Dracula 2000 (2000) Poster

(2000)

User Reviews

Review this title
368 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
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.
59 out of 74 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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
36 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
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 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Mad, Bad, and Dangerous to rent
gin-n-tonic2 September 2001
Please don't waste your time. This movie rehashes the worst of Bram Stoker's Dracula (Van Helsing), Anne Rice's Vampire Lestat (rock music and silly biblical references), and Blade (high-tech toys). I really like vampire movies and novels, and there are many out there that are very good . But not this stinker. Not even the soundtrack helps it, mostly because the movie resorts to ridiculous scary classical music rather than the "kick-ass metal" some reported. Only a few times did I hear any metal; mostly it was tortured violins. Avoid it like garlic and crucifixes.
14 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Two great actors in a crap movie
Kristie3 February 2005
Warning: 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.
16 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Dracula is a favourite
poicaleeruantale7 April 2006
I love Jonny Lee Miller and enjoyed this. I've read a lot of vampire/Gothic novels - Anne Rice, Christine Feehan and Amanda Ashley-just a couple of good authors, so I enjoy some vampire stuff once in a while. I won't hold this up as Brilliant but it's fun to watch and Jonny and the cast do a good job with the genre. I'm looking forward to finding Dracula II to watch, this has another actor I like, Jason London, so more to watch yet. Anyone looking for books of the genre see the authors above and if you like TV vampire try Kindred: the embraced, great show that ended too quickly because the main actor died riding his motorcycle and he was a good actor.
16 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Dracula fans young and old should take a look
funkyfry9 October 2002
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!
16 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Rather Dumb
Theo Robertson28 March 2004
Warning: Spoilers
DRACULA 2000 is a horror film that was continually shown on Sky Movies in Britain and considering it seemed to be screened about three times a week for a whole year I have absolutely no idea how I managed to miss it until it`s first broadcast on network television tonight . Actually seeing as I`m not much of a fan of horror movies the reason was probably down to my theory that this was going to be tripe . My theory was proved right for the most part

!!!!! MINOR SPOILERS !!!!!

What makes DRACULA 2000 such a bad movie is the amount of dumb scripting involved . For example early in the film the bad guys are flying Dracula`s coffin from London to America ( In a twin engine turbo prop plane ! ) and one of the bad guys is left alone in the cargo hold where Dracula comes to life . A fight breaks out , there`s lots of noise but the bad guys in the cockpit don`t hear a sound until the script demands it . It also appears in this segment`s climax that Dracula can control the weather but this seems forgotten about as the film progresses . Sloppy scripting , and there also seems to be a problem with the structure where there`s numerous scenes of characters being at the New Orleans mardi gras then the characters being at a different location such as police station in the following scene then they`re back at the mardi gras the scene after that which means the lack of credibilty in the plot is enhanced

There`s something else that yanked my chain - Product placement . There`s umpteen scenes where the logo for a certain record label/retailer chain is in full view . I won`t dare publicise the company brand ( Except to say they also run a train company which is a national joke in Britain ) but I was under the impression this type of advertising was against British broadcasting guidlines and I`m surprised the BBC showed this movie if that`s the case

There are some positives in DRACULA 2000 like the visuals for example . This is actually a good looking movie with a good looking cast and boy were those vampire chicks hot , but it`s something we should expect from Hollywood over the last few years - A very good looking movie that`s very dumb
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A frustratingly mediocre Dracula movie.
BA_Harrison16 September 2012
There's a pretty cool idea at the heart of Dracula 2000: that Dracula is none other than Judas Iscariot, who committed suicide after his betrayal of Christ, but was refused the oblivion afforded by death—a clever set up that neatly explains the vampire's hatred of both the cross and of silver. With director Patrick Lussier at the helm—who certainly knows how to handle his special effects and action, and who has no qualms about dishing up plenty of gnarly violence—this had the potential to be a hugely enjoyable updating of the Dracula mythos, but the film rarely lives up to its promise.

