Just finished DRACULA 2000. Well it wasn't bad, but it wasn't that interesting except at the end when they reveal the true identity of Dracula to be Judas of biblical time. Yes, the same one that betrayed Jesus. This was an interesting twist to the Dracula movies of the past, but it wasn't enough to save this movie. Why do movie people waste a neat idea on poor films with action and actors that nobody cares about. This idea could have turned the whole Dracula genre around for a strong renewal to the character of Dracula. Oh well.
The vault, weapons and the one female helped the film alittle, but I give it ** out of ***** stars.
Also I'm 37 years old and I believe filmakers are catering to younger audiences and this is taking away from the effectiveness of a good story with great characters. This statement isn't absolute, but just a general statement. Example I liked Dracula 1972 more than Dracula 2000 and both used young people as main characters.
>Example I liked Dracula 1972 more than Dracula 2000
I've always liked the Frank Lagella version myself.
I agree with John that "Dracula A.D.:1972" was much better,but "Dracula 2000" was thoroughly entertaining,in its own way,and they at least made Gerald Butler's Dracula a really vicious,mean spirited Dracula,making him much closer to Chritopher Lee's Dracula than the expected pretty-boy-with-fangs routine that we would nowadays expect.
It'll be pretty interesting in how the upcoming two direct-to-video sequels will be,and if they'll be any good.
>I agree with John that "Dracula A.D.:1972" was much better
Actually, I meant the 1979 version with Frank Langella, Laurence Olivier, Donald Pleasence and Kate Nelligan. That's ok, I like Dracula A.D. 1972 also.