Rating: 
Summary: Don't expect a "great" movie and you'll be fine
Review: If you're like me, you enjoy a good horror flick for many reasons. You can also find the not so great movies to be fun to watch too. I'm not saying I'd drop money on this movie but of the recent vamp movies I've watched I think it's about as good as any I've seen. (Note I did say recent.)If you're expecting it to be the next Interview with the Vampire, or Bram Stoker's Dracula, then stop and rethink watching this movie. Ok, having said all that warning stuff, onto what I liked and didn't like about it. Miller (as you may remember him from Hackers as Crash Override/Dade Murphy) Gives a decent proformance. I was pretty neutral on Ryan's character since it wasn't meant to be what one could call, deep. I was very impressed with the fact that they worked yet another Vanhelsing into the movie and I didn't turn it off right there. I've been getting sick of ever time you see a movie with the word Dracula in it, you have to have Vanhelsing's decendant, or Vanhelsing himself running after the vamp with no real solid explanation for why. (Watch Modern Vampires if you're not sure what I mean... but beware, if you watch that one, don't buy it, just rent it... or better yet borrow it from someone who was foolish enough to buy it. We can't keep encouraging them by buying things like modern vampires. LOL) Anyway, the worked Vanhelsing in in a way that felt like it was an actual part of the story. They also were almost able to keep me interested enough to not get a little bored. What I didn't like. First, the sound. I personally hate it when a movie goes from whisper dialog to blow out your ear drums music to back to whiper dialog. I kept haveing to turn the movie up and down to hear it and not go deaf. I also thought the story was a bit... what's the right word... too recycled. Though I accepted the vanhelsing character, I wouldn't say I was thrilled when I found out that once again, Dracula must somehow face vanhelsing. Just because the guys name is dracula does it really mean he must endlessly face the same movie over and over? I was kinda hopeing that it being dracula 2000 and having a bunch of young people on the front cover meant it had nothing to do with being taken down by an old geezer doctor. NEW NEW LET US SEE SOMETHING NEW! ;-) So, over all... short version of what I just wrote. Not a great movie, not a terrible movie if you're not expecting a great movie, and it is shot well. I do want to sink my fangs into something new, and this wasn't really it. Most importantly... Avoid Modern Vampires unless you want to watch it first to make this movie look better. ;-)
Rating: 
Summary: Wes Craven's Mix
Review: We all know what to expect when it comes to horror and Wes Craven: A mixture of a nightmarish world and dark humour. We've seen it done wonderfully in A Nightmare on Elm Street, Wes Craven's New Nightmare, Scream, The Serpent and the Rainbow, and many more. Dracula 2000 is no exception, except for the fact that it adds something new to the mix. Intense action sequences. Sure they rip off The Matrix, but they work in a film about creatures who are supposed to have unique skills and powers. The back story created that connected Van Helsing, Mary, and Dracula was very interesting, and kept the movie together. You can tell by the commentary given to the movie by director Patrick Lussier and screenwriter Joel Soisson that research went into coming up with the story, and they wanted the film to be serious and have a story. I believe that's why some people didn't enjoy the movie. They didn't know whether to take the film seriously, or just let it be "eye candy". True, it does have the appeal of "eye candy", but when you understand the going on behind the film, you can begin to take it seriously. So I highly recommend giving the audio commentary on the DVD a listen. Dracula 2000 managed to snag a talented cast full of up-and-coming stars (Sean Patrick Thomas, Jennifer Esposito) and veterans of acting (Christopher Plummer), and even a pop star (Colleen Fitzpatrick aka Vitamin C). Justine Waddell, who plays the main female lead, Mary, did very well at putting heart into her character, but her given dialogue is sometimes - to me - overacted, but in the end she does quiet well. Her voiceover in the end was effective. And I can't write a review without mentioning the person who played Dracula, Gerard Butler. Butler had the actions, the eyes, and the voice to play a perfect Dracula. Watch Dracula 2000 the first time with an open-mind, and then watch it with the commentary. Both times, it will be like a different movie.
