User Reviews (368)

Add a Review

  • 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.
  • Being a poor hen-pecked loser who isn't allowed cable television, I found myself in the rather alien position of being spoilt for choice over which movie to watch last Sunday night. British terrestrial television rarely throws up such a dilemma, so I had to consider carefully which one to select. In the corner marked 'safe option' we had Mel Gibson's Ransom (seen it; dull; can't really remember what happened but am assuming they eventually get the kid back), second was Man on the Moon (seen it; vaguely remember being a bit disappointed), and third was Wes Craven's Dracula 2000 (never seen it; presumably a straight-to-video job). Almost without hesitation I plumped for that.

    A maverick choice, you might say - but there was method to my madness. On more than one occasion, drunken and deluded girls have approached me in bars and accused me of looking like Jonny Lee Miller. They are wrong of course - those close to me have taken sadistic pleasure in assuring me I look more like a cross between Woody Harrelson and Kelsey Grammar - not particularly good for my sex-symbol status, but useful if I ever wanted work as a stunt double on the set of Cheers.

    Anyway, it turns out I chose wisely - Dracula 2000 is a hoot. More Schlock than horror (as you might expect from the creator of the Scream franchise) it has the kind of kitschy charm of Buffy the Vampire Slayer only with worse dialogue and a sillier plot. Those purists who prefer a more classic Peter Cushing/Christopher Lee tussle between good and evil are unlikely to stay beyond the first reel, but there are rewards for those who stick it out.

    Miller plays Simon Shepherd the protégé of the mysterious Matthew Van Helsing (Christopher Plummer). A gang of thieves infiltrate Van Helsing's secret stash of old relics and unwittingly release Dracula from his silver coffin. Big mistake. The dark lord makes a bee-line for New Orleans in search Van Helsing's daughter Mary. On his way, he creates merry hell crafting a few undead henchwomen (mostly blonde) and enjoying unspeakable depravity in the middle of the Mardi Gras carnival. Unsurprisingly, Miller and Plummer pack their crucifixes and silver bullets and hurry over to save the day.

    This being a sexed-up modern-day version of Bram Stoker's classic, Dracula himself is far from the urbane older gentleman with the black cloak and the widow's peak - this one is young and spunky and has the kind of barnet you might find in a L'oreal commercial. Try to imagine a bastard hybrid of David Copperfield and Alan Partridge and you won't be far off. Dracula's hair is not the only highlight though: There are some brilliantly awful modern cultural references - Sweet and innocent Mary works in Virgin Megastore (geddit?) - and an audacious religious sub-plot which goes some way towards explaining Dracula's hatred of silver.

    All in all it is great fun. It was inevitably mauled by the critics, but I guess they don't have a sense of humour. Poor old Jonny's been in some turkeys since he made Trainspotting, but I'm backing him to hilt on this one - it certainly beats watching Mel Gibson and Rene Russo blubbing for two and a half hours.

  • I saw this on cable the other night. C'mon give the movie a break, it wasn't that bad. This is not Shakespeare; it's a Vampire movie, for Pete's sake. It's not after the Oscar, its entertainment. Sometimes a lot of the User commentators lose sight of what some movies are about.

    An example of this is a review of Santa Clause 2, where one guy wrote `The North Pole was a very distracting, annoying place to be. It seemed so far from reality'. Well I don't want to spoil his Xmas but Santa isn't reality. It was a MOVIE!

    Dracula 2000 was a lot better than the old Hammer movies or in fact a lot better than a lot of other Vampire moves. If you could ever do an original story on Vampires, this was close. I mean, what is in a Vampire script. Spooky guy/girl gets out of coffin, kills people (usually girls with great bodies) another guy/girl tries to kill them before they kill again. Oh and I forgot the part about the heroine is a reincarnation of the Vamps long lost love. (See Blacula, Fright Night, Dracula 1992 etc etc)

    Dracula 2000 was more original. At least he had a real reason for wanting the Heroine (his blood, her blood) and his origin was an interesting concept, better than Coppola's, which I still find confusing. This was never going to be An Interview with a Vampire, but it was a hell of a lot better than Queen of the Damned. If you like Vampire movies this should be on your viewing list.
  • ---in a campy sort of way.

    First, watch the DVD deleted scenes, extended scenes and audition featuring Gerard Butler. That will get you in the right mood! Then start the film.

    The first 30 minutes are a mess. After the opening scenes with Christopher Plummer as Van Helsing, that lays the groundwork for the story, they could have skipped all the scenes about the stealing of the coffin and just had Plummer tell Simon (Johnny Lee Miller) "we been robbed!".

