Dracula 2001

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.

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.

Dracula 2001 was a great movie. Okay, it was nothing new and no, it was not scary but it was still good. The cast in the film, including: Johnny Lee Miller, Justine Waddell, Gerard Butler, Colleen Fitzpatrick, Jennifer Esposito and Christopher Plummer were all great and made the film even more interesting. Dracula 2001 is the probably the best Dracula film I've seen and I give it a 6/10.

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.