Reviews

Dracula 2000 is a modern take on the basic plot of Brahm Stoker's Dracula, except that it seems Wes Craven, like most of us, was bored to tears by that novel and decided to add some sexuality and fate, and a Hollywood type ending.

Van Helsing, yes, THE Van Helsing has found a way to prolong his life as he searches for a way to kill Dracula, who "cannot be killed".

Simon (Miller) works for him as a semi-punk antiques dealer. They have a sexy American chick working for them, and her partners in crime are planning to steal whatever it is Van Helsing has so heavily guarded.

They plan an elaborate heist and all they find is a coffin…and booby traps that kill two henchmen. Still the now four henchmen steal the coffin and take it to a cargo plane.

Van Helsing, alerted, tells Simon to watch the business and mysteriously flies to America in search of his daughter.

Cut to America where a pretty Brit Mary and her roommate Lucy, both working for Virgin records in New Orleans, are talking. Mary has visions of being trapped in a coffin with a man.

Meanwhile on the cargo plane Dracula is awakened and chomps his way through the crew of the plane, which crashes…near New Orleans.

Simon follows Van Helsing and they discuss vampirism, Van Helsing tells Simon he has Dracula's blood inside him, keeping him alive. They travel to where the crash happened to see the bodies, and sure enough they are all vampires. The pair kill them except for the hot American, then they escape to New Orleans just in time for Mardi Gras.

Mary now has visions of the very hot Dracula (Butler) eating people and looking at her with a very forlorn expression, and we realize this is Van Helsing's daughter, blood of Drac''s blood, the woman Dracula most desires.

Dracula then eats a female reporter and Mary's roommate Lucy, forming the triumvirate of sexy female vamps who tease and torture Simon at every turn.

Mary is slowly seduced by Dracula (and trust me, seeing him, what woman wouldn't? Gerard Butler could chomp me any time) and discovers his secret.

He is not Vlad the Impaler, he is much older.

The brightest point is that Wes craven has finally found a much more plausible explanation for whey Dracula is repelled by Christian object like crosses, though the way it is played out seems a little hokey.

Of course the ending is very weak. We know Good will triumph, and Dracula, who supposedly can't be killed, is way too easily done in by one of Bram Stoker's cure-alls (sunlight, stakes, crosses).

But at the very end he shows compassion for a victim, and I have to wonder, was he really so bad? Craven never lets me know, no matter how many times I've watched this.

Drac seems lonely, something of a romantic, and at the same time his is an antisocial serial killer.

I'd say this is for Gerard Butler fans, Johnny Lee Miller fans, or people who love vampire movies and books. Here I saw the inspiration for the jumping scene in the opening of "Underworld", and probably 80% of Sherrilyn Kenyon's "Night" books(Night Embrace being the first), sold as romance novels for women. This movie is for that same audience.

Warning, this may contain some spoilers:

Well, this movie was pretty good. I gave it a nine because it is the best Arthurian movie. No crap about lady-of-the-lake or some evil incestuous sister, no Merlin the Magician.

It's a very realistic portrayal of a half Woad (original Briton) half Roman general Arturius who leads a band of legendary calvary knights who are the big names of "Camelot".

Guinivere is not a simpering crying hysterical Julia Ormond, she's a butt kicking hot Kiera Knightly who's a helluva lot more realistic than other Guins. She's a warrior of the Woads, a society where men AND women did fight.

In the plot Arthur and his knights will gain freedom from 15 years of servitude if they rescue a Roman family deep in Britania, saving them from the invading Saxon horde.

Now it did a good job of showing how twisted the Romans could be, but it also really attacks Christianity which was a little disturbing, even to a non Christian like me.

Arthur rescues the family who's son may one day be a pope and rescues their servants including the Woad warrior Guinivere.

Arthur has been waging war against the Woads for some time but in the face of the Saxons he joins up with them.

Parts are cheesy like forcing Arthur to acknowledge his half Woad side, and also the enduring motto 'for freedom!' I kept laughing because every time someone said the fight was for the cause of freedom someone in the theater did a Braveheart routine.

Okay, so we get it, the natives of Britania loved freedom.

Well the plot moved a little slowly and the battle scenes weren't that great. Why must directors always shake the freaking cameras in battle scenes so you can barely tell what's going on?

Also the Woads had no shields, which was pretty odd since they did have them in reality. And the Saxons were portrayed as a barbarian horde which is as far from the truth as the image of shiny metal adorned Golden God-like warriors is.

It's much more historically accurate except for a few small details which I know if they allowed in would have slowed the plot even more.

It was overall good and I'd recommend you see it in the theaters. However, if you LOVED Camelot and the fantasy that Guinivere was a slut doing Lancelot as well Arthur, this ain't the movie for you.

There's great eye candy. Guinivere (Knightly) is mega hot and shows off skin, Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd) is also mega hot but we never get to see any skin. Bummer. But the half naked Woads aren't all bad to look at, girls.

I'd recommend this movie, and as a nice change from most Arthurian legends it has a happy ending which leaves you hopeful, though us history buffs know in the end the Saxons conquered the island until the Norman invasion in the early 13th century.

This movie is great because it features two female leads but it isn't a chick flick.

-=some SPOILERS=-

A nurse (Driver) and a mediocre actress (McCormack) use the nurse's dumb boyfriend's scanners to listen in on phone calls.

They overhear Danny, lookout for a gang of bank robbers who's calling his girlfriend.

The police don't believe them when they report and the actress takes down the phone number. They concoct a scheme to blackmail the robbers for some of the take.

They call Danny and set up a drop but Danny tries to shoot them and wounds a homeless man.

So they track down Danny and find out his boss is named Mason. They blackmail Mason but get nowhere, eventually tracking down Mason's boss Kierigan.

In the end they find Mason's house and hold him hostage. They manage to steal all 10 million pounds and get away.

Good humor, though fairly subtle for American audiences, but British humor fans will laugh their butts off. Good acting and good direction. entertaining as a date movie, girl-power flick or light comedy.

I recommend checking it out, rent it the next time you're out and pair it with Bridget Jones for more silly humor from the Brits.

Well, I gave it a 1, but to be fair they did the best with the material at hand.

Like many I was forced to read the book in high school. No one could tell me why. Recently, bored and looking through my library I found it and read Waugh again. Three days I can never have back.

So I thought I'd rent the movie see if they could explain the significance of this tripe.

Beautiful scenery, great direction, superb acting...BORING. It's like religious propaganda thrust down your throat.

Sir Laurence Olivier does the dying scenes superbly but Diana Quick lays it on a bit thick as Julia when it comes to the hysterical religion scenes at the end of the story.

I'd only recommend this if even Cliff's Notes of Brideshead are putting you to sleep.

At least the language is boiled down from Waugh's WAY overdone "look at how smart I am" vocabulary. I'm no dummy in the language department, but Waugh is loquacious and the movie comes dangerously close to being so as well.

everyone seems a little too cardboard and like they're trying so hard to make mediocre material into Shakespeare. It just ain't and never will be.

A must miss.