Rating:
Summary: BUTLER DID IT
Review: One of the special features on the DVD is the auditions for some of the lead actors. Gerard Butler, the dashing actor who plays Dracula, shows an intensity and fire rarely captured in the vampire heretofore. Granted, Christopher Lee will probably always be the best for invoking the sheer terror of the count, but Butler brings a subtle humanity to the monster, and it is his performance that buoys this Wes Craven production.
Suffice to say, Dracula has been done so many times, it's hard to think of anything original to do with the story. However, screenwriter Joel Soisson gives a fresh take to the legacy of Dracula. It explains the count's aversion to crosses, wood, silver and anything Christian. No spoiler am I, but by the end of the movie, Butler's Dracula is a pitiable victim of his own jealousy, and the need to be forgiven for his greatest transgression. Butler's performance cannot be discounted, folks..he's truly magnificent.
Jonny Lee Miller, Christopher Plummer, and Justine Waddel acquit themselves admirably, and Lussier's direction is sufficiently moody. But it's Butler who commands the show.
Rating: 
Summary: Another piece of trash by Wes
Review: (...) This movie is a parallel to his book and all it does is kill of an important person, Van Helsing, to have his daughter take his place whom turns into a vampire and later becomes human again :(...) The acting is ok but nothing great. I really didn't see the point to this movie, when I saw it on TV I thought the plot would be interesting with Dracula coming back to life whom is chased by Van Helsing, then the story fell apart. Warning, there are a lot of corny scenes and jokes that ridicule the person whom watches this piece of garbage.
I am really sorry this movie was made and feel bad for watching it. I should just go and commit suicide and free myself from this torture.
Rating: 
Summary: Dracula in the Modern World
Review: This was a modernized version based on the characters from the original novel by Bram
Stoker. Here we find Van Helsing still alive in modern times having appointed himself the keeper of Dracula's corpse because Dracula could not truly be killed. Dracula lays prone in a death-like state in a vault and Van Helsing is using Dracula's blood, siphoned through leeches, to keep himself alive for all these years. Then some young hoods steal the coffin thinking it contains valuables and unwittingly help Dracula escape his prison. The ensuing battle between Van Helsing and Dracula to save Van Helsing's daughter from joining the undead leaves behind plenty of corpses. In a surprise conclusion we learn who Dracula really is . . . and in this movie they do not claim he is really Vlad Tepesh, Prince of Wallachia as in most other movies. I realize by the description is sounds like some rehash of an old Hammer film but this movie is slick, well presented and very entertaining. If you like vampire movies it's a great addition to your collection.
Rating:
Summary: a new version of a masterful legend
Review: this new version is set into todays world of rock n rool, lots of sex and down right funkyness. The Drac is taken by a band ful of thieves after breaking into Professor Helsings(Christopher Plummers) vault. The crew include Omar Epps, Jennifer Esposito, Danny Masterson, Sean Patrick Thomas and Lochlyn Munro. The Drac opens up and kills all of them, sending the plane crashing into a swamp. Plummer goes off to seek him out, he is followed by Jonny Lee Miller(from Trainspotting and Hackers fame). Justine Waddell has visions of The Drac and thats what he is after. also included int he mix of the cast are Jeri Ryan(Boston Public), Shane West(A Walk To Remember) and Vitamin C(the pop singer). Then it becomes interesting as it goes along with some sexy vampire chicks and some beheading and stakeshootings and headgeclipper beheadings, its all good. but when you find out The Drac was friends with Jesus and he betrayed him, sorta like wha...., but then theres a bunch of cool effects and The Drac(Gerard Butler from Reign Of Fire) gets blowed up into flames, its a pretty ok movie. Vitamin C, Jeri ryan and Jennifer Esposito are hot, hot , hot with fangs
Rating:
Summary: even the undead wanna die
Review: this is thee worst vampire movie i have ever seen im talking 2 hours in a grey 10 by 10 foot section of a train staring at a wooden box dracula looks like someone who would be your paperboy the acting is about as emotional as chuk norris on sleeping pills avoid this movie its a real stinker it has no beautiful set pieces no killer effects no good acting no good cast i recommend dracula 1992 with gary oldman or hell even dracula with jack palance or interview with a vampire anything but this painfully dull grey stupid movie compare this movie to riding on a london subway pukes
Rating:
Summary: OK movie, very good DVD!