    But the young people and the robbery and taking the coffin by plane and it crashing - all could be handled by voice-over. This is just a mess and not one of the actors are interesting or have any charisma. Especially Solina (Jennifer Esposito) going into the vault, dark and creepy and skulls and gad! you get the picture. We are in for a fright! Bah!!! So lame.

    Our first great shot of Dracula (Butler), is on the plane when he walks into the section of the plane and reaches out for Solina - and like any sane woman, she goes right to him. The love bite is next. Um Hmmmm! In the meantime, Mary Van Helsing (Justine Waddell - child like and innocent) is having dreams/nightmares seeing Dracula in her mirror. She is speechless, and we are too. OMG! She keeps saying "wake up - you're dreaming" but then he comes close and sniffs her and says "you're real" and I have to pause the film and fan myself.

    Troubled Mary goes to the church in New Orleans where the priest is a childhood friend, to get some answers about her Mother and as he is putting the candles out and turns to Mary - it is him, the big D. A gaze to die for. The next is Dracula perched like a gargoyle on the church parapet above the Mardi Gras revelers and he says "Farewell, Princess." Perfect!

    Down at street level, he walks among the drunken revelers with a bemused look. There is a giant TV screen showing dancers silhouettes, there are beads and coins tossed at him as he looks on with a knowing smile. He watches the giant screen flash images of atom bombs, rock stars, lingerie ads and women mud wrestling and says "Brilliant." Great satire!

    His walk through the "Virgin" record store is iconic, with all the young gals turning to look as he passes by. He gets Lucy, Mary's friend to take him to their home. His comment to Lucy, when she can't come up with a word to describe Mary's mothers decor of the house "catholic?" is priceless. And to her query "would you like some coffee?" he says " I don't drink----------coffee." Timed perfectly with just the right look. And of course, he has her on the bed and on the ceiling! Faint!!!

    It is like there are two films here - one a brilliant satire with great lines. And the other an incoherent teen/slasher/blood-fest. But it is almost possible to just start anywhere after the first 30 minutes and the story is interesting and makes sense of the Jesus Christ/Judas theme.

    The cinematography has some beautiful scenes. The Red Hall - the curtains blowing and the eastern theme music for the desert and cross scenes. The few lines Dracula(Butler) utters are great and with timing and marvelous expression. "The Bible is propaganda." "You think you can defend her with the Bible." To Mary "Everything I have is yours; and all you are is mine." (Shades of The Phantom.)

    Dracula to the Jesus Cross "I give them (revelers below) what they crave most. All the pleasures you denied them." And his gesture to Mary - arm and hand out as the camera pans away and he says "come let us feast" and the kisses. Wow!! Nellie bar the door. I want some of that!

    (8/10 - would have been higher but that first 30 minutes is just bad!)
  • This is such a beautifully filmed and acted film that it's a shame for anyone to miss it. The cast is just excellent, especially Gerard Butler as Dracula. His role is slightly underplayed which works beautifully for THIS Dracula whose real self is only discovered at the end of the movie. Wes Craven used everyone in the film exactly the way they should have been used.

    This is not a slasher movie. Although there is violence and blood the rest of the movie actually subdues this. It is a thoughtful movie that sets up the ending slowly, step by step.

    If you haven't seen it, by all means, give it a try and watch with an open mind and see if you can figure out WHO Dracula really is. (besides the hot Scot, Gerard Butler, who is just fascenating in this film)

  • Warning: Spoilers
    Wes Craven's "Dracula 2000" ranks right up there with my other Vampire favorites. I totally enjoyed this movie, and would recommend it to anyone who has more than a passing fancy for the subject. I viewed this film solely on it being an offering from Horror Impresario Wes Craven, and I was well rewarded for my loyalty. I was deeply impressed with this film. It was well done in all aspects, the acting was top-notch, especially from leads Gerard Butler, ("Timeline" "Phantom of The Opera" "300") and the Legendary Character Actor Christopher Plummer. The cast also boasts Omar Epps, ("House M.D.") Jeri Ryan, ("Star Trek Voyager" "Boston Public" "Shark") "That 70's Show's" Danny Masterson, and Sean Patrick Thomas, ("Cruel Intentions" "Save the Last Dance".) I was even impressed by Vitamin C's unique turn as "Lucy Westerman" a character loosely based on Bram Stoker's Lucy Westenra from the original source material. I loved the imaginative writing that formed the premise of the plot for this film. I mean the whole Judas Iscariot/Betrayal/Eternally Damned/Redemption themes really resonated with me, as it no doubt did for a lot of Vampire fans. On those levels it is comparable to the works of Novelist Anne Rice. The fact that the writers incorporated the history of a 2000 year old Biblical personage into this strange tapestry shows a fresh inventiveness and totally sums up the title. The overall look of this film was outstanding, tense and atmospheric, and the special effects were creatively and imaginatively done. A well done film! I loved it! 10/10
  • The story is very convoluted but it comes down to Dracula (Gerard Butler) is search of Van Helsing's (Christopher Plummer) daughter Mary (Justine Waddell) in modern day New Orleans.

