how come no one commented on the 3 D effect in these pictures.....I saw this on tv first when it came out. Was it originally made in 3D? Great quality.
@HollywoodNorthProdtm You make an excellent point, While Dracula 2000 displays a quite distinctive P.O.V camera style throughout, it predates the current 3D revival. Although as you so astutely pointed out, the director's style does lend itself very well to it, and it should be no surprise that Patrick Lussier now seems to be exclusively riding the 3D wave with; My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009) & Drive Angry 3D (2011) and Coming Soon: Halloween 3D & Condition Dead (2012).
@righteousgroove You have a point, This video was edited from another video that focused on Lucy's character, and at least two others that were similarly themed, for the other brides. I decided to use the music from Lucy's video, even though I was spitting the focus between the other brides. I still think there are parts where the song.does work, but I can see where you're coming from.
However my goal was to stand out, to be a little different. So I guess I achieved that. :)
jeri ryan as a bride of dracula. this concept in itself makes dracula 2000 worth watching, despite it's overall mediocrity. however, i prefer the classic hammer vampire films personally.
Colleen Fritzpatrick is the most absolutely perfect actress, the most absolutely perfect singer, and the most absolutely perfect international cover girl model of young ladies in the entire world in every way possible. Colleen is the most ultimate perfection of a lady in every way possible.
Yeah, I actually like the 'cheesiness' of it. You tell 'em, Brian! As a long-time Drac' fan in most of his incarnations, I did enjoy the modern horror/slasher treatment of Dracula 2000. Once 'homage' to the 1931 Lugosi film or to the novel itself is paid repeatedly by endless copy-cats, it is refreshing to see a newer slant put on the tale. Good job!!
@kappleviolet Thanks for commenting. Dracula (1992), while beautifully done, is not original, as it is so derivative of past works, such as; Bram Stoker's novel, Nosferatu, & Dracula (1931). Dracula 2000, released by Dimension Films (Scream, Halloween 2007) while not complete original either, does add to the mythos, infusing a Dracula plot w elements of a slasher film, & a modern soundtrack. Like many modern horror films, it is by default chesey, but it isn't dumb or ridiculous, in my opinion.
@briang9581 The 1992 film's title is "Bram Stoker's Dracula". It's based on the book. It makes no pretense about being an original work. I am a huge fan of vampire films. Dracula 2000, while decent, is not in the upper echelons of them by any means.
@Cryofax You are speaking in absolutes. FYI, the film is alternately titled either Dracula or Bram Stoker's Dracula depending where it was released. Dracula 2000 is also known as Wes Craven Presents Dracula 2000 & even Dracula 2001. My comments were mainly in response to someone, who appeared equally closed minded, favoring only the classic style retelling of the source material, the 1992 film doesn't add much to the mythos, & it lacks the slasher elements which help to revive the character.
@briang9581 But the point is the film's official title is "Bram Stoker's Dracula", because it is based on the book. It's not derivative of the book, it's not borrowing elements of the book, it is a movie from the book. You can argue whether it was needed or not in a world already filled with many straight Dracula book based films, but I'd argue the vast majority were not done very well and there was room for a better version. I've got nothing against alternate vampire mythos.
@briang9581 Seems like our argument was based on a misunderstanding over what the other is trying to express. Common Internet occurrence. ;) I could care less about the scemantics of film titles. I was just addressing your statement about the 1992 film that it's derivitive/unoriginal. Of course it is, since it's covering the same material from the book and several other movies. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree as to whether it was a necessary film or not. It does not break new ground.
@Cryofax I never felt we were arguing, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I liked "Bram Stoker's Dracula", a lot. To me, it was both darkly haunting & visually striking. From beginning to end , it is a masterpiece of cinema.
My only point was not to arbitrarily count out other adaptations, set in eras Stoker never envisioned. These films may have had smaller budgets & sometimes less talented cast or crews, but they still manage to entertain while, expanding on the character, setting and lore.
@briang9581 Oh I agree 100% about vampires in different adaptations. I wasn't being arbitrary or judging it based on its divergence from the original book. I saw the film and just didn't feel Dracula 2000 was one of the best vampire films. But it wasn't terrible. Much better than the majority I'd say. Jennifer Esposito is enough to warrant a viewing :) I'm a bit partial to the Hammer ones myself, although some are terrible I admit.
@Cryofax I feel the same about Sadie Frost in "Bram Stoker's Dracula" as you do about Jennifer Esposito in "Dracula 2000". Since the first time I saw the film, her scenes have always made the biggest impression on me.
