Watch Dracula 2000 For Free

Truly Dreadful Film

Simply Perfect

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Good movie but grossly overrated

This is a poorly conceived and made updated version of Dracula in most respects, but most egregious is its blatant and repeated product placement for Virgin Records. Two of the main characters work at a Virgin Records store. They wear Virgin shirts outside of work. In one scene, as Dracula watches a music video, three Virgin logos are prominently visible in frame. Plus, the entire production is based upon selling garbage to young people, from the movie itself to the CDs sold in Virgin's stores, including the '90s rock and metal soundtrack for "Dracula 2000." Wes Craven, renowned for directing slasher movies directed towards young people, is advertised as the movie's producer. With the exception of Christopher Plummer (after "Nosferatu in Venice" (1988), appearing in yet another bad Dracula-related movie) as Van Helsing, the cast is infested with young-adult actors. Most of them are largely known from British and American television programs, which doesn't help a production that largely looks as though it were made for TV.The Mardi Gras scenes in New Orleans are pathetically claustrophobic--there's one small alley full of revelers that would make for a sad clip for "Girls Gone Wild"--and other scenes are wanting of extras. The vampires leap about, toss people around, perform acrobatics and spout one-liners like they're in an episode of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." The editing is choppy at times, with an especially bad edit during the bible scene at a library. Perhaps, the best thing going for "Dracula 2000," however, is that, especially after Dracula appears, it moves at a fairly decent pace, which is the least a movie so obviously inspired by the music videos its Dracula claims are "brilliant" should manage.As a reworking of Bram Stoker's novel, "Dracula 2000" makes some strange and mostly regrettable alterations. I'm fine with updates, re-locations and a young cast, and I've seen all of those things put to good use in other Dracula movies. Van Helsing has even extended his lifespan beyond most mortals in another movie, albeit not by using leeches full of Dracula's blood. And I don't think he's ever fathered a child when he may've been well into his hundreds. This isn't the first time his daughter has been mixed up with the vampire after his resurrection, though. "Dracula 2000" in quite a few ways is reminiscent of "Dracula A.D. 1972," from its dated updated title, its extended battle between Dracula and the Van Helsings, to its focus on youth culture. Gerard Butler is but one in a long line of suave Counts that hardly resemble the Count of Stoker's book. Especially when he's walking around with his shirt unbuttoned, or getting looks from every girl in the Virgin Records store, or during his sex scene with Lucy, he seems to be specifically derivative of Frank Langella's 1979 romantic Dracula.Finally, the Dracula-Judas connection is just stupid, just like the rest of the movie's surprises. At least, I suppose, it's a change of pace from all of the Dracula movies that blow the Vlad the Impaler connection way out of proportion from Stoker's novel, where it comprised only the name "Dracula" and a couple sentences of speculation from Van Helsing. Stoker didn't even research the historical prince enough to locate him properly in Wallachia instead of Transylvania. But, still, Wallachia is far closer to Transylvania than is Judea, home of Judas. "Dracula 2000" pretends its Judas connection explains something of Dracula's aversion to Christian iconography and silver (the latter not included by Stoker), but ignores the gaping hole it digs leaving unexplained whether and why he'd, then, end up in Transylvania or why he'd travel to England.There are a few things to like here, though, besides the relatively fast pacing. The movie references Stoker's book and adopts the Lucy and, more briefly, Dr. Seward names from it, as well as Dracula and Van Helsing. On the other hand, renaming the Mina type, here Van Helsing's daughter, as "Mary Heller" is too on the nose in representing the character's dual natures. And the alteration of Bela Lugosi's famous line to "I don't drink... coffee" is admittedly funny.(Mirror Note: The movie also does a so-so job with mirrors. Dracula's lack of a reflection allows him to sneak up on Van Helsing in one scene, but it leads to the Count's entrapment by the doctor in another. Oddly, Dracula couldn't see through this mirror, but another vampire is able to see through a one-way mirror of an observation room. This Dracula's image also can't be recorded on camera or even be seen through a camera's lens.)

Wow where to start with this one. I can say that it made me watch it because of the cast. This is 2000, before Butler was King Leonidas in 300, before Nate Fillion was doing Serenity, before Christopher Plummer was...wait a second, what the hell is Chris Plummer doing in this film? What the heck? It's something to behold, this one. It inspired me to write this review for golly sake. Gerard butler spends most of the movie casting his dreamy eyes despairingly over the unfortunate people who find themselves in his lustful way. His hair blows and frills in the breeze and I swear I can see the product glistening throughout his beautiful locks. Oh yeah, he's Judas in this one. Dracula is Judas.t This is just a terrible movie. But I watched it in its entirety so what does that say? It's actually amazing to know that they somehow made this film. It's so 2000. In every hilarious, campy, cliché ridden way. It's fun to watch, I have to say....some of the stuff you will see will have your jaw agape in amazement...utter amazement for the fact this movie exists. And these actors were in it. Johnny Lee Miller what the hell are you doing in this? Working on your bag of terrible accents? I guess when Dracula is being hung he suddenly can't fly anymore? Huh? He loses his powers or something? And then the sun comes out and burns him alive. Really though, these ideas in this are actually pretty cool. It's a neat idea to have a twist like having Draco be Judas Iscariot. Then the credits rolled and Linkin Park came on and then Disturbed and I was like, man, music really sucked that year. But this movie is that crappy music, it's a horrible movie. It's everything I hate about that music. Come to think of it, it's really the visual equivalent of that total pile of dog poo music genre. But because it's this bad it has a place in my heart. Put this in the 2000 time capsule. FILE UNDER : 2000 Dracula MOVIE/UTTER SHIIITE

Dracula 2000 is one of those films that doesn't appear to be anything else than another cheesy B-flick with a paper thin plot, bland characters and awful dialogue. And while granted it is a B-flick in tone, it has more depth than that.First of all, it has some real acting talent working for it. Both Christopher Plummer as Van Helsing and Gerard Butler as Dracula are very good actors in their own right and it shows. Butler is not a perfect fit for the character of Dracula, but he is much better than you'd expect. The more minor actors are also refreshingly decent and do manage to keep the story afloat throughout the entire film.The story is also good and smooth, if somewhat basic in principle, the special effects work surprisingly well and the soundtrack fits the style well. But what I really love about this film is the way it uses and re-purposes vampire lore. It uses all the usual clichés skillfully, but the best part is the new backstory they give Dracula. It's unlike anything I've seen, yet fits perfectly, neatly explaining most of the idiosyncrasies he has. Beautiful, absolutely beautiful, and I do hope it catches on.And that's Dracula 2000. It's a good film with some hints of greatness, despite the goofy name. Well worth a watch for all vampire horror fans.

This one is beautifully well done, with an interesting storyline, elaborate graphics, unique style, occasional humor...and a terrific Dracula! All of these factors make this film stand out, even today, in an age filled with vampire films.It is definitely worthy, and really excellent, if not epic.It doesn't look dated at all! Cons: Some of the fight scenes are silly. For example, that Selena surely didn't learn how to fire a gun! It is really a pity that the sequels, Dracula II Ascension & Dracula III Legacy, as good as they are, didn't follow this original film closely.However, Jason Scott Lee. the guy who looks Asian in the following two sequels, did a pretty good job! But I still wonder: why didn't the filmmakers continue the storyline of such a great film which is really close to being a masterpiece? Why the departure from the epilogue of the first film? If only the sequels turned out to be what I wished them to be, things could have been much better! Because this vampire flick deserves a nicer treatment of a trilogy! Yes, the trilogy is nice. Maybe it could have been nicer.