Rating: 
Summary: A good movie with more than its share of flaws.
Review: A modern-day gothic bloodlust comes to the screen in "Dracula 2000," a movie that has some good ideas but can't seem to put them in the proper place. It has everything you'd expect from a movie about the infamous legend, including a well-suited cast that fits the story, which has its ups and downs. The modernization of the story has aspects that are appealing and appalling, and while I liked the movie, there are a number of things I didn't care for. Beginning with fantastically foreboding shots of the Demeter, the ship that carried Dracula to England in Bram Stoker's novel, the story immediately segues to the year 2000, in London, where Matthew Van Helsing (Christopher Plummer), a collector and dealer of antiques, is hiding something in a large, heavily guarded vault at his place of business. Not so heavily guarded, though, that a band of techie thieves cannot make their way into the vault, making their way through hallways of fanged skulls and massive collections of antiques, until they reach the end of the path, where a metal coffin lies on a pedestal. Once on a plane, their efforts to open the coffin result in the reawakening of Dracula (Gerard Butler), who claims them all as the undead and causes the plane to crash in New Orleans just in time for Mardi Gras. But, amongst the festivities, young Mary Heller (Justine Waddell) can't seem to shake the overwhelming sense of fear from her mind, along with intensely haunting dreams involving the handsome yet sinister man. As all this is happening, Van Helsing, along with his business partner, Simon (Jonny Lee Miller), make their way to New Orleans in hopes of finding Mary and stopping Dracula from making her his own. It is here that the story's better side kicks in, giving us an intricate explanation for Van Helsing's connections to Dracula, as well as his connection to Mary and Dracula's reasons for wanting her. The movie evolves into a race against time ordeal, where the main question is will he or won't he find her and claim her? There are some good forces at work for the movie, mostly residing in the story, which uses the legend of Dracula as a mere starting point for its own machinations. It lets us know how Dracula came to reside under Van Helsing's watchful eye, but from that point, it gives us new explanations of Dracula's disdain for crosses and silver, relating these hatreds to Biblical times and events. It may seem hokey at first, but upon further thought, it gains credibility. Casting is also another plus, the kind of cast that is not, for the most part, widely known. Christopher Plummer, in the role of Van Helsing, is everything the original character was, and his ability to keep in touch with that fervor is outstanding. Jonny Lee Miller plays a nice hero as Simon, and is convincing in all the right places, including his loyalty to Van Helsing. Justine Waddell is commendably stable as the unstable Mary, and while he's not show-stopping, Gerard Butler does turn a few heads as the title character. There are also some genuinely scary moments that stay in the mind, though they tend to degenerate into gory spectacle. There's the beginning heist sequence that takes place in the crypt where Dracula's coffin is kept, which is dark and ominous, while the sequence involving the opening of the coffin is quite suspenseful. Director Patrick Lussier, who takes a backseat to Wes Craven's top billing as producer (an obvious marketing tactic), gives scenes like this a creepy feel, but cheats us out of genuine chills with some excessive bloodletting and dropping bodies. It is for this reason that the movie is never really scary. Yes, that building suspense is there, but only for seconds at a time. There's also a collection of schlocky thrills intended for quick scares, characters jumping onscreen to a soundtrack pulse, but soon after that, it all dies down again. Predictability is another factor. The movie gets it right with the unexpected outcome for Van Helsing, but with every other character, we know who's going to live and die. The outcome of the history of Dracula's origins is interesting in itself, but not enough to keep our focus away from who will be left standing at film's end. There's a lot to admire about the story and execution of "Dracula 2000," though I'm sure it will never surpass some of its predecessors. Unlike previous films, it deals with Dracula's origins rather than with his actions following his reawakening. The modernization of the legend has its ups and downs, trading good suspense for cheap "Scream"-like gore. I was impressed by the movie's guts... when they weren't spilling out on the floor.
Rating:
Summary: This movie sucks- literaly!
Review: Okay, I must admit that I only watched this movie because Gerry Butler is in it, and I have been completely obsessed with finding out what other film roles he has been in since I saw Phantom of the Opera. I'm only giving it three stars because besides Butler, the acting was just terrible and I didn't like the ending. The story line was very interesting though, so I don't mind owning this movie. The special effects were incredible! I think the next movie I see Gerry in I'll be expecting his eyes to turn blood red. *Spooky*
Rating:
Summary: hahaha
Review: I like this movie because it's more funny than scary. Amusing, I guess. The blood splattering on the walls is so dramatic that it was hilarious, as is the blood on the coffin being sucked inside. The girl playing Mary was a little annoying at first, but by the end I was used to it so it didn't faze me too much. One thing I honestly did like about the movie is how they portrayed the origins of Dracula, it was a different and interesting aspect. Gerry Butler doesn't get to show his fine acting skills in this movie too much, but if you see the deleted scenes in the DVD, Dracula does a little more talking and I guess you see some of his talent there. Anywayyy, all in all, an okay movie. Not great, but not as terrible as some make it seem.
Rating: 
Summary: Why isn't the actor in the title role billed on the case?
