Today’s fanged film is Dracula 2000 (released in 2000, obviously) and I’m excited because it’s my era. Also, it’s my second favourite adaptation – or, third, if we’re counting Dracula Rising as an adaptation… but I can see from your expression that we’re not.
Okay, so before things kick off, what are your initial
thoughts on Dracula 2000?
It’s what I call “bubble gum cinema.” It’s a movie that doesn't have a big budget
but is reasonably written. Honestly? It could be a Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode.
There’s nothing outstanding about it, but it’s enjoyable.
It’s kind of ironic that the title for Dracula 2000 comes
up in this metallic font, reaffirming that you’re going to be watching a
different kind of Dracula movie… and then it goes straight to Victorian
England. There’s a kind of irony in that I appreciate.
The intro doesn’t really give much away, though, does it?
You get the typical bloodbath aboard the Demeter, with the poor old sod lashed
to the wheel and carnage everywhere… then a flash of Dracula walking through London
– then it’s straight back to modern London. I’m always grateful for a slice of
Butler but is the intro really necessary?
A total waste of time. It’s almost as though they were
padding out that part of the movie. They could have used it as a flashback
later just as easily.
I don’t know if I’ve ever mentioned this before, but I
had a massive crush on Jonny Lee Miller when I was younger. Watching this again
now, I’m wondering why. His character comes across as such a douche at the beginning!
He treats Jennifer Esposito's Solina like such a bro! Wah, it’s so unfair
that you’d say no to me!
Not exactly hero material…
He's the one in Trainspotting, right? The blonde one there? I didn’t even recognise him at first.
That surprises me because he hasn't changed a bit in twenty years.
Anyway, it’s interesting that Van Helsing is using leeches to
drain Dracula – for a couple of reasons. First, leeches were a big thing in
medicine during that time in Victorian London but also because it would take an
age to drain a body of all its blood, one leech at a time. It makes sense that
Dracula would be a shrivelled up husk after a hundred years or so.
Christopher Plummer and Jonny Lee Miller are just a
taster of the amazing cast Dracula 2000 has to offer. I know the name VitaminC (as Lucy Westerman instead of Lucy Westenra, for whatever reason) doesn’t
mean anything to you, but she was a big singer at the time. There’s also DannyMasterson, Sean Patrick Thomas, Jeri Ryan, Nathan Fillion, Omar Epps - and by
the way, does Omar Epps ever not look pissed the fuck off? He just plays Pissed
Off Guy, right?
Omar Epps isn’t really in it much, though, is it? He has a couple of good scenes, but that's it. He hadn’t really hit
it big yet when this was filmed, with things like House. I’m not saying he’s been typecast,
but yeah, he’s basically Annoyed Black Guy.
Christopher Plummer was absolutely the perfect choice for Van Helsing.
He’s a tremendous actor and a perfect addition to the cast. A total coup. There
are all these up-and-coming actors, with an old master to balance them out.
He was such a great choice for Van Helsing. He could have been
Helsing in any number of productions of Dracula. You could have put him
in the 1979 version, for instance, and he would have been brilliant. He tends
to be overlooked as an actor, which is a shame. Plummer is always there in big movies, but you don't always notice him. You
wouldn’t believe how many big roles he’s had.
Maybe it’s not the biggest cast, but it’s enough to get a
young fangirl excited, I promise.
It is actually a very good cast, though. You could
call it a Who’s Who of the early 2000s. Like you said, they might not all be
A-listers, but there are a lot of recognisable actors.
Oh, and did I mention Gerard Butler as Dracula? Gerard.
Freaking. Butler. As Dracula. Life doesn’t get any better than that…
I know you prefer a scary, straight up villain when it comes to Dracula, but come on...
Gerard Butler.
I did see this back in 2000 when it first came out but it would still be a few years before I even knew who Gerard Butler was. 300 was his big break, of course – or at least it was the first time I noticed him. He was in the likes of Mrs.Brown and Reign of Fire, but, like this, I don’t remember him in them. It was 300 that made Gerard Butler a household name.
When we watched the 1979 Dracula yesterday, we
talked a lot about its being a romance, rather than a horror movie. I think
there’s a good blend of romance and horror in Dracula 2000. If I hadn’t
seen it a few (ahem, dozen) times, the jump scares here in the cellar scene
would definitely have gotten me. They’re actually quite nasty deaths, which were
very of the time. Look at Thir13en Ghosts or House on Haunted Hill.
Same in-your-face, unapologetically gory deaths.
Speaking of which… ugh. The bit that we’ve just
gotten to… the bit where the leech latches onto Nightshade’s eye… I could watch
this movie a hundred times (and there’s a chance I have) and that would
still make my skin scrawl.
But the thing that really gets me about the whole bit in the airplane is...
God DAMN Gerard Butler is a sexy ass Dracula. I love that
cheeky grin he gets when he’s about to whoop someone’s ass and the smooth way he moves
when he’s enthralling someone and… I’m getting off topic.
Ahem.