It all starts well enough, with a bunch of ruthless criminals breaking into Van Helsing's vault and stealing the silver coffin within, convinced that it contains something of immense value. Instead, they discover that they have unwittingly freed the legendary Dracula, who proceeds to search for Van Helsing's daughter Mary (Justine Waddell), with whom he shares a supernatural connection. Unfortunately, once the wheels are set in motion, matters quickly go downhill.

Most of the blame can be placed on the lousy casting/weak performances: Butler makes for a dreadful Dracula, his goofy grin and rugged looks more suited to Jennifer Aniston rom-coms than horror films; Johnny Lee Miller is about as emotive as a fish; and Waddell is too ineffectual to believe that she could be related to Van Helsing and infected by the DNA of Dracula. Matters aren't helped by some REALLY cheesy dialogue ("Sorry sport. I'm an atheist"—groan), a script that meanders aimlessly for much of the running time, and some of the most blatant 'product placement' I've ever had the misfortune to witness (even if it is slightly amusing that the company being advertised is Virgin).

The inclusion of three really hot vampire brides (played by Jennifer Esposito, Colleen Fitzpatrick and Jeri Ryan) compensates slightly for the film's crappier elements, as do a few choice moments of gore and a satisfyingly spectacular demise for Dracula, but on the whole Dracula 2000 proves to be a frustratingly mediocre movie.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Worst Dracula origin story every conceived.
thebrighteyes14 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Dracula 2000 (released in 2000, surprisingly) features a cast filled with network television experience. It's got such great actors as Danny Masterson (That 70s Show) and Omar Epps (House). With such a talented cast, how could this movie miss? /sarcasm OK, so this movie is BAD. It seems to be an attempt to update the old classic into a slasher film, which makes me wonder what kind of idiot thought that would be a good idea.

The Wikipedia page for Dracula 2000 claims that this movie "offers a unique story for Dracula's origins not found in any other vampire movie" Wow, that is very true. In this movie you find out that Dracula is really Judas (yes, that Judas). After he sold out Jesus, God decided to punish him by giving him eternal life and turning him into a vampire. I guess this explains why he hates crosses and holy water so much.

There is nothing remotely scary or shocking about this movie (well it scares me that it cost 28 million to make this garbage). In fact, most of it is just laughably bad.

I just really don't know what else to say. I have to go cleanse my mind with a good movie...
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Terrifying...
snoozy273 August 2001
...well, the horrendous acting is terrifying, anyway.

Basically, this is just a really really bad movie. Bad. Bad movie! Bad! I could have fallen asleep in the theater. Someone very well could have taken their anger over having wasted money on this horrendous film out on me!

It has bad acting, a bad plot, horrible writing, it's very predictable, filled with plot holes and plot devices, and Dracula looks like Donny Osmond. Well, my friend thought so, anyway...

Whatever happened to original horror movies, like the ones Wes Craven used to make? Anyway, don't bother renting this or buying it. All it will do is bore you, perhaps make you cry. I mean, over the bad acting. It's not like anything in this movie can cause you to feel emotionally drained...

On a lighter note, it can be really fun to tear apart this movie, if you're one of those people who loves Mystery Science Theater 3000...
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
I paid 8.00 for this!
MisterWhiplash23 December 2000
I usually don't mind paying my admission for movies, but this one, damn. Believe me, I wouldn't say this is a terrible movie to gander at, if it's on cable for free. But if you feel you have to pay to see this movie, I wouldn't reccomend it. It is almost like a sequel to Bram Stoker's miraculous Dracula which was later adapted great like by FF Coppolla. But now we have this film, another lot in the league of Wes Craven try to be scary flicks. I won't totally doubt that there are some chilling parts of the film and it was smart to bring in Johnny Lee Miller who did good in Trainspotting (there his real name was Simon, here he is also known as Simon, weird huh), but that is it. Overall, the film gets overbearing and it is at points awful. Unless you watch it at the right times, which is few is any, this is a waste. C-
10 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Interesting Interpretation of the Dracula Legend
domino100314 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
"Dracula 2000" is an interesting telling of the myth of Dracula.

