Metascore
26

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 14 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 14
  2. Negative: 7 out of 14
  1. There's a lot of scary stuff in Wes Craven Presents: Dracula 2000. There are eyeball-sucking leeches, decapitations, punctured necks... and appalling acting.
  2. 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.
  3. The gratuitous use of the city (New Orleans) during Mardi Gras is the least of this movie's unoriginal sins.
  4. Reviewed by: Cody Clark
    17
    Dracula 2000 is a stake in the heart.
  5. 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.
  6. Reviewed by: V. A. Musetto
    0
    Bloody awful movie.
  7. 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.
User Score
8.2

Universal acclaim- based on 88 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 12 out of 20
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 20
  3. Negative: 8 out of 20
  1. Jul 26, 2011
    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 wasThis 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. Jul 13, 2014
    10
    Dracula 2000 is great on every level. The movie has fantastic effects, acting, music and a story that
    explains who Dracula was before he was
    Dracula 2000 is great on every level. The movie has fantastic effects, acting, music and a story that
    explains who Dracula was before he was Dracula and how he became Dracula.
    Full Review »
  3. Dec 1, 2012
    1
    Vampire films always have the potential to be good, but "Dracula 2000" is not among the ones that deliver. It starts off promising enough -Vampire films always have the potential to be good, but "Dracula 2000" is not among the ones that deliver. It starts off promising enough - you have Christopher Plummer as an aged but likeable Van Helsing, and some of the suspense scenes in the beginning are kinda fun. But as the movie goes on, it ultimately sucks itself dry with stupidity. Dracula should be a very menacing and imposing character - Gerard Butler's version just looks like a rich guy in a night club. The other vampires should be frightening and disturbing - instead, we get boring guys and dumb, over-sexed women ones. Plummer's character, the most promising, is killed off before he does much of anything, and it's left up to his young . . . (apprentice?) . . . to enter this conflict with comparatively little convincing shock or fear, use tricks that we never find out how he knows, and basically kick two vampire's asses while otherwise getting lamely thrown, beaten and disarmed (seriously, can't he hold onto that gun just ONCE?). Van Helsing's daughter is pretty but boring, and ultimately it all culminates into a completely over-the-top finale where - wait, since WHEN THE HELL is Dracula actually Judas Iscariot? REALLY? And he gets hung from an electronic church cross in a ridiculously overdone death? Do yourself a favor and look for better fare - there's little good blood in this pale treatment. Full Review »