"The Most Seductive Evil Of All Time Has Now Been Unleashed In Ours."

Without doing any actual research, I'm going to guess that Count Dracula appears in more movies than any other character. If he's not the first on that list, he is at least in the top five. That being the case, if you are going to use him in a movie, you'd better have some original or unusual angle that will make him stand out from all the Dracula movies that came before yours. Dracula 2000 fails to do this and will be consigned to the bin with all the other Dracula rejects.

The movie starts with a scene taken from the original Bram Stoker novel. The Demeter, a German ship carrying Dracula's coffin, crashes on the shores of England. The crew is all dead and the pilot is strapped to the wheel, ropes, the only thing holding his corpse to his post. The footprints of a wolf that gradually turn into those of a man, lead from the ship. A cloaked figure is then shown wandering the streets of London. That's the one and only scene that is taken from the source material and is the only one that contains any kind of sinister atmosphere.

The movie then flashes forward to the present day where a group of thieves are breaking in to an antique shop owned by a Dr. Van Helsing (Christopher Plummer). What they think is a coffin full of jewels, is of course, everybody's favorite count. Since the original novel ends with the death of Dracula, it is never explored where the book and the movie diverge. A later flashback shows that the original Van Helsing captured and imprisoned Dracula in the 1800's. Since the book is mentioned in the movie, I suppose we can assume that Stoker took artistic liberties with the actual events when he wrote it.

The thieves take the coffin on board an airplane bound for Jamaica, still unaware of its actual contents. They finally open it of course, and Dracula attacks them all of course. The plane then crashes near New Orleans. Why New Orleans? Maybe Dracula read Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles on the plane and figured it would be a cool place to hang out for a while. Since any mention of Vampires in New Orleans is bound to invite comparison to Anne Rice, why even bother to set a Vampire movie there at all? She has that particular city staked out, and I say leave it to her.

The rest of the movie pretty much follows the standard plot of every other Vampire movie, but in case you still want to see it, I won't give any other details away. Although as you watch this movie, you will already feel as if you've seen it, since it is loaded with so many horror movie clichés that you end up with a been there, done that, kind of feeling anyway.

There is little or no suspense throughout the course of the film. No scenes that make you jump or put you on the edge of your seat. It is almost completely free of gore and sex, with only a quick glimpse of cleavage and neck wounds.

Although the movie does try to explain Dracula's origins in an interesting way, it does little to advance the plot or really matter to anyone in any way.

With so many other movies opening this holiday season, don't waste your time with this one.

Did you enjoy Scott's review? +0 -0

 

Dracula 2000 (that title sucks) attempts to put a new spin on an old tale. In essence it copies the book. It just adds a new origin. However, Dracula has always been a fascinating villain, and this version is really no worse off than the rest.

In Stoker's book Dracula goes to England on a boat whose crew he eats. In this movie it is a plane to New Orleans. In the book he pursues a girl named Mina whose best friend is Lucy. Here it is Mary and Lucy. In the book he has three vampire 'wives'. They are also here.

The one new angle this movie has is that they explain Dracula's disgust and fear of religion and the cross. According to this movie, Dracula was Judas who betrayed Christ and thus caused the crucifixion. If only they had good psycho therapy 2000 years ago Dracula would have had fewer issues.

Christopher Plummer is good as Van Helsing. Another role like this and we can call him the Peter Cushing of his era. Who is not good is the actor who played Dracula. His acting is adequate but he has no presence. Dracula is a larger than life character and this actor just does not have it. Granted it doesn't help that he has very limited lines. The actor who played Van Helsing's assistant, Simon, had more charisma, or maybe it was just that it is so rare to see a British actor kick ass, that he stood out.

A decent horror movie that could have definitely used a more charismatic star.

Note to Scott's mention of no nudity. There was a tit shot in a crowd scene on Bourbon St. A girl on a balcony lifts her shirt up for the onlookers below.

Did you enjoy Eric's review? +0 -0