Rating: 
Summary: The new Dracula
Review: This movie is a great new look at an old favorite. While character development could use a little more work - the subject matter is wonderfully scripted. The ideas behind Dracula's aversion to holy objects is a brilliant one. I only wish they had gone into it more deeply instead of ending it with a huge revelation. I hope there is a sequel.
Rating:
Summary: A Great Date Flick!
Review: Everyone's favorite fanged fiend has awoken from his crypt, and he's thirsty! The horror story's been told numerous times, but the material - and the Count - get an infusion of fresh blood for the millennium with Goth flavor, high-tech gadgetry and a dose of Vitamin C (in her feature debut). And who better to take a stab at updating this horror classic than Wes Craven (of Scream trilogy fame), the creepiest guy in showbiz!
Rating:
Summary: Don't analyze it! Just enjoy!!
Review: An exciting, action-packed and over-all fun movie!! A surprising, creative and interesting take on the origin of Dracula! Fantastic re-telling of the old tale! I've seen it 12 times and I'm still not tired of it! Kudos to all the stars of the movie: Christopher Plummer (although his accent made me laugh), Justine Waddell, and especially Jonny Lee Miller and, playing the fanged one himself, Gerard Butler!!! I will say, however, that if you're looking for character development here or to see a true horror film, you'll be disappointed. This movie is pure action and fun!!
Rating:
Summary: Awesome Movie
Review: When I first saw this movie I was amazed at the special effects. the actors and actresses were outstanding. I loved this movie that I saw it twice. So I can't wait until it comes out. I recommend that Adults go see this film.
Rating: 
Summary: Good ideas, but style wins over substance
Review: DRACULA 2000 is one of those movies that you go see expecting it to be dreadful, so when it turns out to be a pretty decent flick you are ready to praise it to the heavens out of sheer relief. It takes a couple of weeks, maybe another viewing, to realize the truth. It's a movie with great ideas but a weak script; with young, talented (and may I say, fantastically good-looking) actors who have no character development to work with, and finally with a director with interesting takes on individual scenes, but who has no idea how to pull the movie together. Synopsis: Dracula cannot die. Van Helsing has sworn that he will remain alive to guard Dracula, who is locked up deep in a vault, until a way to finally kill the Count is found. To do this, Van Helsing injects himself with vampire blood, which keeps him alive, though does not turn him into a vampire. Thieves break into the vault, not knowing what's there, only knowing something is under heavy security. They steal the coffin, and of course, Dracula escapes. After feeding on the thieves, he goes to New Orleans, where Van Helsing's estranged daughter, Mary, a woman with whom he has a strange psychic connection, lives. Van Helsing follows, and it's a question of who will find whom first. This movie has some great ideas, such as explaining why Dracula has such an aversion to Christian artifacts. It has a great cast and great locales. It has Christopher Plummer, the man himself, darn it! So why doesn't the movie quite work?The main problem is this movie doesn't know what it wants to be. It can't settle on a tone, but rather jumps around between many genres, and the film suffers for it. It's not a horror movie, either in a psychological or in a gory way. It's not a suspense movie, as there is no question about the final confrontation. It's not an action movie. It's not a parody of the vampire genre in the way the SCREAM trilogy parodied slasher flicks, though there are a couple of inside jokes that put the movie uncomfortably close to that line. And finally, though much is made of the connection between Dracula and Mary, this movie is not a gothic romance. Another problem is weak characterization. Gerard Butler is the sexiest man I have seen in the movies in quite a long time, but he doesn't make much of an impression as the Count. That's not his fault though. Considering this is a Dracula movie, not just a vampire flick, the Count is only a secondary player, and not even a seemingly important one at that. What he mostly does is bite people, chase people, and make the ladies swoon (it's good to be Dracula). Everyone seems to be having fun with their roles, and there are a couple of good parts, but no one sticks in your mind much after the movie is over. This could have been a great movie, and there is some frustration while watching the movie, those few scenes where the actors and director and script all come together beautifully and you think what might have been. Oh well, you have to accept DRACULA 2000 on it's own terms, an updated sexy take on the vampire genre that you'll enjoy watching, but won't think much about the next day; a movie that promises there are still fresh ideas and good vampire movies to be made in the future; and a movie that reminds us that seeing several gorgeous people all together on screen is never a bad thing.
Rating: 
Summary: Lifeless
Review: Just as Dracula sucks the life out of his victims so does this plot. The gothic genre is "revamped" for the new millenium, but let's be honest it's a tired genre with a revised storyline which must have originated from the bowels of the gutter. Tired and lifeless actors and actresses dot the film and try to push the story along, but they fail. Justine Waddell, who holds some glimmer of hope, deserves a much better vehicle in which to star. Personally, if one wants a good version of the Dracula story stick with "Bram Stoker's Dracula" or the Bela Lugosi version.
Rating:
Summary: If you haven't seen it, run, don't walk to see it!!
Review: Judging by the latest box office showing, hardly anyone is watching this great horror film. I can't recommend it enough! It is a masterful retelling of the Dracula legend. My husband and I saw it twice and it scared me just as much the second time as the first. This movie is packed with great action sequences and genuine scares. It also has a few really good suprises in store for those who see it. Yes, I said suprises. As in something "New." I'm not going to spoil it for you, but I do highly recommend this film, it's Craven's best since the original "Nightmare" movie. It's way better than those "Scream" thrillers he did. So if you like a good solid scary movie, along with edge of your seat thrills and a dash of humor thrown in for good measure, see this movie, you won't be disappointed.
Rating: 
Summary: Dracula Comes Back to Life in 2000
Review: A great and entertaining movie. Really took me by surprise as to how fun and brilliant the story was. The movie is set in present time where Abraham Van Helsing has finally captured his nemesis and has imprisoned him in his private collection of his past life. But everything hits the fan when a band of money hungry thiefs come in and take the legendary Dracula in his coffin thinking they have found a coffin full of gold. Van Helsing must then find this band of thiefs and regain the coffin that possesses the greatest evil the world has ever known with the help of his assistant Johnny Lee Miller (Hackers, Plunkett and McCleane). This movie has all the components for a good horror movie. A great villian, a good story, believeable acting, and some great special effects. You should really take the time to catch this one before it's gone.
Rating:
Summary: Biblical Dracula is a Crazy Idea.
Review: The acting is pathetic and the thrills are cheap. So what, no one really takes movies of this genre seriously. However, the infusion of distorted religious and biblical facts to justify the real origins of Dracula is obscene, offensive, and downright blasphemous. The propoderance of horror movies with religious overtones such as Stigmatina, Lost Souls, Save the Child, etc. has turned this genre into trash. Religion and horror if mixed within the context of this genre is devilish. Don't waste your time on this one.
Rating:
Summary: Great Retelling of the Dracula story.
Review: Wes Craven is to be commended,he added a breath of very fesh air to a story done to death (or un-death) pardon the expression. This was one of the top 3 versions of the Dracula story ever, the first being 1979's with Frank Langella, the 2nd 1992's with Gary Oldman and now Craven's. This movie worked on every level,I especially liked how Dracula had never died, he was just hidden away until they could find a way to destroy him. Also a very creative way to explain why he hates Holy artifacts as well as Dracula's true identity were put into this version. I just saw it last night and,weather permitting,plan to go see it again. If you have heard the story and think it can't be told with any new angles, think again. Craven has did masterful work here,and it is well worth going to see.
|