    Let's get the negatives out of the way: Jonny Lee Miller is TERRIBLE; Plummer's accent is pretty obviously fake; there's far too much product placement for Virgin Records and the vampires crack terrible jokes. All that aside the movie is quick, it's fun, beautifully and atmospherically shot. The script is interesting--it gives Dracula a new origin which fits but is pretty silly too. Dracula is a reanimated corpse...trying to give him a different origin is pretty dumb. Also, crosses don't affect vampires just annoys them. Also there's plenty of blood and violence on hand and erotic sexual seduction by Dracula.

    With the sole exception of Miller the acting is good. Plummer works (despite the accent); Omar Epps is having a whale of a time; Justine Wadell is good and Esposito, Ryan and Fitzpatrick make a good team of scary (and sexy) vampires. Gerard Butler is fantastic as Dracula. He's young, VERY handsome, has curly black hair and a buff body. Also he portrays Dracula's sexuality and violence very well.

    So a slick, fast-moving and fun vampire movie. Worth catching.
  • I am surprised at some of the low-rated reviews for this title--and the stated reasons for the low ratings. In my opinion, Wes Craven here presents the most novel and compelling re-envisioning of the Dracula story since Lugosi. As far as originality and a fresh direction, this makes Coppola's production seem like a bloated but tired, over-produced rehash. Yes, Gary Oldman is a consummate actor and a great Count. But in Francis' version, Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves are totally flaccid and uninteresting. And Anthony Hopkins embarrasses himself with such an over-the-top portrayal of Van Helsing that I wouldn't be surprised if Oldman hasn't talked to him since. Tony almost seems to be purposely lampooning the story.

    Don't expect $100 million special effects. Craven had to make do on a shoestring budget. But that seems to have forced him to focus on the story rather than the flash. Butler could certainly have upped the intensity rather than relying so heavily on his drop-dead good looks to establish Dracula's charisma. No question, Gerard underplays the role, though that only seems to add moodiness and atmosphere--and is consistent with the character as he is presented in the story. Dracula is so bitter and internally conflicted that he hasn't got a lot to say to his victims--or even his pursuers. Also conflicted is the wonderful Christopher Plummer, who is so present in the role of Van Helsing that he really sells the premise of the whole re-invention in the film's first few minutes.

    For levity, Dracula's new brood of followers have a lot of trendy, new-age comments to make on the pluses and minuses of their new, undead status. They come off as Katzenjammer kids with fangs--but as amusing as they are, they still bite. They seem to be the only ones really having fun here: vampirism as a form of delightful liberation right up until the moment the stake sinks in.

    As Drac movies go, this is a winner. By the way, Plummer has been criticized by some reviewers for his curious pronunciation of the Count's honorific. But it is actually proper. If you were addressing him as Count or Vlad, yes, "Dracula" would be the correct form. But if it's the only identifier, then the single term "Draculea," just as Plummer pronounces it, is correct.

