Dracula 2000

By making concessions for a possible sequel, Dracula 2000 wilts when compared in the light with other Dracula films.

Although it's not half bad -- which doesn't mean it's half good -- this horror cheapie comes equipped with a few ideas, a little atmosphere and a couple of serviceable scares.

One way or the other, there really is something to be said for a movie which seems to revel in its own inherent comic-book silliness.

There's a lot of scary stuff in Wes Craven Presents: Dracula 2000. There are eyeball-sucking leeches, decapitations, punctured necks... and appalling acting.

The gratuitous use of the city (New Orleans) during Mardi Gras is the least of this movie's unoriginal sins.

Dracula may stay undead in the new millennium, but there's not a sign of life - oh, that bloodless acting - in this sorry mess.

Bloody awful movie.

This movie has simply been the best vampire movie since I have seen it a few years back. There has been no equal vampire movie. This was before Gerard Butler became popular so he still had impressive acting skills. He played probably the best vampire I have seen. Jennifer Esposito played a very sexy vampire in this movie as well. It was not that technologically advanced in terms of speciall effects but was impressive. The music in this movie was something I really liked too.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Dracula's Legacy is a 2000 horror film directed by Patrick Lussier. The film is set in London and in New Orleans. An elderly antiquarian hiding in his home, locked up in a tomb Dracula. A group of thieves, however, frees him and from there began a long trail of blood. The film tries several times to hit the viewer twisting the reality with the dream, but fails just managing to bore him. Besides this, he can not even scare or disturb public lil because of certain scenes that despite seek to frighten, make you laugh.

Vampire films always have the potential to be good, but "Dracula 2000" is not among the ones that deliver. It starts off promising enough - you have Christopher Plummer as an aged but likeable Van Helsing, and some of the suspense scenes in the beginning are kinda fun. But as the movie goes on, it ultimately **** itself dry with stupidity. Dracula should be a very menacing and imposing character - Gerard Butler's version just looks like a rich guy in a night club. The other vampires should be frightening and disturbing - instead, we get boring guys and dumb, over-sexed women ones. Plummer's character, the most promising, is killed off before he does much of anything, and it's left up to his young . . . (apprentice?) . . . to enter this conflict with comparatively little convincing shock or fear, use tricks that we never find out how he knows, and basically kick two vampire's asses while otherwise getting lamely thrown, beaten and disarmed (seriously, can't he hold onto that gun just ONCE?). Van Helsing's daughter is pretty but boring, and ultimately it all culminates into a completely over-the-top finale where - wait, since WHEN THE HELL is Dracula actually Judas Iscariot? REALLY? And he gets hung from an electronic church cross in a ridiculously overdone death? Do yourself a favor and look for better fare - there's little good blood in this pale treatment.

As bad as reviews say it is? Absolutely. It looks terrible, requires very little of the stacked cast, and ultimately fails to be anything more than a failed vanity project.