Dracula 2000 (2000) Poster

(2000)

User Reviews

Add a Review
365 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
Better Than You'd Think......(avec some spoilage)
Big-Swifty27 June 2004
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 much money.

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.
57 out of 72 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Nice hair, shame about the plot
Tom Clarke29 March 2004
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.

7/10
58 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
It wasn't that bad.
Clint Wardley25 November 2002
I saw this on cable the other night. C'mon give the movie a break, it wasn't 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.
73 out of 108 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
The Butler did Dracula: Gerard perfect---
Ishallwearpurple30 March 2005
---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!)
34 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Don't believe movie critics about this one. It's great!
dmcmillan0128 July 2007
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)

DottyinCA
34 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Fast, fun decent vampire flick
preppy-326 December 2000
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.
61 out of 93 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Another in a long line of vampire movies, but watchable
Dando834 August 2004
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.
18 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Rocked my socks....and my blood.
Megan Caldwell6 November 2006
This Movie rocked my socks! This movie was original, entertaining, attention holding and perfect in every other way. Plus not to mention great actors....Dracula was so attractive, alluring, and seductive that I found myself rooting for him. This movie was amazing, although its sequels were horrible and very disappointing. (havely because Gerald Butler did not portray Dracula in the sequels) so strap on your crucifix's cause this movie was AMAZING and will take you for a ride! This movie was excellent in many ways. First off, the plot.....was awesome. It was a new take on Dracula without losing the old feel for it and disregarding the legend. On the contrary, it added a feel of a modern Dracula, like he had adapted into out time. Then the acting was superb (again, Gerald Butler!!!! I love him) and also the director. (Wes Craven is a genius). So 10 stars to this baby.
20 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Better than critics would have you believe
Anssi Vartiainen10 August 2015
Dracula 2000 is one of those films that doesn't appear to be anything else than another cheesy B-flick with a paper thin plot, bland characters and awful dialogue. And while granted it is a B-flick in tone, it has more depth than that.

First of all, it has some real acting talent working for it. Both Christopher Plummer as Van Helsing and Gerard Butler as Dracula are very good actors in their own right and it shows. Butler is not a perfect fit for the character of Dracula, but he is much better than you'd expect. The more minor actors are also refreshingly decent and do manage to keep the story afloat throughout the entire film.

The story is also good and smooth, if somewhat basic in principle, the special effects work surprisingly well and the soundtrack fits the style well. But what I really love about this film is the way it uses and re-purposes vampire lore. It uses all the usual clichés skillfully, but the best part is the new backstory they give Dracula. It's unlike anything I've seen, yet fits perfectly, neatly explaining most of the idiosyncrasies he has. Beautiful, absolutely beautiful, and I do hope it catches on.

And that's Dracula 2000. It's a good film with some hints of greatness, despite the goofy name. Well worth a watch for all vampire horror fans.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
An underrated fresh take on the old neck-biter for a new millennium.
Kim Sikoryak8 July 2014
I am surprised at some of the low-rated reviews for this title--and the stated reasons for the low ratings. In my opinion, Wes Craven here presents the most novel and compelling re-envisioning of the Dracula story since Lugosi. As far as originality and a fresh direction, this makes Coppola's production seem like a bloated but tired, over-produced rehash. Yes, Gary Oldman is a consummate actor and a great Count. But in Francis' version, Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves are totally flaccid and uninteresting. And Anthony Hopkins embarrasses himself with such an over-the-top portrayal of Van Helsing that I wouldn't be surprised if Oldman hasn't talked to him since. Tony almost seems to be purposely lampooning the story.

Don't expect $100 million special effects. Craven had to make do on a shoestring budget. But that seems to have forced him to focus on the story rather than the flash. Butler could certainly have upped the intensity rather than relying so heavily on his drop-dead good looks to establish Dracula's charisma. No question, Gerard underplays the role, though that only seems to add moodiness and atmosphere--and is consistent with the character as he is presented in the story. Dracula is so bitter and internally conflicted that he hasn't got a lot to say to his victims--or even his pursuers. Also conflicted is the wonderful Christopher Plummer, who is so present in the role of Van Helsing that he really sells the premise of the whole re-invention in the film's first few minutes.

For levity, Dracula's new brood of followers have a lot of trendy, new-age comments to make on the pluses and minuses of their new, undead status. They come off as Katzenjammer kids with fangs--but as amusing as they are, they still bite. They seem to be the only ones really having fun here: vampirism as a form of delightful liberation right up until the moment the stake sinks in.

As Drac movies go, this is a winner. By the way, Plummer has been criticized by some reviewers for his curious pronunciation of the Count's honorific. But it is actually proper. If you were addressing him as Count or Vlad, yes, "Dracula" would be the correct form. But if it's the only identifier, then the single term "Draculea," just as Plummer pronounces it, is correct.

Three cheers for the Count. Although Butler isn't quite as pretty here as Langella, he's got more to work with as far as engaging and original backstory. And he is spared Olivier's Van Helsing as kvetching crybaby. What it is about Van Helsing? No one did it better than Edward Van Sloan until Plummer came along in the 21st century.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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