Kattiera Nana
I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.
Diagonaldi
Very well executed
BelSports
This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.
Bluebell Alcock
Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies
NateWatchesCoolMovies
Wes Craven's Dracula 2000 is one of those horror flicks that proudly slaps his name over the title like he runs the show, when in fact he's only participating under a vague executive producer credit. Now that we've got that little detail out of the way we can talk about what a thoroughly awesome movie it is, and how the haters can go suck it. It's a high concept slice of bloody fun and has easily one of the best pairings of an actor with the Dracula mythos ever: Gerard Butler. He's young and lean here, before he turned into a tank later in his career, and he makes one hell of a kick ass Dracula. The story is too good to be true: a team of arch criminals, led by Omar Epps and also including Hyde from That 70's Show (lol) break into the European mansion of Dr. Abraham Van Helsing (Christopher Plummer) and steal the heavy duty coffin which he has stashed in his basement and used to contain Vladdy for over a hundred years. Helsing has always used a compound derived from his blood to keep himself alive all that time and ensure that he never gets loose. The burglars have no idea what they're on for, and pretty soon Butler is loose and ready to get freaky, tearing apart their getaway plane and running off into the chaotic streets of New Orleans during Mardi Gras. He's searching for a girl (Justine Waddell) to have sex with her and fulfill some horrific prophecy (nice little nod to End Of Days there). Dracula, Mardi Gras, Gerard Butler, Christopher Plummer; four ingredients to pretty much ensure your movie is gonna rock. Plummer makes one of the best on screen Van Helsings in my books, rivaled only perhaps by Anthony Hopkins. Butler is a sleek, hip and sensual Dracula, playing the role to the bloody hilt and sedimenting a really cool rendition of the character, with a surprising twist ending that adds some depth to the guy. Watch for work from Jennifer Esposito, Sean Patrick Thomas, Shane West, Lochlyn Munro and Nathan Fillion as well. Great retelling, or rather addition to the legend, held up by Butler.
Kim Sikoryak
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.
Rainey Dawn
This is not my favorite vampire/Dracula film but I didn't hate it either. The movie had it's moments of excitement and action but it did not thrill me as I had expected.I felt something was missing from the film yet I could not place my finger on it. I'm not sure if it was the cast itself or the acting... maybe it was the set or costuming? The story wasn't too bad but it was lacking a bit for me.I will say it's not a horrible film - just not the A+ I was hoping for. It's a pretty good watch for a rainy or otherwise boring day - it will provide some entertainment.5/10
Neil Welch
Van Helsing's daughter works in a record store. Dracula turns out to be (spoiler!!!) Judas Iscariot. In New Orleans. Otherwise it's the usual shenanigans.This is not a bad film of its sort, it's just that its sort is not the sort of sort to command greatness or anything approaching it. The most interesting thing is to see Gerard Butler in what is essentially a pre-fame leading role. As an aged heterosexual male, Mr Butler doesn't do very much for me in the "Ooh, isn't he lovely" department, so I have to look at his performance dispassionately. He always seems to me to be at war with his teeth at the best of times, and the addition of the usual vampiric canines causes additional problems. The mullet is memorable, and I must confess that the lad has charisma. This is just as well because I didn't rate the performance as anything special - "functional" is the word I would use. On a par with the rest of the cast.This film is OK - no better, no worse.