Featured Audience Ratings

• Melvin W

  
  Dracula: You made the world in your image. Now I make it in mine.  "19th Century Chills Terrify The 21st Century" Dracula 2000 is bad. It's the worst Dracula related film I have seen, yet it has some entertainment value in its awfulness. You know those movies that are… More
  Dracula: You made the world in your image. Now I make it in mine.  "19th Century Chills Terrify The 21st Century" Dracula 2000 is bad. It's the worst Dracula related film I have seen, yet it has some entertainment value in its awfulness. You know those movies that are bad, but are so bad, they are good. Well, this isn't one of those, but it isn't so bad that it is unwatchable. Actually there are some decent ideas in the film. I really liked the connection between Judas and Dracula. Had it been used in a better way, it could have been much better. But the whole idea was executed in a hurried and sloppy way, that made it come of as idiotic, when it should have been inventive. It is easy to see that Dracula 2000 wants to reinvent the Dracula-vampire genre. It wants to be the Scream of the vampire genre. It wants to use humor and predictability as an advantage, but it never even gets close to doing that as well as what Scream did for the slasher genre. There are some points of interest with the movie though. Christopher Plummer plays Van Helsing, which was a great casting decision. It's too bad that he was mostly wasted though. Gerard Butler plays Dracula and he isn't terrible, but like normal, he is appearing in a movie that is beneath him. There's some well done scenes, some cool images, and I liked the use of Christianity, but on a whole it never gets to where it needs to be. The acting for the most part is pretty lifeless. There are some beautiful women that are there just because they are beautiful.  Where this movie fails the most at is with the fact that it isn't a horror film. Sure that's what it's classified as, but never in the movie does it seem like it's even trying to be scary. It may, in fact be trying, but it never appears that way to the viewer. It seems like an hour and a half of failed laughs and suspense. I'm fine with horror movies that try to create laughs, but there has to be a sense of something in the way of horror, and Dracula 2000 just doesn't have that. In the end, it is just a failed attempt at recreating a Dracula story for a new generation.

• Al S

  
  A hip, stylish, thrilling and exhilarating re-imaging of the classic tale told in the twenty first century. A smart, funny and action-packed horror flick with brains as well as teeth. It's one of the best vampire films involving Dracula since Frances Ford Coppala's film.… More
  A hip, stylish, thrilling and exhilarating re-imaging of the classic tale told in the twenty first century. A smart, funny and action-packed horror flick with brains as well as teeth. It's one of the best vampire films involving Dracula since Frances Ford Coppala's film. It's one frequently cool thrill-ride that delivers the goods. A great cast. Christopher Plummer is brilliant, Johnny Lee Miller is terrific. Gerard butler is excellent, he brings a great presence and is thrilling in the role of the iconic character.

• Jason S

  
  Not really that good and you knew what was happening every step of the way. There was a good twist on the origin of Dracula that I really liked but the film was pretty one note. It's the action movie version of Dracula.

• Tsubaki S

  
  The worst Dracula adaptation to film ever made, and boy have there been a lot of movies about Dracula. So do the math about how many shitty past adaptations this thing is beating.

• Curtis L

  
  lame.

• Cindy I

  
  An updated telling of the original Dracula story. Interesting to see how old elements (Dracula carried from Transylvania to England on a ship) are made new (the same trip made on a plane). Not a great movie, but OK. I liked the explanation (not part of the original story) of how… More
  An updated telling of the original Dracula story. Interesting to see how old elements (Dracula carried from Transylvania to England on a ship) are made new (the same trip made on a plane). Not a great movie, but OK. I liked the explanation (not part of the original story) of how Dracula became what he is.

• Dr Blood  

  
  Dracula was played quite well but not very scarily by Gerald Butler. In fact none of it was very scary at all which is a major problem for a "horror" movie! Dracula just isn't frightening anymore. Vampires are so comic book now that I think the chances of there ever… More
  Dracula was played quite well but not very scarily by Gerald Butler. In fact none of it was very scary at all which is a major problem for a "horror" movie! Dracula just isn't frightening anymore. Vampires are so comic book now that I think the chances of there ever being a really scary vampire film ever again are quite slim ...so it wasn't all the director's fault.

• vieras e

  
  I wasn't too impressed when I saw this the first time, but it felt a little better second time around. I loved the fresh new take on the old Dracula myth. Gerard Butler makes a very good Dracula with his intense, mesmerising stare. Everything else was still a bit lacking.