Dracula (Gerard Butler) has been keep in a vault for centuries under the watch of Matthew Van Helsing (Christopher Plummer) in London. Thinking that there must be something valuable in the highly protected vault, a group of thieves break in, only to find a metallic coffin. As they are on their way back to America, Dracula wakes up. Being hungry, he decides to make an in-flight meal of the crew. Determined to stop Dracula, Van Helsing (Who we soon find out is THE legendary Van Helsing) and his assistant Simon (Jonny Lee Miller) track him to New Orleans. Dracula isn't there for the Mardi Gras, though: It seems that Van Helsing has a daughter name Mary (Justine Waddell), who is linked to Dracula (Courtesy of Van Helsing, whose been using Dracula's blood to stay alive to find a way to destroy him).

This is an interesting interpretation of the myth of Dracula. As any fan knows, it seems impossible to kill Dracula (Seeing how many movies there is about the infamous count, you can understand why). But what's interesting is to WHY Dracula exists. Exactly who he is makes this an interesting entry in the many films based on Bram Stoker's immortal character. Butler's turn as Dracula can be described as irresistible (Check out the scene when he walks through the Virgin Megastore,when all of the women just drool over him). But then, that's what makes this character hard to kill: you can't help but love him.

Good film to have in your collection.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Brillaint Movie That Is Definitely Under-Rated!
movies2u15 September 2001
"Dracula 2000" is a great movie that is under-rated by the critiques. I had commented on this film before, but I accidentley rated it a 9 out of 10 which I had just realized was a mistake. The cast is great and the performances by Gerard Butler, Justine Waddel, Jonny Lee Miller, Colleen Fitzpatrick (Vitamin C), Jennifer Esposito, and Cristopher Plummer are some of the best actors that I have seen!!! Also Patrick Lussier and Wes Craven did an excellent job on making the film. When I saw that this had come on pay-per-view I was surprised when I saw that the critiques rated the film with a *+ which is one of the lowest movie ratings in the system. I think Dracula 2000 is a underrated movie that deserves more. I enjoyed the film so much that I bought the DVD!!! This is a great horror film with an excellent cast. I give it a 10 out of 10!!!!!!!!!!!! :)
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Bad. Very Bad.
tatterwip29 April 2006
This film is really bad. It maybe harsh, but it is. It really is. Poor script, every vampire cliché in the book is used, and no sympathy is given at all to the origins of the main character ... i.e. ole Dracula. There have been some truly brilliant Dracula/vampire movies in the past, but this doesn't even make it into the "dire" slot.

Take a selection of people who seem to have dropped out of a teen-slasher move, add a dribble of Dracula Lore and mix in a heady tonic of religious/surreal day-dreaming ... and you get a confusing mess of a film - Dracula 2000.

I really cannot find any good things to say about this movie, as if it wasn't bad enough that it was made in the first place, they seem to have made Johnny Lee Miller effect an English accent ... Whats the problem with that I hear you cry ... Well, he is English, but he sounds like an American trying to do an English accent.

All in all you may as well say your money (if you were thinking of buying it), or rent it out, watch it, and discover for yourself why it's about as scary as the Tellytubbies.

P.S. Although La La is pretty frightening!
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A good vampire movie
wnterstar14 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I will admit that I didn't hold out much hope for this movie, in fact I had heard some bad reviews and had been avoiding it. Well, it was the only thing on late last night, so I watched it.

And enjoyed it.

It is your standard vampire/Dracula rises story with all the neck biting, shape shifting you expect from the genre. But there are some new twists.

To share those with someone who hasn't seen the movie would be to take away the parts that I enjoyed most, so I won't go into them here.

Gerard Butler is fantastic at taking creatures that are supposed to be monsters and making them sexy as hell! I first saw him in the title roll of last year's Phantom of Opera. In that, he had me wondering if Christine made the right choice at the end of the movie, and in this, he makes me wonder if being a vampire would be all bad! Christopher Plummer does well in the roll of Van Helsing and the rest of the cast is good. The special effects were well done, and spooky. There wasn't an excess of blood and gore (I know, not a plus to all vampire movie lovers!)