Review: Genre: Horror that isn't all scares
Reviewer: Biased fan of the title lead!
The director calls the genre "revisionist horror" in the DVD commentary, set in modern times to the latest soundtrack (at the time). DRACULA isn't meant to paralyze, like the Exorcist, but as a rollercoaster of action and suspense, it satisfies...A young decendent of Van Helsing is being chased by a strange creature from her dreams; it turns out that she and the creature have a connection. This is the film that finally answers "what happens when Dracula doesn't sleep through Mardi Gras in New Orleans?
Creative story, with modern and ancient twists. Dracula runs around in a trench coat (and there is some swish-swish cape action), takes in the modern surroundings, charmes all the ladies, drinks all the ladies. Van Helsing of old had been accidentally infected with the vampire's blood; with the aid of additional shots of blood (taken from leeches fed from the vampire), he survives to the day. His faithful employee from the antiques business (a cover for his real job of guarding the vampire) joins him on the hunt to re-capture the escaped vampire. Slutty news reporters, gold-digging theives and mega-store employees are along for the ride. This movie fills in a few plot holes and makes a few of its own. We're amazed to discover that Van Helsing nurses an addiction to vampire blood, and the DVD's deleted/extended scenes help us realize he's on the verge of becomming a vampire himself.
Yes, it's EVEN part coming of age story as a confused retail store employee, estranged from her father (she has one version of why, we learn another), finds her way. None of the NOPD seems to notice the roof-top battles, or question the boom in neck-drained corpses. Do the local news affiliates aor such graphic crash footage in this, the censorship age? Yes I admit it is clever and a little silly. WHY RECOMMEND IT, you ask?
The lead is SO mesmerizing as the vampire, who hypnotizes any woman by looking into their eyes, inluding the home-viewing audience.I was working in a video store 5 years ago when this came out, the latest Drac with a draw of B-list of actors, and I didn't bother renting it then. I saw the Phantom of the Opera and have been digging up Gerard Butler movies since then. The way Dracula looks up, with the tousled hair, the deep-set eyes, the musclar man in black, I don't think that this Dracula (as the literary character that is part predator, part sex-God) can be topped, it's worth buying this just to watch him SMOLDER.
Dracula 2000: not cinematic perfection but I found it a delight. I just don't get why Miller and his supporting role got top billing and the DVD title page. Whatever Mr. Butler does next on screen, the next great epic film, a cereal ad, I'm there!
Rating: 
Summary: Trashy fun, but Langella was a sexier Dracula than Butler!
Review: I'm a Butler fan-I thought he nailed "Phantom", but he didn't have the same charisma here. He does best when his characters have a vulnerable side. Otherwise, he comes across as just another pretty face. His true identity was an inspired twist,which was telegraphed a bit in the film, so it didn't exactly come as a shock. I always enjoy Plummer's hamhock performances, no matter how tacky. This had a TV movie feel to it, but was entertaining.
Rating: 
Summary: oh bite me
Review: i liked this movie plain and simple... its sexy, cheesy and GERARD BUTLER HELLO!
Rating:
Summary: I bought it to see Gerard Butler
Review: I bought this because Gerard Butler (Phantom) was in it. He played Dracula. He, as always was amazing. The movie was OK.When you view the outtakes of scenes that were cut down or deleted you realize that this would have made a much better movie,it suffered with the editing decisions. Butler's Dracula is terrifying, and seductive, and OH SO SEXY.
Rating:
Summary: Dracula 2000
Review: For those gals who can get enough of Gerard Butler, this movie is for you. Too bad the director chose a leading lady that lacked any chemistry what-so-ever with the main character, Gerard. The special features on the DVD are nice because they interview Gerry without his make-up. What a feast for the eyes!
Rating:
Summary: Dracula 2000
Review: I'm giving this movie four stars, even though it deserves two. Why you ask four stars, first of all Gerard Butler is very good as Dracula (he's always far superior to the material they give him). Second the premise was a great idea, Dracula as Judas Escariot. Third, Von Helsing being nearly immortal through the use of him enemy Dracula's blood. Where I take exception to the film is the use of Bram Stoker's three vamp females--why the retread of this tired idea(I get that this was done for the male movie-goers but there could have been other females or just one). If anything, Dracula, in pursuit of his own Mary Magdelene, and world domination, should have gathered up a group of pseudo-apostles vamps to carry out his vision.
Rating:
Summary: BEST DRACULA MOVIE EVER
Review: Well, not really but its close for me. I LOVED Gerrard Butler in this movie... hes my new fav actor now!!!
The whole deal with Plummer having some of draculas blood in him and passes it on to his daughter was great, the story was ok, the special effects were so so, BUT the one thing that put this movie over the edge for me was the way they turned Judas Iscariot into Dracula (sorry if I ruined it for anyone).
I thought that was brilliant... not likeing anything religous or crosses or silver???? Amazing..
overall a great Dracula movie, nothing too special about it but if u want to see how they turned Judas into Dracula watch it, its really quite interesting.
|
