User Reviews

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.

I've got to admit that it was a lot less awful than I expected. Still not very good though, but I've seen greater disasters under the `Wes Craven Presents'-label…70 years after Bela Lugosi made him immortal, new blood is running through the veins of the horror icon Dracula (which is a pretty ironic statement to itself…). The year is 2000 and the location is Great Britain. Abraham Van Helsing kept himself alive somehow and he still stands guard over the coffin that holds the remainders of Dracula. The vacuum-closed coffin gets stolen and – surprise surprise – Dracula escapes….with a mission, because he's after Van Helsing's daughter in America. Since Abraham used Dracula's blood to keep alive, the exact same powers are to find in her. All of a sudden, this version comes up with a whole new historical background for Dracula…He's portrayed like a real ladies-man and director Lussier even suggests that his wrath against humanity goes all the way back to the Biblical beginning…I'm not quite sure what to think of this whole character-twist. It gives a slight bit of originality and ingeniousness to the franchise, but it's also illogical, extremely far-fetched and it might even be considered as being a little offensive. My biggest fear regarding this film, however, was that it would be a boisterous and computerized update of the legendary myth. I'm glad to say that the visuals in Dracula 2000 are well used and not too exaggerated. Some good old-fashioned gore as well with a couple of nice decapitations and slaughtering. The script is rather weak and contains silly humorist-lines such as: ` Never ever mess with an antique dealer'…and a lot of variants on the `vampires suck'-joke! Gerard Butler is pretty weak as the bloodsucking vampire and he hasn't exactly got the charisma and appearance to play him…Of course, he can't be blamed for that entirely as it's as good as impossible to follow into the footsteps of brilliant actors like Bela Lugosi, Christopher Lee or Gary Oldman who gave image to Dracula before him.

Other than Butler, there is a good diversity in the cast. We receive some quality acting by Christopher Plummer as Prof. Van Helsing and even Omar Epps is remarkable in his role. Lots of eye-candy is provided by Jennifer Esposito (I never saw her this pretty), Jeri Ryan (cleavage-queen) and Colleen Fitzpatrick (she's the modern version of Lucy). I'm rather late with my first viewing on this film. Since I never wanted to spend money on it, I patiently waited for it to come on TV. You're not missing anything in case you don't ever see it, but there are much worse ways to spend your time. It's overall well-made and light-headed entertainment. Not planning on seeing the sequels, though.

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.

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-

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.

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

Put the blame on executive producer Wes Craven and financiers the Weinsteins for this big-budget debacle: a thrash-metal updating of "Dracula", with a condescending verbal jab at Bram Stoker (who probably wouldn't want his name on this thing anyway) and nothing much for the rest of us except slasher-styled jolts and gore. Christopher Plummer looks winded as Van Helsing in the modern-day--not just a descendant of Van Helsing but the real thing; he keeps himself going with leeches obtained from Count Dracula's corpse, which is exhumed from its coffin after being stolen from Van Helsing's vault and flown to New Orleans. This is just what New Orleans needs in the 21st Century! The film, well-produced but without a single original idea (except for multi-racial victims), is both repulsive and lazy, and after about an hour starts repeating itself. * from ****

This is not my favorite vampire/Dracula film but I didn't hate it either. The movie had it's moments of excitement and action but it did not thrill me as I had expected.

I felt something was missing from the film yet I could not place my finger on it. I'm not sure if it was the cast itself or the acting... maybe it was the set or costuming? The story wasn't too bad but it was lacking a bit for me.

I will say it's not a horrible film - just not the A+ I was hoping for. It's a pretty good watch for a rainy or otherwise boring day - it will provide some entertainment.

5/10

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

Gerad butler as Dracula was a surprise for me after not seeing this movie in years I completely forgot about how good it is, yes a certain "actor" might not have aged well (coughs) Danny Masterson But the rest if this movies great the camera qualitys pretty dope after all these years also.

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!

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.

the biggest problem with it was that wes craven came up with 2 really unique & original ideas for a dracula story. But he tried to combine them into One movie. And that really messed it up. Had the 2 ideas been 2 separate movies, they probably would have been better. But they just didn't work with each other right, it was like 2 movies cut & clipped into one. it was two completely separate storylines that didn't even connect until the very end. And the way he connected them was cheesy, stupid, and didn't work at all.

he had some good subtle clues, and neat ideas in the beginning and middle of the movie, but he never elaborated on them, or hinted at why there were there. I hate movies that go out of the way just to give you fluff & stuff. there was no relevance to about a third of the scenes in the movie.

and the end gave me that explicit feeling that they ran out of money, and just had to end it quick.

...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...

Though better than John Carpenter's Vampires, this vampire movie lacked many things, including a strong storyline and meaningful subplots. Overall, the movie was a fun, B movie. However, as far as a good vampire movie, I think i'll stick to Bram Stoker's Dracula if I want to see a good Dracula.

The man who played Dracula was not a convincing, romantic yet cruel character. He spoke with a lisp, and seemed kinda dorky. Not too convincing. And, the subplot of the beginning. It took a long time for the story to get around to what the movie was really about.

That storyline, girl born with Dracula's blood running through her veins...that's a good storyline. However, how they got to New Orleans (and why, did they HAVE to have it New Orleans, it would have been a little better taking placein London) was a bit ridiculous. The product placement of Virgin Mega Record Store was horrible. How much did they pay for that?

In any event, I do not recommend this movie...unless you're a Jonny Lee Miller fan.

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!

This has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. This movie has nothing positive about it. Some of you people actually like this movie! I've seen a lot of Dracula movies and I've liked everyone that I've seen, but when I saw this movie I said to myself, "What the hell is this?" What a stupid movie. Now they have Dracula becoming who he is because he is Judas. For those of you who don't know who Judas is, he betrayed Jesus Christ and then felt so guilty he hung himself. You have to be kidding me. That's the dumbest reason I've ever heard for why Dracula became evil. Who asked for a reason anyway? What a piece of sh** this movie is. Who ever came up with this sorry excuse for a movie should be beaten. Even the Dracula is horrible. If you ever saw this movie you wouldn't even think it was Dracula. Wow, Dracula 2000! Is that title supposed to impress me? Don't waste your time or your money on this trash.

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.

---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!)

Dracula 2000 is a modern day vampire story. It begins with a gaggle of thieves who break into a high security safe and steal a silver coffin which they believe holds the goods that they are looking for. However, this coffin contains the body of Dracula and hell breaks loose. This movie had the potential to be a good film, but the plot ends up getting fuzzy and transformed into a really awkward story. The cast is decent. The only problem I see with the casting is that of Colleen Fitzpatrick a.k.a "Vitamin C". She is simply not a good actress. She is a real bore on screen. She just did not help this film. It appears her fifteen minutes of fame are up. Overall, this film is lacking. For a real vampire film, Go watch Bram Stoker's Dracula instead.