Dracula 2000

Right on the heels of the new year, producer Wes Craven squeezed in Dracula 2000."What? Another Dracula movie?" you may ask. Well, according to the 2001 Guinness Book of World Records,Dracula holds the record of the character portrayed most often in horror movies, with 161 representations of the Count recorded on film. (Frankenstein is in second place, with 117 film portrayals.)

It's not surprising that the Dracula story has been filmed so many times. Sex and violence generally provide for a good box-office draw (meaning lots of moolah for the moguls), so why not tell a story that combines both?

Assuming that most people reading this article are familiar with the general Dracula story, I'm going to bypass the plot points of Dracula 2000and highlight a couple of its good and not-so-good features (as I see them).

GOOD: Sexy actors. Back in Victorian days, Stoker's novel was pretty racy stuff. Mind you, the Count wasn't a very attractive figure in the book with his hairy palms and the like, but there was still a definite sensuality in the way his victims succumbed to his will and desire. And with the exception of a couple of films, most notably Nosferatu,Dracula's generally been Mr. Tall, Dark and Handsome.

This is certainly the case in Dracula 2000.Through fan-based reviews of the film, I've determined that I'm not alone in finding this Dracula, played by Scottish actor Gerry Butler (Mrs. Brown)to be one fine-looking vampire. As of yet I haven't found any fan sites on the Web, but I'm sure it won't be long.

The cast also includes Jonny Lee Miller (Trainspotting),an actor I've never found to be very hard on the eyes.

And while I haven't read fan reviews as such, I have no doubts that the scene where the trio of female vampires descends upon their prey is considered pretty hot by some. I can't imagine a red-blooded man who wouldn't succumb to the vamp versions of at least one of the triad of Vitamin C, Jennifer Esposito (The Bachelor)and Jeri Ryan (Star Trek: Voyager).

NOT SO GOOD: Release date. The film was released on December 22, 2000, just six months after it started shooting! Filming wrapped up in mid-September, and the post-production was hurried through to get the film out before Christmas (and before the year end, to avoid the name change to Dracula 2001,I guess). A shame really. While it's certainly not a stinker of a film, I think it had the potential to get better reviews if they had extended the release date.

Go To Page: 1 2