    Three cheers for the Count. Although Butler isn't quite as pretty here as Langella, he's got more to work with as far as engaging and original backstory. And he is spared Olivier's Van Helsing as kvetching crybaby. What it is about Van Helsing? No one did it better than Edward Van Sloan until Plummer came along in the 21st century.
  • This is my first review . I never add 1 but i just cant understand the 4.9/10 rating. First to say , i saw so many movies of every genre and this 1 is in my favorite 20 .. OK it has almost nothing to do with the Bram stoker version but honestly at the end of the movie i was thinking . I saw almost every Dracula movies ever and the Dracula bram stoker version is with any doubt the best 1 ever with an amazing performance of Garry oldman, on the second place ,,Dracula untold (2014),, and than this movie. That said, if there ever was a real vampire than this movie would get the closed to a logic explanation. So, if you like movies about vampires/Draculawith a deeper meaning than you will certainly like this movie.. Enjoy
  • takx248 January 2009
    I can't see why this film got such a low rating, it has easily became one of my top favorite movies of all time. The reason this movie is amazing, is because it takes the old Dracula tale that everyone knows and puts it into a modern time situation. It is a fun and enjoyable that keeps you in your seat. The acting in this movie is wonderful, actors like Johnny Lee Miller, Gerald Gutler, Christopher Plummer, and Omar Epps did fantastic jobs on their roles. Overall this movie has a great story line, above average acting, and many more. I recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys a good vampire flick, or anyone who just wants to sit back and enjoy a great movie. Easy 10 out of 10 no doubt.
  • 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.
  • This Movie rocked my socks! This movie was original, entertaining, attention holding and perfect in every other way. Plus not to mention great actors....Dracula was so attractive, alluring, and seductive that I found myself rooting for him. This movie was amazing, although its sequels were horrible and very disappointing. (havely because Gerald Butler did not portray Dracula in the sequels) so strap on your crucifix's cause this movie was AMAZING and will take you for a ride! This movie was excellent in many ways. First off, the plot.....was awesome. It was a new take on Dracula without losing the old feel for it and disregarding the legend. On the contrary, it added a feel of a modern Dracula, like he had adapted into out time. Then the acting was superb (again, Gerald Butler!!!! I love him) and also the director. (Wes Craven is a genius). So 10 stars to this baby.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I saw this movie for 2 reasons--I like Gerard Butler and Christopher Plummer. Unfortunately, these poor men were forced to carry a pretty dumb movie. I liked the idea that Dracula is actually a reincarnation of Judas Iscariot, because it does explain his disdain for all things Christian, but there was so much camp that this idea was not realized as much as it could have been. I see this movie more as a way for the talented Gerard Butler to pay his dues before being truly recognized and a way for the legendary Christopher Plummer to remind the public (me and the 5 other people who saw this film) that he still exists. I actually enjoyed the special features on the DVD more than the movie itself.
  • "Dracula 2000" is a great movie that is under-rated by the critiques. I had commented on this film before, but I accidentley rated it a 9 out of 10 which I had just realized was a mistake. The cast is great and the performances by Gerard Butler, Justine Waddel, Jonny Lee Miller, Colleen Fitzpatrick (Vitamin C), Jennifer Esposito, and Cristopher Plummer are some of the best actors that I have seen!!! Also Patrick Lussier and Wes Craven did an excellent job on making the film. When I saw that this had come on pay-per-view I was surprised when I saw that the critiques rated the film with a *+ which is one of the lowest movie ratings in the system. I think Dracula 2000 is a underrated movie that deserves more. I enjoyed the film so much that I bought the DVD!!! This is a great horror film with an excellent cast. I give it a 10 out of 10!!!!!!!!!!!! :)
  • Theo Robertson28 March 2004
    Warning: Spoilers
    DRACULA 2000 is a horror film that was continually shown on Sky Movies in Britain and considering it seemed to be screened about three times a week for a whole year I have absolutely no idea how I managed to miss it until it`s first broadcast on network television tonight . Actually seeing as I`m not much of a fan of horror movies the reason was probably down to my theory that this was going to be tripe . My theory was proved right for the most part

    !!!!! MINOR SPOILERS !!!!!

    What makes DRACULA 2000 such a bad movie is the amount of dumb scripting involved . For example early in the film the bad guys are flying Dracula`s coffin from London to America ( In a twin engine turbo prop plane ! ) and one of the bad guys is left alone in the cargo hold where Dracula comes to life . A fight breaks out , there`s lots of noise but the bad guys in the cockpit don`t hear a sound until the script demands it . It also appears in this segment`s climax that Dracula can control the weather but this seems forgotten about as the film progresses . Sloppy scripting , and there also seems to be a problem with the structure where there`s numerous scenes of characters being at the New Orleans mardi gras then the characters being at a different location such as police station in the following scene then they`re back at the mardi gras the scene after that which means the lack of credibilty in the plot is enhanced

    There`s something else that yanked my chain - Product placement . There`s umpteen scenes where the logo for a certain record label/retailer chain is in full view . I won`t dare publicise the company brand ( Except to say they also run a train company which is a national joke in Britain ) but I was under the impression this type of advertising was against British broadcasting guidlines and I`m surprised the BBC showed this movie if that`s the case

