Drácula 2000

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.

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.

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 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.

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.