I’ve never been the type of person who could narrow down
their musical tastes any more than “I like music” so I can't say that I like the soundtrack because it’s my type of music. I don’t love all the songs, even some by bands that I love. I do like a
lot of them, though. I suspect it’s not really your type of thing,
though.
It’s not bad, really. Definitely of its time. Very late ‘90s/early ‘00s
grunge. I don’t really know many of these bands, but I do recognise a lot of
the songs. There were some I quite liked, actually.
So, the music and gore both give the movie a very Noughties
feel but there’s also a whopping dose of Millennial snark, which (almost more
than Gerard Butler) makes Dracula 2000. The dialogue is so natural that
it’s like listening to my friends talk. I love this scene, between Simon and
Marcus:
Simon: *pulls a crucifix*
Marcus: Sorry sport. I'm an atheist.
Simon: *daggers comes out of bottom of crucifix*
Simon: God loves you anyway.
Simon: *stabs Marcus in eye*
There were some funny moments, for sure.
I love the aesthetic of this film. The wild debauchery of New Orleans during Mardi Gras juxtaposed against the sombre Catholicism of Dracula’s past is striking. But it’s not just that; it’s also shot extremely well. The shadow and light work, the Chiaroscuro, is well done – take the town hall where the body bags are lined up, for example. The angles are also well thought out.
It is very well shot. Horror films can be too dark
sometimes. With this one, though, I don’t feel like I’m ever struggling to see,
which is good.
There’s nothing overly creative about the film, though. It
didn’t have a “Wow!” factor, but it was competent. Everything is functional.
I don’t agree with you there. You’re completely missing
the symbolism that runs throughout the film. Some of it is subtle (Virgin
Megastore? Vampires and virgins?) while some is pretty in your face – literally
at times. (Leeches!) Whoever wrote Dracula 2000 made some
brilliant connections.
There’s a beautiful aesthetic, a humorous element, a good
bit of gore, plenty of sexy time, and cracking (if brief) action sequences. What
doesn’t this version of Dracula have?
Well…
It doesn’t stretch itself, does it? At least as far as the
setting and costumes go. That’s the benefit of it being modern. It’s also what lets
it down as a Dracula film. Where are the flowing capes and ruffled shirts?
He’s just wearing a dark shirt and a trench coat. He could be from The Crow.
I love that they swapped the cape for the long
coat. It’s so perfect and so, so 2000s. If they’d tried to keep the cape in a modern setting, it
would have been cringey. Plus, it’s hot. Emo boy hot.
Emo vampire Gerard Butler hot.
Sometimes it can be frustrating watching Dracula adaptations
because of the way they swap and change characters, with no respect for who
they were in the book. Dracula 2000 doesn’t really have that problem,
because it kind of cheats by referencing the book. The rest of the characters that inspired the
book are long dead so the only character you have to get right is Van Helsing.
There are names scattered through the film, like Lucy and
Dr. Seward, but they’re used more like Easter eggs than anything else.
I especially like what they’ve with Mary, Van Helsing’s
daughter. It’s good that they moved away from Mina because that would have made
it feel forced. Plus, by making the love interest Van Helsing’s daughter,
they’ve created a reason for the romance between her and Dracula. For
the first time, “Blood of my blood” actually means something.
It wasn’t really a Dracula story, though, was
it? It was Dracula in name only, kind of like Satanic Rites ofDracula. Dracula’s in it, but it’s not really an adaptation. But it’s not
one of those movies where you leave the cinema and you don’t love it, but you’d
see it again.
We’re getting to the end of the film and I’m going to
surprise you by saying that it’s one of the only Dracula endings that I
actually like (even though he dies instead of getting the girl.) I mentioned the symbolism before and there’s just so much of it
going on right now.
First of all, you’ve got the “brides” and damned if those
white dresses they’re wearing don’t make them look like brides. You’ve
also got that massive crucifix with a gaudy neon Jesus – which is a whole ass
commentary on modern Christianity if ever I’ve seen one. And then there’s…
*sigh*
Yeah, this bit always gets me in the feels. When Dracula’s
hanging there from the cross, with Jesus staring down at him… that’s both
heart-breaking and beautiful. It wasn’t explicit (which was handy for the very
awful sequels) but I like to think that he did ask for forgiveness. What
did you make of the ending?
Dracula 2000 takes a chance by moving away from
the book while assuming that most viewers at least know the story – which, to
be fair, isn’t that much of a risk. Even if you’ve only got the vaguest understanding
of Dracula and Jesus’s stories, you can enjoy Dracula 2000 without
having to engage too much. At the same time, though, there’s enough symbolism going
on under the surface to reward a second (or third or fourth) viewing.
This is still one of my favourites. I’m going to give it
a solid 9.
If you didn’t call it Dracula, it would be better. Besides
Dracula and Van Helsing, there’s not a lot to identify it as a Dracula movie.
I did enjoy it, though, so I’m going to give it a 7.
Wondra’s Rating: 🦇🦇🦇🦇🦇🦇🦇🦇🦇
Jay’s Rating: 🦇🦇🦇🦇🦇🦇🦇
