few Canucks besides Plummer in this one.
Because of the inconsistent flow of the movie, some silliness, and the disappointing death of one of the main characters, I gave this film a 6/10.
14 out of 22 people found the following review useful:
A Good Modern Version of Dracula, 29 July 2004
Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
In London, a gang of thieves breaks a sophisticated security system of the
antique store of the dealer Abraham Van Helsing (Christopher Plummer). They
get into a chamber, expecting to find gold and other valuables objects
inside. Instead, they find a sealed silver coffin, surrounded and protected
by skulls, crosses and other amulets. The decide to steal the coffin,
expecting to find a treasure inside. Indeed, they find Dracula and all of
them are killed by him, causing a plane crash close to New Orleans. Van
Helsing flies to that city to protect his daughter Mary (Justine Waddell),
who lives there, from Dracula. Simon Sheppard (Jonny Lee Miller), his
protégé, follows him until New Orleans, where they fight against Dracula.
The first time I watched this movie, I did not like it, because of the idea
of Dracula being Judas Iscariot. Today I saw this film again to follow its
sequel (`Dracula II: Ascension'). Funny, since now I really liked the story,
a modern and very original version of Dracula. My vote is
Title (Brazil): `Drácula 2000' (`Dracula 2000')
15 out of 24 people found the following review useful:
Dracula fans young and old should take a look, 9 October 2002
Author: funkyfry from Oakland CA
Not so scary, but cool atmospheric horror and a decent cast make for a fun
vampire movie. It would have been good, though, if the script had avoided
overuse of catch phrases and combacks (which seem to have become the bane of
horror and action films since the heady days of Schwartzenneger's stardom).
Plummer is very good as Van Helsing who, as a twist, has preserved his life
for a century-plus by extracting blood from Dracula and injecting himself
with it, and in so doing passed on Dracula's "blood" (??) to his daughter.
She's played by Justine Waddell, who seems like an actress to watch -- plus
she looks a bit like Gloria Grahame!
12 out of 19 people found the following review useful:
Two great actors in a crap movie, 3 February 2005
Author: laughing_cat from United States
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I saw this movie for 2 reasons--I like Gerard Butler and Christopher Plummer. Unfortunately, these poor men were forced to carry a pretty dumb movie. I liked the idea that Dracula is actually a reincarnation of Judas Iscariot, because it does explain his disdain for all things Christian, but there was so much camp that this idea was not realized as much as it could have been. I see this movie more as a way for the talented Gerard Butler to pay his dues before being truly recognized and a way for the legendary Christopher Plummer to remind the public (me and the 5 other people who saw this film) that he still exists. I actually enjoyed the special features on the DVD more than the movie itself.
|Page 1 of 35:||          |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||Newsgroup reviews||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|