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), 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.

Hackers.

Review #1128: Hackers.

Cast: 
Jonny Lee Miller (Dade Murphy / "Zero Cool" / "Crash Override"), Angelina Jolie (Kate Libby / "Acid Burn"), Fisher Stevens ("The Plague" / Eugene Belford), Renoly Santiago (Ramόn Sánchez / "The Phantom Phreak"), Matthew Lillard (Emmanuel Goldstein / "Cereal Killer"), Laurence Mason (Paul Cook / "Lord Nikon"), Jesse Bradford (Joey Pardella), Lorraine Bracco (Margo Wallace), Alberta Watson (Lauren Murphy), Penn Jillette (Hal), and Wendell Pierce (Special Agent Richard Gill) Directed by Iain Softley.

Review: 
I suppose it makes sense that this I encounter Hackers, since it seems to linger on how hip and weird it wants to be, even if it shows its age more so than actual people from the 90s. After all, what other movie can you think of that showcases Jolt Cola? (of which I can safely say I have had a cup of). Or offbeat hairstyles and fashion choices that make bow-ties seem sane by comparison? No doubt, the highlight of this is seeing the virtual environment and computer screens that we can see on people's faces without much problem. This is a film that certainly had some sort of curiosity about hacking and cyberpunk subcultures, where Rafael Moreu (screenwriter for the movie) talked with actual hackers to help develop inspiration for the movie, which the cast also ended up doing, to the point where Miller attended an actual hacker's convention. By the time this film was released, hackers even had their own manifesto out in the open. Sometimes, the best thing to say about a movie is to say that it's "just a movie", for better or worse. How can I take this movie seriously when the stakes and situations presented are so ridiculous in execution? This is a film that has a scene of our main lead hacking a local TV station's computer network to get it to show The Outer Limits (not that there's anything wrong with that choice) and leads into a hacking showoff with another hacker that has the imagery of cassette machines fighting over what tape to show. On one side of the film is a bunch of hacker heroes who like to roller-blade and listen to electronic music, while on the other side is a villain who un-ironically goes by "The Plague" who likes to skateboard around when working who plays the cliche of the corporate adversary, complete with a theft scheme right out of Superman III (1983). Actually, the fact that Penn Jillette (of the comedy magic duo Penn & Teller) is featured in a supporting role probably doesn't break the top five of weirdest things to note in this movie. One could probably write an entire essay over the strange nature of a film made in a time where people weren't as familiar with the Internet as they are today - you're reading this on a virtual screen, after all. Although the movie (made on a budget of $20 million) was not much of a success with audiences at the time, it does endure with its own cult following.

Miller does an okay job at handling a main role, but there are times when he feels a bit dry and not always too interesting, particularly when others are on screen who stand out in their own ways. After all, you might say he's a hacker, not a fighter. Jolie (in her third ever appearance on film) for example, has a certain kind of energy and nature to her that invites interest even with her closed off character and a hacker rivalry with Miller that goes (mostly) the way one would probably expect. They do share some chemistry with each other, at least, although the fact it is in a movie as weirdly built as this one is amusing. It proves amusing to see itself try to subvert the cliche romance, mostly because you'll find yourself involved with the hacking more. Santiago is fine, and Lillard certainly inspires hit-or-miss moments with his scene-stealing moments of hacking and weird hair. Mason and Bradford round out the hacker group, and they are both fine in their brief time. Clearly, the one who munches attention is Stevens, the keyboard cowboy (as he puts it) who makes the experience worth it in playing the role of the adversary without taking it too seriously or too amusingly. In lesser hands, it would've come off as silly nonsense, but Stevens is adept at being compelling to watch be the smug and clever foil, even if the stakes aren't particularly too high. Oh sure, a bunch of oil tanker fleets will capsize to cover a hacking scheme, but there is something truly amusing about the levels of tension (and occasional humor) the film wants to draw for its climax, complete with rollerblading, hacker-themed pirate TV show hosts, and splotches of color and imagery for a hacking showdown. Interestingly, the cyberspace effects are not computer generated imagery, but instead naturally created, using methods such as animations, motion control, or other methods. The cutting edge-ness that I'm sure the film had in 1995 is more of a soft edge now, but there is something to watch in its entertainment value regardless, whether for laughs or not. It's dumb and cheesy, but there's a certain feeling to its cheese that makes it one you can't reject too easily out of hand. I'd hesitate to easily call it a cult classic, but it's certainly the kind of film you could watch late at night and point at with chuckles, for better or worse, even if I can't quite give it a positive endorsement. It isn't much as a crime film, but it is certainly something on an entertainment level. It's entertaining junk of the weirdest order even with over two decades of age behind it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.