Dracula 2000.

Review #2114: Dracula 2000.

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), Weinstein called him to see if he could do rewrites due to the script being "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.

The Master of Disguise.

Review #1705: The Master of Disguise.

Cast: 

Dana Carvey (Pistachio Disguisey), Jennifer Esposito (Jennifer Baker), Harold Gould (Grandpa Disguisey), James Brolin (Fabbrizio Disguisey), Brent Spiner (Devlin Bowmna), Edie McClurg ("Mama" Disguisey), Michael Bailey Smith (Bald Henchman), Austin Wolff (Barney Baker), Kenan Thompson (Himself), Jay Johnston (Rex), and Maria Canals (Sophia) Directed by Perry Andelin Blake.

Review: 

You would be surprised to know that this was released on August 2, 2002 if you saw the film, because, well, it really seems to be the first film-void to ever exist. Just remember, this film was written by Dana Carvey. Well, actually he wrote the story and co-wrote the screenplay with Harris Goldberg, but the point is still true. Of course we all know that Carvey wasn't exactly a slouch for comedy. Born in Montana but raised in San Francisco, he had become interested in comedy after graduating with a degree in broadcast communications from San Francisco State University; he made a few appearances in film and television in supporting roles, but his break came with joining the cast of Saturday Night Live in 1986, and he would work on the show for seven years with a mix of original characters and impressions of various personalities of the day. Of course, not every SNL cast member went on to just be a major film star, but he did dabble in film with features such as Opportunity Knocks (1990) and Clean Slate (1994) alongside a short-lived variety project with The Dana Carvey Show (1996, which lasted eight episodes). This is the first and so far only film directed by Blake, who had gotten into film as a production designer in the 1990s after graduating from Harvard University in architecture. Incidentally, his first feature was Billy Madison (1995), and he continued his association with Adam Sandler as part of his film crew for years. The film managed to make back its $16 million budget twice over, but I suppose some things like directing aren't meant to be. This was produced by Happy Madison Productions, which Sandler had co-founded in 1999; Carvey was the third SNL collaborator that had worked with Sandler to have his own film with the company, which naturally included Rob Schneider and David Spade in illustrious works such as Joe Dirt (2001) that clearly got better in later years. At any rate, this is the last film that Carvey served as the star and the last feature he did for nearly a decade, which he stated was because he wanted to spend time with his family.

Honestly, their was a sliver of cynical guessing that this was meant to be some sort of joke on the audience, as if Carvey was trying to take your curiosity and your mood at the same time, which only makes sense if you realize that this really isn't an 80 minute movie either (owing to minutes of credits that filler a movie with no soul). One scene has him ripping a dude's nose off before spitting it back onto his face...so that's one way to do it. Heck, go even farther, you might as well have shown him go for more than 20 impressions, you could have him try to impersonate the other actors and make it an offbeat one-man show. Carvey tries to coast on mimicry and can't quite get there, as if one is watching a premature rendition of MacGruber (2010) but without the "cult audience". By the time one gets to him trying to "disguise" himself as a turtle, one has already checked out, as if being irritated is too much effort; one instead turns to indifference and hope it doesn't turn to pity over an attempt at boyish charm for a near 50-year old actor. Esposito evokes a small smile in that she doesn't become overwhelmed by the void of boredom that arises from no chemistry between her and Carvey. One has seen Gould in far better material, particularly since he spends a good part of his time playing insult man to Carvey. It is strange to see Brolin here, if only because the makeup here makes him look like he has morphed into Burt Reynolds, one that is bemused in standing around and occasionally doing a gag from time to time (hence the cameos, because they basically do the same one three times with the guest star going around and stealing an item before the mask comes off for Brolin). When asked about his favorite film that wasn't liked by critics, Spiner once responded with this film...that is probably the nicest thing I can say about a performance that has in a loop, one that sees him cackle before he farts. I don't need to pile on, do I? Perhaps it was a coincidence that Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002) was released just a week before this feature. Think about it: that was also a movie where the lead actor (in this case, a SNL cast-mate with Mike Myers) played a bunch of roles, and it also featured a strange amount of cameos (although this feature's best idea of a cameo is Bo Derek). I guess the quality of the impression goes on how much one doesn't think of Peter Sellers when it comes to assuming the persona of a role. Of course, I say this because Sellers had a variety of classics to go along with quite a handful of missteps when it comes to impressions with the rhythm of humor (in other words, there is a reason one thinks of Being There rather than The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu as the last hurrah for Sellers). You see where I am going with the impressions, do you? You can do a whole bunch of impressions, but if it comes in a movie that has the bare minimum when it comes to timing or gags besides "look, he went from a faux-Italian accent to makeup", the biggest loser is the sucker who has to watch it, and they sure do get to look at the background a bit after a while. As a whole, the movie is blah, filled with rote gags that only a bored juvenile person might appreciate. Actually, watching a film develop into a void could make for a terrible curiosity for those who really, really, really want to see cheap gags and nothing else.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

Next batter up.