• Kylie B

  
  Mmm Gerard Butler. And the film is ok too.

• Dean !

  
  Not seen this for a long time, but from what I remember it wasn't very good.

• Antony S

  
  A band of thieves burglarise the property of what they know to be a descendent of Abraham van Helsing. His only real treasure seems to be in the shape of a near-impenetrable coffin. And they all seem surpised when Dracula emerges from it.... With that kind of premise, you kinda know… More
  A band of thieves burglarise the property of what they know to be a descendent of Abraham van Helsing. His only real treasure seems to be in the shape of a near-impenetrable coffin. And they all seem surpised when Dracula emerges from it.... With that kind of premise, you kinda know what you're getting from Dracula 2000. At least this is the kind of cheesy straight-to-video nonsense that KNOWS it is cheesy straight-to-video nonsense. Though the premise of the van Helsing line keeping watch over the Prince of Darkness for centuries is a good one, the narrrative thrust is lost under the B-movie hallmarks: dire acting, a no-prescence lead, dodgy effects, tits and a crap modern metal soundtrack (with the exception of Slayer's 'Bloodline'). The film isn't an out-and-out washout, offering one or two neat visuals (the billowing red silk curtains, the shot that explodes the wolf into a cloud of bats), but ultimately there are no surpises here. Esposito is of course effortlessly sexy.

• Luke B

  
  A little bit of camp is put in this update of Dracula. Never takes itself too seriously and triumphs in comedy and action, but is a bit light on horror.

• Emily A

  
  A guilty pleasure. Gerard Butler is wicked as Dracula and it's a pleasure watching Vitamin C get killed. I just wish Justine Waddell was less of a squeaking gerbil.

• Dann M

  
  Wes Craven presents a bold and provocative interpretation of Bram Stoker's classic tale in Dracula 2000. In this re-envisioning, Dracula awakes from his tomb to seek out the daughter of Van Helsing after having been imprisoned by him for over a hundred years. The cast is pretty… More
  Wes Craven presents a bold and provocative interpretation of Bram Stoker's classic tale in Dracula 2000. In this re-envisioning, Dracula awakes from his tomb to seek out the daughter of Van Helsing after having been imprisoned by him for over a hundred years. The cast is pretty strong, and includes Jonny Lee Miller, Gerard Butler, Jennifer Esposito, and Christopher Plummer. The writing is also fairly good, and puts a fascinating new spin on the Dracula legend. However, the directing is weak and isn't able to fully realize the vision of the script. Yet despite its problems, Dracula 2000 is an entertaining film with an intriguing story.

• Andreia C

  
  sucked big time

• Erin C

  
  I can't believe all the high ratings others gave this movie. It was absolutely awful. I love vampire movies, but this one was just bad. Not even the fact that Gerard Butler (yum) was in it could save this movie. I couldn't wait for it to end.

• Jason R

  
  Some of the acting was horrible, but the story was absolutley fantastic! The surprise reveal at the end pertaining to Dracula's origin was a very cool idea, and should have been worked more into the movie because that alone was one of the only reasons I liked this movie.

• Laurence C

  
  One of the biggest loads of crap ever unleashed by Wes Craven in his producing chair. Production values are doubtlessly high, but the film sure looks stagey and cheap as hell. Featuring not a single convincing performance (even Butler is mind-bendingly terrible as Dracula himself),… More
  One of the biggest loads of crap ever unleashed by Wes Craven in his producing chair. Production values are doubtlessly high, but the film sure looks stagey and cheap as hell. Featuring not a single convincing performance (even Butler is mind-bendingly terrible as Dracula himself), shlocky SFX work and an annoyingly self-concious screenplay that rapes Bram Stoker's masterpiece with great disinterest, Dracula 2000 is one of the shittiest chunks of gothic horror ever put to film. It could, however, provide a good laugh if it aired on TV.

• Marion R

  
  An Interesting back story, an aspect which I liked. Plus there is a pale Gerard Butler as Dracula, looking very hot. It was fun.

• Nicky M

  
  Gerard Butler plays a good vamp and I enjoyed the use of the 3 maidens of Dracula even in this updated version. Overall though, the corniness permeates through and I both like and loathe the twist so I am a bit conflicted here lol.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings