Drácula 2000

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.

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.

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.

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 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.