Review: As far as Dracula movies go, this one is ok. We have a bit of the classic novel (Just enough to make it recognizeable). The beginning is very good as we get some new twists with thieves accidentally uncovering the Count. We have 3 Good looking vampire ladies ( Must have them in the story!). The twist to how Dracula became Dracula is different ( I won't tell if you haven't seen it) and interesting enough. The problem is that the movie just isn't scary enough. It seems to me like there were some great opportunities for fright in this one that were wasted. The movie itelf is 2- 2 1/2 stars. The DVD itself is very good. Great extras like screen tests, deleted scenes, extended scene, and commentary. The sound quality in the Dolby 5.1 is awesome. The back 2 speakers in the surround sound are used very well with some cool and spooky sounds shooting out when you are not always expecting it. I found the use of sound to provide more creeps than the visuals at times. If you like vampire movies, you should check this one out. If you don't, this film will probably not entertain you.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting idea
Review: Okay I didn't expect this to be a masterpiece and I was right. It was entertaining and with a better cast and better script could have been more. Also the element that I tend to dislike in horror films was present here. That is that you know not only that the bad guy will be defeated, but that he is painted as ONLY being bad. This ends up making your baddie far too 2D, and we don't see them as a whole person (or rather vampire). This film gets big kudos for originality of who Dracula is, and where he comes from. I didn't like Van Helsing, and thought him being there was a waste of time. He is the one, who is looking after Dracula, but this could have been done in a different way, it is not too important a point.
The film begins, (well in truth, I missed the first 5 minutes) with Simon who works for Van Helsing. Solina (VH's assistant) and her friends break into the cellar because they expect to find money/jewels/art what with VH's tight security. What they find, is a booby-trapped room with an antique metal coffin. They steal it and escape (in a plane for some unknown reason). Nightshade is given the job of opening the coffin, (a hard task indeed) and inside is Dracula. He proceeds to kill everyone on the plane. This is unimportant but I am telling it to you because we then see our heroine Mary, she sees this. Sees Dracula and he, her in a mixture of dream/illusion and perhaps astral projection. In the meantime, VH is explaining to Simon that Dracula is not myth but reality. That he is THE Van Helsing of long ago and has been keeping himself alive, (injecting Dracula's blood) until he can discover a way to kill him. Many events happen but they are not worth mentioning, because you wish to read a review not a list of events. I will mention a few more things though. One, for some silly reason it seems that everyone who is bit, and drained becomes the undead. This to me in completely ludicrous and a completely stupid idea. If one thinks that each vampire must drain one victim a night, (although they may wish to have more) each vampire makes at LEAST 365 other vampires a year and they in turn do the same. Also the women in it are very silly characters, and while at least Mary isn't a high-heeled simpering moron, she isn't very believable. Come on, who hides in a small, closed space in a cemetery no less, when running from a VAMPIRE. In addition, Simon who is our second lead is pretty dopey and silly. I sure as heck, wouldn't want to rely on him to save me. What I loved about this film is Dracula's origin. Dracula is in fact Judas Escariot (the man who betrayed Jesus Christ). That is why he dislikes (although isn't afraid, nor do they stop him for long) of religious artifacts, silver etc.. He became what he is because he could not die, he tried by hanging himself and the rope snapped. God would not allow him the mercy of death. This to me is such an innovative idea, and far better than many others around. I don't know if this film is worth buying, but it is worth a watch. Gerard Butler is very good at his role, and Dracula is sexy, troubled and has a whole range of BELIEVABLE emotions. One unfortunate choice is that it's tittled Dracula 2000, while this would have made it seem modern and up to date then. As each year passes it will date more and more. Diana
Rating:
Summary: Best Dracula
Review: This was the best Dracula movie I had ever seen. Gerard Butler
was exceptional. I really liked Justine Waddell, too. The 'ori-
gin' was very provocative, the New Orleans setting was ter-
rific, & the colors in the Red-draped hallway & the desert
tent scenes were amazing. I think it was so much more enjoyable
than Underworld, which was all black.
This movie just didn't receive enough acceptance or acclaim.
|