    There are some positives in DRACULA 2000 like the visuals for example . This is actually a good looking movie with a good looking cast and boy were those vampire chicks hot , but it`s something we should expect from Hollywood over the last few years - A very good looking movie that`s very dumb
  • Not so scary, but cool atmospheric horror and a decent cast make for a fun vampire movie. It would have been good, though, if the script had avoided overuse of catch phrases and combacks (which seem to have become the bane of horror and action films since the heady days of Schwartzenneger's stardom). Plummer is very good as Van Helsing who, as a twist, has preserved his life for a century-plus by extracting blood from Dracula and injecting himself with it, and in so doing passed on Dracula's "blood" (??) to his daughter. She's played by Justine Waddell, who seems like an actress to watch -- plus she looks a bit like Gloria Grahame!
  • I love Jonny Lee Miller and enjoyed this. I've read a lot of vampire/Gothic novels - Anne Rice, Christine Feehan and Amanda Ashley-just a couple of good authors, so I enjoy some vampire stuff once in a while. I won't hold this up as Brilliant but it's fun to watch and Jonny and the cast do a good job with the genre. I'm looking forward to finding Dracula II to watch, this has another actor I like, Jason London, so more to watch yet. Anyone looking for books of the genre see the authors above and if you like TV vampire try Kindred: the embraced, great show that ended too quickly because the main actor died riding his motorcycle and he was a good actor.
  • Please don't waste your time. This movie rehashes the worst of Bram Stoker's Dracula (Van Helsing), Anne Rice's Vampire Lestat (rock music and silly biblical references), and Blade (high-tech toys). I really like vampire movies and novels, and there are many out there that are very good . But not this stinker. Not even the soundtrack helps it, mostly because the movie resorts to ridiculous scary classical music rather than the "kick-ass metal" some reported. Only a few times did I hear any metal; mostly it was tortured violins. Avoid it like garlic and crucifixes.
  • the biggest problem with it was that wes craven came up with 2 really unique & original ideas for a dracula story. But he tried to combine them into One movie. And that really messed it up. Had the 2 ideas been 2 separate movies, they probably would have been better. But they just didn't work with each other right, it was like 2 movies cut & clipped into one. it was two completely separate storylines that didn't even connect until the very end. And the way he connected them was cheesy, stupid, and didn't work at all.

    he had some good subtle clues, and neat ideas in the beginning and middle of the movie, but he never elaborated on them, or hinted at why there were there. I hate movies that go out of the way just to give you fluff & stuff. there was no relevance to about a third of the scenes in the movie.

    and the end gave me that explicit feeling that they ran out of money, and just had to end it quick.
  • tatterwip29 April 2006
    This film is really bad. It maybe harsh, but it is. It really is. Poor script, every vampire cliché in the book is used, and no sympathy is given at all to the origins of the main character ... i.e. ole Dracula. There have been some truly brilliant Dracula/vampire movies in the past, but this doesn't even make it into the "dire" slot.

    Take a selection of people who seem to have dropped out of a teen-slasher move, add a dribble of Dracula Lore and mix in a heady tonic of religious/surreal day-dreaming ... and you get a confusing mess of a film - Dracula 2000.

    I really cannot find any good things to say about this movie, as if it wasn't bad enough that it was made in the first place, they seem to have made Johnny Lee Miller effect an English accent ... Whats the problem with that I hear you cry ... Well, he is English, but he sounds like an American trying to do an English accent.

    All in all you may as well say your money (if you were thinking of buying it), or rent it out, watch it, and discover for yourself why it's about as scary as the Tellytubbies.

    P.S. Although La La is pretty frightening!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Dracula 2000 (released in 2000, surprisingly) features a cast filled with network television experience. It's got such great actors as Danny Masterson (That 70s Show) and Omar Epps (House). With such a talented cast, how could this movie miss? /sarcasm OK, so this movie is BAD. It seems to be an attempt to update the old classic into a slasher film, which makes me wonder what kind of idiot thought that would be a good idea.

    The Wikipedia page for Dracula 2000 claims that this movie "offers a unique story for Dracula's origins not found in any other vampire movie" Wow, that is very true. In this movie you find out that Dracula is really Judas (yes, that Judas). After he sold out Jesus, God decided to punish him by giving him eternal life and turning him into a vampire. I guess this explains why he hates crosses and holy water so much.

    There is nothing remotely scary or shocking about this movie (well it scares me that it cost 28 million to make this garbage). In fact, most of it is just laughably bad.