This movie is only a 7 to me because it clings tightly to the vampire myths at times, and disregards them totally in other places. The best example of this is the fact that Dracula hates all things Christian, and shuns them. With out giving away why that makes sense, it's understandable considering how he became a vampire. Why, then, aren't the people he makes into vampires just as repelled by crosses and such?

In spite of that, all in all, it wasn't a bad way to spend a Friday night!
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A fairly uninteresting telling of the story that does nothing very well
bob the moo23 August 2004
When a group of thieves break into the antiques shop belonging to Matthew Van Helsing, they bypass the valuables and head to the basement, where they steal a pure silver coffin that they suspect is full of riches. They escape the scene via plane, but the coffin's inhabitant, Dracula, comes to life and kills them all and the plane crashes in New Orleans on the eve of the Mari Gras. With Dracula being drawn to his daughter Mary, Van Helsing flies to New Orleans with his protégé Simon in tow. However he arrives to find that Dracula has already regained strength and has turned several people already.

I tuned into this years after it had vanished from the cinema having barely made more than a ripple at the UK box office. Seeing it on TV now I can totally understand why it didn't do much business. The plot doesn't really go anywhere and squanders any potential it may have had in a very simple little film that is all over very quickly. Taking huge jumps in plot logic (both real logic and vampire movie logic), the film throws up a few average action scenes and not much else. I wouldn't even really call it scary even if some of it made me flinch a little bit with the early gore. Neither the direction nor the script do anything to justify the update of this story and in the end it doesn't even really stand out as a good teen horror.

The cast flatters the film and most of them are badly used with the bigger names playing second fiddle to the lesser names (in my opinion). Butler's Dracula is far too obvious and easy – he has no real charisma but yet we are supposed to buy that he is seductive and ruthless. Miller is OK but he is not very well used and is suddenly expected to carry the film with it dumped on him halfway in. Plummer does OK but Waddell is pretty annoying. The big names of Epps, Thomas, Esposito and a few others all look sexy and appealing but the film uses them badly considering their star status (consider Epps' face being prominent on the poster to see what I mean – that's practically false advertising!).

Overall this is a fairly standard modern horror – a bit of gore, no real scares, no real thrills, poor plotting, poor characters and only a handful of amusing kiss-off lines. I can barely remember it even an hour after viewing and I doubt that I'll remember it for much longer so limited was it as a film. Wroth watching if trashy horror is your thing but other than that there is no real reason for putting yourself through this.
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
An original and imaginative take on the Dracula Legend
BoyKing7 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Wes Craven's "Dracula 2000" ranks right up there with my other Vampire favorites. I totally enjoyed this movie, and would recommend it to anyone who has more than a passing fancy for the subject. I viewed this film solely on it being an offering from Horror Impresario Wes Craven, and I was well rewarded for my loyalty. I was deeply impressed with this film. It was well done in all aspects, the acting was top-notch, especially from leads Gerard Butler, ("Timeline" "Phantom of The Opera" "300") and the Legendary Character Actor Christopher Plummer. The cast also boasts Omar Epps, ("House M.D.") Jeri Ryan, ("Star Trek Voyager" "Boston Public" "Shark") "That 70's Show's" Danny Masterson, and Sean Patrick Thomas, ("Cruel Intentions" "Save the Last Dance".) I was even impressed by Vitamin C's unique turn as "Lucy Westerman" a character loosely based on Bram Stoker's Lucy Westenra from the original source material. I loved the imaginative writing that formed the premise of the plot for this film. I mean the whole Judas Iscariot/Betrayal/Eternally Damned/Redemption themes really resonated with me, as it no doubt did for a lot of Vampire fans. On those levels it is comparable to the works of Novelist Anne Rice. The fact that the writers incorporated the history of a 2000 year old Biblical personage into this strange tapestry shows a fresh inventiveness and totally sums up the title. The overall look of this film was outstanding, tense and atmospheric, and the special effects were creatively and imaginatively done. A well done film! I loved it! 10/10
6 out of 9 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