| NAVIGATION |  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote of the day:
"There is a large element of me in every role I do. Actors who say they can dive inside a character are either schizophrenic or lying." -- Bruce Campbell |
 |
|
 |
 Review: Dracula 2000
By Acheron on December 26, 2000 10:02 PM
Killbot and I just got back from seeing the new thriller from Wes Craven, Dracula 2000, starring Jonny Lee Miller, Justine Waddell, Gerard Butler as Dracula, and none other than "Hyde" from That 70's Show(otherwise known as Danny Masterson). While the movie was horribly cheesy, it did entertain the two of us, which in the end, is what we went to the theatre for in the first place.
The film starts out pretty good. Some theives break into a highly guarded antique shop because they know that there's something behind all the locked doors that's worth all the security. The theives still the "treasure"(the coffin of Dracula, as you can see in the trailer), and head to my home state of Louisiana, where shit hits the fan.
Some stuff happens and Dracula tries to get in contact with a natural born vampire, which happens to be related to the antique dealer/vampire hunter. He follows them to Louisiana and tries to stop Dracula. That's all I'll spoil.
OK, the movie starts out really cool, and really promising (despite the fact that Hyde was cast in a minor role). Once they get to New Orleans though, it gets super cheesy, and grossly inaccurate. Maybe it won't be so bad for people that aren't considered "locals," like myself (and I guess, Killbot), but the portrayal of some of the New Orleans street shots during Mardi Gras were complete bullshit that would never and could never take place. Out of fairness, I must admit that some of the shots were live action of the festivities.
Aside from the setting problems, there were a few characters that were unneccessary altogether (for example, the almost too hot news anchor), and details like how the theives got the tools to get past the security to get to the "treasure"(ie, the retinal scanner, hand scanner, and voice recognition). A little more development of some of these areas, and removal of other scenes/characters would have made this a more quality film.
Altogether, this was a very mediocre film, but if Time is on your side this Christmas holiday, then you won't necessarily be wasting your money on this one(no guarantees though!). There's a thrill factor, and a comedy factor. This movie rips off a few ideas from other movies, as well as creates some new ideas for who Dracula really is. For example, in End Of Days, the main character had dreams of Lucifer seducing her. Same idea here.
Conclusion: 6.5/10.0. Rated "R" for violence, language and brief nudity(oh yeah!), it's not for little kids, or those easily offended be many things. It's not the worst film I've seen, but it's far from excellent.
|
Reader Discussions:
|
|
RE: Review: Dracula 2000
|
 reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 27, 2000 11:38 AM
( / )
-/..'
V^^V
|
|
|
RE: RE: Review: Dracula 2000
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on December 28, 2000 3:44 PM
Shut it!
|
|
RE: Review: Dracula 2000
|
reply
|
|
Posted by maji (maji@dtheatre.com) on January 2, 2001 9:38 PM
Some might not be happy with Wes playing with the Vampire myth. I thought he took a old idea and reworked it very well. You have to give Wes Craven credit for reworking a well worn theme and giving the viewers something more then just blood, blood, blood. D2K got my vote as being one of the better horror movies in last years batch. Anyone care to compare it with "Lost Souls." Action was clean and strong. Photography was alright, nothing like The Cell. Couple of boo-scared-you moments. All and all, a fun chill. See you @ the movies.
|
|
RE: Review: Dracula 2000
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on January 4, 2001 4:40 PM
Oh for God 's....Wes Craven only Executivly Produces the movie! He did not direct, write or anything like that. I personally think this movie was horrible. They have to go through all that security shit to get to the tomb, but Dracula only has to burst through a crumbling brick wall to get out? And why is it that Dracula is harmed by a single ray of sunlight, then is able to attack a news van in broad daylight, and this is somehow all of a sudden harmed by sunlight again when he bursts into flames? I could go on forever, but I'd much rather spend my time alking about a good movie.
|
|
|
about that sunlight
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on August 19, 2001 6:14 AM
yes there were many stupid mistakes but the sunlight wasn't one of them...
on the plane when it was covered with a dark cloud he attacked.
and at the swamp the news lady comments something like crap now the sun's gone...or was it clouded over...or perhaps the sunset...anywho she said one of the 3 making it possible for him to kill them
|
Discuss this story
|
|
|
 | Win a copy of Striptease!
|
|
![Digital Theatre [DTheatre.com]](images/logo.gif){kind=logo}