    I just really don't know what else to say. I have to go cleanse my mind with a good movie...
  • JenMarsh29 December 2000
    Though better than John Carpenter's Vampires, this vampire movie lacked many things, including a strong storyline and meaningful subplots. Overall, the movie was a fun, B movie. However, as far as a good vampire movie, I think i'll stick to Bram Stoker's Dracula if I want to see a good Dracula.

    The man who played Dracula was not a convincing, romantic yet cruel character. He spoke with a lisp, and seemed kinda dorky. Not too convincing. And, the subplot of the beginning. It took a long time for the story to get around to what the movie was really about.

    That storyline, girl born with Dracula's blood running through her veins...that's a good storyline. However, how they got to New Orleans (and why, did they HAVE to have it New Orleans, it would have been a little better taking placein London) was a bit ridiculous. The product placement of Virgin Mega Record Store was horrible. How much did they pay for that?

    In any event, I do not recommend this movie...unless you're a Jonny Lee Miller fan.
  • When a group of thieves break into the antiques shop belonging to Matthew Van Helsing, they bypass the valuables and head to the basement, where they steal a pure silver coffin that they suspect is full of riches. They escape the scene via plane, but the coffin's inhabitant, Dracula, comes to life and kills them all and the plane crashes in New Orleans on the eve of the Mari Gras. With Dracula being drawn to his daughter Mary, Van Helsing flies to New Orleans with his protégé Simon in tow. However he arrives to find that Dracula has already regained strength and has turned several people already.

    I tuned into this years after it had vanished from the cinema having barely made more than a ripple at the UK box office. Seeing it on TV now I can totally understand why it didn't do much business. The plot doesn't really go anywhere and squanders any potential it may have had in a very simple little film that is all over very quickly. Taking huge jumps in plot logic (both real logic and vampire movie logic), the film throws up a few average action scenes and not much else. I wouldn't even really call it scary even if some of it made me flinch a little bit with the early gore. Neither the direction nor the script do anything to justify the update of this story and in the end it doesn't even really stand out as a good teen horror.

    The cast flatters the film and most of them are badly used with the bigger names playing second fiddle to the lesser names (in my opinion). Butler's Dracula is far too obvious and easy – he has no real charisma but yet we are supposed to buy that he is seductive and ruthless. Miller is OK but he is not very well used and is suddenly expected to carry the film with it dumped on him halfway in. Plummer does OK but Waddell is pretty annoying. The big names of Epps, Thomas, Esposito and a few others all look sexy and appealing but the film uses them badly considering their star status (consider Epps' face being prominent on the poster to see what I mean – that's practically false advertising!).

    Overall this is a fairly standard modern horror – a bit of gore, no real scares, no real thrills, poor plotting, poor characters and only a handful of amusing kiss-off lines. I can barely remember it even an hour after viewing and I doubt that I'll remember it for much longer so limited was it as a film. Wroth watching if trashy horror is your thing but other than that there is no real reason for putting yourself through this.
  • I watched this as a fan of Jonny Lee Miller's, but found myself coming away from it with a tremendous new liking for Scottish actor Gerard Butler (from Phantom of the Opera). He was the best thing about this film, and he proved himself to make a fantastic Dracula. You can really understand the sexy darkness of him, and it's fabulous. I also loved finding out what the film's theory about Dracula was, and believe me it's a fantastic twist, but I won't say what it is. This is a must see, if only for Gerard Butler and a new theory on Dracula. Certain party scenes are also fantastic, and the soundtrack is very modern and rocky, which really suits the film and Gerry Butler's take on Dracula. He really is very good, and by the end I found myself wanting him to bite me; he's very hypnotic when he acts, and you can really see it in his eyes, especially on the extras on the DVD. Must see, so all you women out there will understand what I mean!
  • Quinoa198423 December 2000
    I usually don't mind paying my admission for movies, but this one, damn. Believe me, I wouldn't say this is a terrible movie to gander at, if it's on cable for free. But if you feel you have to pay to see this movie, I wouldn't reccomend it. It is almost like a sequel to Bram Stoker's miraculous Dracula which was later adapted great like by FF Coppolla. But now we have this film, another lot in the league of Wes Craven try to be scary flicks. I won't totally doubt that there are some chilling parts of the film and it was smart to bring in Johnny Lee Miller who did good in Trainspotting (there his real name was Simon, here he is also known as Simon, weird huh), but that is it. Overall, the film gets overbearing and it is at points awful. Unless you watch it at the right times, which is few is any, this is a waste. C-
An error has occured. Please try again.