Dracula 2000

To celebrate my 2000th ranking I thought it would be fun to pick a random title with the same theme. Like 90% of all the ideas I ever had it turned out to be terrible and disappointing. I should've waited 1 more ranking and just re-review that one Kubrick title... what's the name.. oh yeah, Lolita.

There is something uniquely trashy about trash mid-budget cinema from the early 00s that just feels more grating and lowbrow than trash cinema of any other era, before or since.

Be sure to throw this on the next time your dad asks you to come and hang around.

Interesting and competent, but that's about it. Helps a lot in Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon by having Seven of Nine and Mal Reynolds in it.

Horrible, horrible movie. Trite, boring, and just... horrible.

The ending is actually painful to sit through.

Barely theatrical quality. Looks like a direct-to-video film with horrid effects and acting.

It wasn't a great movie and it was old and cheesy, but I didn't think it was too bad.

Daft in so many ways. Enjoyable for what it is though. Kudos for interesting origins. Don’t forget to shop at your local Virgin Megastore.

This movie goes for that year 2000 angst with Linkin Park soundtrack. Gerald Butler is Dracula, whose origin is that He is Judas Iscariot. This movie sucks big time. Feel the fake edge !

Pretty decent vampire movie with lots of good action, good looking ladies, and a little tongue in cheek humour thrown in as well. Looking back at the cast now (2017) there are quite a few well known names in there.

eu tenho um problema com esse filme. eu adoro e adoro apenas e somente apenas pq tenho um tesão louco no dracula aqui. mas aí me contaram que é o gerard butler. e eu meio que odeio o gerard butler.

The more it tries, the more it fails.

just ordinary and forgettable.

At least some effort to make this movie decent would've been nice. Entirely forgettable plot. Not remotely scary or funny. But hey, pretty much everyone is in this so yay!

Good for a vampire action, definitely beats Blade.

4 worth experiencing

30.000

A pretty solid addition to Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Awful film. I looked at this and said hey, Christopher Plummer, Gerard Butler and Nathan Fillion, can't be all bad right? Wrong.

One of the worst vampire films of all time. An interesting origin story is about the only thing this movie has going for it.

Resurrection again! Lussier has some genuine ideas to fiddle with. Dracula does not register on camera any more than in a mirror. And his invisibility in mirrors, speaking of which, is used against him in a clever trap (a gimmick thrown away in flashback). And the really Big Idea -- the revelation of his true identity and explanation of his allergy to the cross and to silver -- is a whopper indeed. Dracula himself, alas, is a bitter disappointment: a big-haired TV soap-opera-type hunk, Butler.

Epic Fail!

Ughhh, this was lame.

1

okay movie

Some beheadings & a nice twist with good pacing & action are the highlight of this forgettable fluff. It's the heavy who while sexy, is just a bit too much in that he can just hold out his hand and have the chicks flock to him. Who doesn't want to be Dracula after this? Well the dying part wouldn't be so cool.

Just don't do it!

decent ideas

Tis was so bad, I wanted to drink the blood of the people who made this.

Terrible movie. Not even close to watchable.

Gerard Butler is a very sexy Dracula. Love the twist at the end.

Really crappy. That's all there is to say.

A deeply confused movie that yet has some effective moments. Christopher Plummer lends some much needed class, but Gerard Butler is the worst Dracula ever