Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

VividSimon Simply Perfect

UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

SnoopyStyle Matthew Van Helsing (Christopher Plummer) is a collector and Simon Sheppard (Jonny Lee Miller) is his apprentice. His secretary Solina (Jennifer Esposito) is the inside man for a break-in led by her boyfriend Marcus (Omar Epps). They open a coffin and release Count Dracula (Gerard Butler). The thieves are turned into vampires. Van Helsing is actually the original who takes regular injections of Dracula's blood to stay alive. His estranged daughter Mary Heller was born after he started his injections and has a psychic connection with Dracula.It's a complete mess. There are great actors but it's hard to say if anybody is the lead. It needs an overhaul to figure out who the audience is following and clear up the story. It probably has a few too many ideas and too many characters. It fails to build the rooting interest and therefore the scares don't hit as hard.

Dalbert Pringle Yeah. OK. I guess Vampirism had to originate from somewhere - But Judas Iscariot betraying Jesus Christ!!?? Duh. Like - WTF!? Am I really supposed to accept this bull? C'mon! Give me a frickin' break, already!! I mean, how thick-headed can people get? London Antique Dealer, Mathew Van Helsing, and his young sidekick, Simon, head to New Orleans to rescue Virgin Megastore clerk, Lucy Westerman (who has transfused blood of the 'Goth' neck-nibbler flowing through her veins), from falling under the hypnotic charms of Cinema's Most Famous Bloodsucker.This modern-day take on the Vampire Classic clearly shows us why some legendary characters are best left to their own era.Dracula 2000 has a few good moments and better performances than one might expect, but basically it's a really-really dumb movie. This film was followed by 2 utterly terrible direct-to-video sequels.

Neil Welch Van Helsing's daughter works in a record store. Dracula turns out to be (spoiler!!!) Judas Iscariot. In New Orleans. Otherwise it's the usual shenanigans.This is not a bad film of its sort, it's just that its sort is not the sort of sort to command greatness or anything approaching it. The most interesting thing is to see Gerard Butler in what is essentially a pre-fame leading role. As an aged heterosexual male, Mr Butler doesn't do very much for me in the "Ooh, isn't he lovely" department, so I have to look at his performance dispassionately. He always seems to me to be at war with his teeth at the best of times, and the addition of the usual vampiric canines causes additional problems. The mullet is memorable, and I must confess that the lad has charisma. This is just as well because I didn't rate the performance as anything special - "functional" is the word I would use. On a par with the rest of the cast.This film is OK - no better, no worse.

bucur-ioan92 In the movie the main character is Dracula that actually comes from a Romanian story ... It is said that when Vlad Tepes or Vrad Dracul as he was called (the name was due to the fact that pulled people to punish impaled) after a battle would end the world would have seen you drink human blood. In reality it would be drinking red wine and everything would have been just a creation. Film's director should focus more on the true story of Dracula, had to find an actor who does not look more real and not a vampire and some action had to be filmed rather Bran Castle in Romania that supports the story vampire Vlad Tepes frightening due to the construction. Too bad not related in any film, nor in this story to strive for true fiction Vlad Dracul ...