Advanced Search Beta »
Basic Search Fields
Dracula 2000
Metascore
26 out of 100

Generally unfavorable - based on 14 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 14
  2. Mixed: 7 out of 14
  3. Negative: 7 out of 14
view
per page
  1. Chicago Tribune
    Reviewed by: Robert K. Elder
    50
    By making concessions for a possible sequel, Dracula 2000 wilts when compared in the light with other Dracula films.
    All this publication's reviews
  2. Austin Chronicle
    Reviewed by: Marc Savlov
    50
    A middling film through and through, despite the occasional shocks it tries to earnestly to achieve.
  3. L.A. Weekly
    Reviewed by: Manohla Dargis
    50
    Although it's not half bad -- which doesn't mean it's half good -- this horror cheapie comes equipped with a few ideas, a little atmosphere and a couple of serviceable scares.
  4. Film.com
    Reviewed by: Gemma Files
    50
    One way or the other, there really is something to be said for a movie which seems to revel in its own inherent comic-book silliness.
  5. Los Angeles Times
    Reviewed by: David Chute
    50
    Dracula 2000 is at heart a solidly old-fashioned cloak-and-fangs vampire flick. It honors the central traditions of the form a lot more often than it skewers them.
  6. Entertainment Weekly
    Reviewed by: Owen Gleiberman
    42
    One of those desultory F/X and no script potboilers that seems to restart itself with every new scene.
  7. TV Guide
    Reviewed by: Maitland McDonagh
    40
    In the end it's the same old blood pudding.
  8. New York Daily News
    Reviewed by: Elizabeth Weitzman
    38
    There's a lot of scary stuff in Wes Craven Presents: Dracula 2000. There are eyeball-sucking leeches, decapitations, punctured necks... and appalling acting.
  9. Variety
    Reviewed by: Joe Leydon
    30
    Overall, though, the slapdash pic appears to be the work of folks who made things up as they went along; you might say they were, well, vamping.
  10. Chicago Reader
    Reviewed by: Jonathan Rosenbaum
    20
    The gratuitous use of the city (New Orleans) during Mardi Gras is the least of this movie's unoriginal sins.
  11. Mr. Showbiz
    Reviewed by: Cody Clark
    17
    Dracula 2000 is a stake in the heart.
  12. Rolling Stone
    Reviewed by: Peter Travers
    10
    Dracula may stay undead in the new millennium, but there's not a sign of life - oh, that bloodless acting - in this sorry mess.
  13. New York Post
    Reviewed by: V. A. Musetto
    0
    Bloody awful movie.
    All this publication's reviews
  14. The New York Times
    Reviewed by: Stephen Holden
    0
    It's a little sad to see actors of the quality of Christopher Plummer and Jonny Lee Miller struggling straight- faced to dignify this sewage.
prev next
Page:
  • 1

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
6.9 out of 10

Generally favorable reviews- based on 28 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 11 out of 16
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 16
  3. Negative: 5 out of 16
  1. kingshahid
    10
    This movie has simply been the best vampire movie since I have seen it a few years back. There has been no equal vampire movie. This was before Gerard Butler became popular so he still had impressive acting skills. He played probably the best vampire I have seen. Jennifer Esposito played a very sexy vampire in this movie as well. It was not that technologically advanced in terms of speciall effects but was impressive. The music in this movie was something I really liked too.… Full Review »
  2. XandraN.
    9
    I gave this movie a 9 becasue, i think that the actors are lovely but the ending sucks. In almost every movie Gerard was in he dies. PLus everyone says Vampires can't breathe, why did he die by getting strangeled? Gerard is the lovelyest (Not even a word, but there should be a picture of Gerard beside it in the dictionary!) Man on earth. … Full Review »
See all user reviews »