Drácula 2001

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.

An interesting new take on Dracula and vampires in general. It wasn't a bad movie, but then again it wasn't anything to brag about. Christopher Plummer (Abraham Van Helsing) was wonderful as was Jonny Lee Miller (Simon). Gerard Butler was an interesting new Dracula. He played the mysterious and seductive vampire extremely well. I think the biggest disappointment was Justine Waddell (Mary). When watching her first scene in the film, I burst into laughter (and so did everyone around me). Omar Epps was great, as always, as were the other "big names" in this movie. The rest of the acting was okay, but could have been better. The plot had some major potential but, unfortunately, it failed to really go anywhere exciting. This Dracula story is worth a watch but even though Wes Craven is involved here, don't get your hopes up too high.

Dracula 2000 (3 outta 5 stars) I didn't expect much from this movie... so I guess that's why I ended up enjoying it as much as I did. There are some interesting interpretations of the vampire myth as it relates to Christianity (not to give anything away)... explaining vampires' aversion to crosses and silver, among other things. The story is kind of all over the place... Dracula is resurrected in the year 2000 by a band of wayward thieves who mistakenly believe that the mysterious Dr. Van Helsing (Christopher Plummer) is hiding something really valuable in that hidden, underground vault. Van Helsing's estranged daughter is simultaneously having weird visions... her father has tried to keep her free from the family legacy for years... but you know IL' Dracula isn't going to let that go on. I could have done without a lot of the wise-ass one-liners from the heroic leading man (Jonny Lee Miller)... it tends to cheapen the whole story and dilute the tension. Still, the movie is a lot better than other recent vampire flicks. I was a bit suspicious of the "Wes Craven Presents" that they tacked onto the title in a desperate ploy to attract an audience... but I think the movie is actually a lot better than 80% of the movies that Craven actually *does* direct. (I'm not much of a fan as you can probably guess.) Good flick... I'm not too sure I want to rush out and see the straight-to-video sequels though.

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.

I remember watching this 2000 fantasy horror movie titled "Dracula 2000" back in the early or mid-2000s. However, the movie never really stood out as being particularly memorable or outstanding. And I haven't returned to watch it since, at least not before now in 2023. I had the opportunity to revisit it and decided to do so, as I only vaguely remembered the movie.

First of all, I had entirely forgotten that the movie had Gerard Butler playing the part of Dracula, and that was actually a really nice touch to the movie.

The storyline in "Dracula 2000", as written by Joel Soisson and Patrick Lussier, is a reinvention of the Bram Stoker novel, but of course with some major changes added to it. And it actually worked out well enough, because I was certainly entertained by this movie. In fact, the movie was actually not as corny and cheesy as I remembered it to be.

The movie has a great cast ensemble, with the likes of Gerard Butler, Christopher Plummer, Jonny Lee Miller, Justine Waddell, Jennifer Esposito, Omar Epps, Sean Patrick Thomas, Danny Masterson, Lochlyn Munro and Nathan Fillion as well. So there are a bunch of familiar faces on the cast list.

Visually then "Dracula 2000" was good, despite it being a movie that wasn't relying heavily on special effects.

My rating of director Patrick Lussier's 2000 movie "Dracula 2000" lands on a six out of ten stars.