Cast:
Jonny Lee Miller (Simon Sheppard), Justine Waddell (Mary Heller / Mary Van Helsing), Gerard Butler (Count Dracula / Judas Iscariot), Jennifer Esposito (Solina), Christopher Plummer (Matthew / Abraham Van Helsing), Colleen Ann Fitzpatrick (Lucy Westerman), Danny Masterson (Nightshade), Jeri Ryan (Valerie Sharpe), Lochlyn Munro (Eddie), Sean Patrick Thomas (Trick), Omar Epps (Marcus), Tony Munch (Charlie), Shane West (J.T.), and Nathan Fillion (Father David) Directed by Patrick Lussier.
Review:
The story goes that when Wes Craven's Scream 3 (2000) was approaching post-production, Bob Weinstein of Dimension Films approached editor Patrick Lussier (who had edited a handful of Wes Craven films but had not directed a feature before) about making a film titled "Dracula 2000", with an understanding that, well he didn't know what it would be about. Lussier and Joel Soisson came up with a draft by the turn of 2000. Apparently though, the script required rewrites, because according to Scott Derrickson (who had his writing partner Paul Harris Boardman there), because Weinstein called him to see if he could do rewrites because the script was "terrible" and approaching filming in two weeks (while saying he was doing it because it was called Dracula 2000). Ehren Kruger was also used for script polishing. Wes Craven's name is used quite a bit in the credits and the promo materials as executive producer, although obviously he didn't have that much involvement with the film. Filming came together by the end of June (after a search to cast Dracula that apparently dragged all the way until the very eve of what came to be a rushed production) and apparently the final cut, after reshoots, came just a few days before release in late December 2000. While the film was not a major success for Dimension, Lussier would end up directing two direct-to-video sequels with Dracula II: Ascension (2003) and Dracula III: Legacy (2005), both of whom have different casts than this film (somehow, Rutger Hauer was recruited to play Dracula in one of them to go with Roy Scheider being in both sequels).
Do I really need to tell you that the film is not particularly good? Beyond a 99-minute runtime that drags its one weird twist to the Dracula story, not only have you seen this kind of film before in previous adaptations, but you have also seen it done with better gusto and better interest as opposed to this amusingly terrible piece of fluff. There are no actors here that seem to do anything with the material that wasn't treaded from even the lesser Hammer Dracula films, and it goes without saying that having one noted name in Christopher Plummer among a cast of "hey, it's the guy or girl from X" makes for a highly silly time indeed. Butler (a Scottish actor with a few film credits) is mostly left to play the role with characteristics that somehow make Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) seem serious in comparison (complete with hair curlier than the female lead). There is no allure present here, and it especially is amusing because of the idea that Dracula is actually also Judas, adding baggage that never really goes anywhere. The presence never lurks for any sense of doom or any sense of lingering hatred for being alive so long anyway. Miller and Waddell might as well be chasing ghosts with how noncommittal they seem to be making either of the roles interesting, as if they meant to be playing second fiddle to a vampire hunter like, say, Hammer's 1958 Dracula film, but you don't get the pleasure of Plummer getting out of second gear. I have to admit, the idea of a long living Van Helsing that tries to stay alive for the day when Dracula may return so he could kill him is at least semi-interesting, maybe because one never thinks they would see Van Helsing inject himself with blood (as filtered by leeches) from Dracula to stay alive. But one doesn't see any juice there for conflict, especially since one is also supposed to believe that Van Helsing decided "well, I have this blood in me, let me play with my wife anyway" along that. Mardi Gras in New Orleans seems listless here, especially since Dracula is only interested in, uh, whatever he wants from the lady that he has this "connection" to. You've seen the story before, but at least those had the semblance of not looking like a rushed cash-in to a year that makes Dracula A.D. 1972 look legitimate. It is highly amusing to laugh at, such as the vampire flunkies that range from Ryan to Epps in foolhardy level of threat or the climax that involves the image of Christ and a conveniently timed revelation about releasing folks (Dracula, who couldn't hang eons ago, can now hang here because, uh, God wanted him to do so now). I can't recommend it for serious viewing, unless you like to laugh at bad horror.
Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.
next: Frankenhooker.
No comments:
Post a Comment