@Cryofax I am completely aware of the Bram Stoker tag on the film. I'm not saying, that I didn't like the 1992 film, only that the story is a known quantity. Harker goes to castle Dracula, Dracula sees Mina's picture, Dracula delays Harker's return home, Dracula further weakens Mina's resolve by attacking her friend Lucy. Dracula seduces Mina. Van Helsing & Harker set about to free Mina of Dracula control.
Variations of the Bram Stoker source material have been filmed (forgive the pun) to death.
from 7 of 9 to tastey vampiress not bad for an actress.
FRANKIESHANOWSKIY2K0 3 weeks ago
how come no one commented on the 3 D effect in these pictures.....I saw this on tv first when it came out. Was it originally made in 3D? Great quality.
HollywoodNorthProdtm 1 month ago
@HollywoodNorthProdtm You make an excellent point, While Dracula 2000 displays a quite distinctive P.O.V camera style throughout, it predates the current 3D revival. Although as you so astutely pointed out, the director's style does lend itself very well to it, and it should be no surprise that Patrick Lussier now seems to be exclusively riding the 3D wave with; My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009) & Drive Angry 3D (2011) and Coming Soon: Halloween 3D & Condition Dead (2012).
briang9581 1 month ago
HAHAHAHA I'm so sorry, I just think the music (though awesome) is hilarious in the context of this video.
righteousgroove 2 months ago
@righteousgroove You have a point, This video was edited from another video that focused on Lucy's character, and at least two others that were similarly themed, for the other brides. I decided to use the music from Lucy's video, even though I was spitting the focus between the other brides. I still think there are parts where the song.does work, but I can see where you're coming from.
However my goal was to stand out, to be a little different. So I guess I achieved that. :)
briang9581 2 months ago
this film was okay...jennifer esposito was the only reason y i watched it nd shes the only pretty one in the film.
jenniferlopez022 5 months ago
@jenniferlopez022 Jeri Ryan FTW! mate
alez78 2 months ago
@alez78 Judges rule it a four way tie, to be decided with mud wrestling. Everybody happy?
briang9581 2 months ago
Good song, goes with the movie. Those Brides are hot!
johnnyboy1595 8 months ago
This is sooo Esposito's movie! Of the 3, I prefer Solina, then Lucy. Valerie is not unattractive, but to each their own. ;3
meshutora 9 months ago
jeri ryan as a bride of dracula. this concept in itself makes dracula 2000 worth watching, despite it's overall mediocrity. however, i prefer the classic hammer vampire films personally.
randomface54 1 year ago
Read the original book, the one written by Bram Stoker. It's pretty freaking awesome.
PotatoGunsRule 1 year ago 4
Colleen Fritzpatrick is the most absolutely perfect actress, the most absolutely perfect singer, and the most absolutely perfect international cover girl model of young ladies in the entire world in every way possible. Colleen is the most ultimate perfection of a lady in every way possible.
eagle1oz 1 year ago
@eagle1oz Thanks for commenting. I agree Colleen is pretty cool. :)
briang9581 1 year ago
Yeah, I actually like the 'cheesiness' of it. You tell 'em, Brian! As a long-time Drac' fan in most of his incarnations, I did enjoy the modern horror/slasher treatment of Dracula 2000. Once 'homage' to the 1931 Lugosi film or to the novel itself is paid repeatedly by endless copy-cats, it is refreshing to see a newer slant put on the tale. Good job!!
stevemarvel 1 year ago
so dumb and cheesey....ridiculous....if you want to see a beautifully done Dracula watch Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula
kappleviolet 1 year ago
@kappleviolet Thanks for commenting. Dracula (1992), while beautifully done, is not original, as it is so derivative of past works, such as; Bram Stoker's novel, Nosferatu, & Dracula (1931). Dracula 2000, released by Dimension Films (Scream, Halloween 2007) while not complete original either, does add to the mythos, infusing a Dracula plot w elements of a slasher film, & a modern soundtrack. Like many modern horror films, it is by default chesey, but it isn't dumb or ridiculous, in my opinion.
briang9581 1 year ago
@briang9581 The 1992 film's title is "Bram Stoker's Dracula". It's based on the book. It makes no pretense about being an original work. I am a huge fan of vampire films. Dracula 2000, while decent, is not in the upper echelons of them by any means.
Cryofax 1 year ago
@Cryofax You are speaking in absolutes. FYI, the film is alternately titled either Dracula or Bram Stoker's Dracula depending where it was released. Dracula 2000 is also known as Wes Craven Presents Dracula 2000 & even Dracula 2001. My comments were mainly in response to someone, who appeared equally closed minded, favoring only the classic style retelling of the source material, the 1992 film doesn't add much to the mythos, & it lacks the slasher elements which help to revive the character.
briang9581 1 year ago
@briang9581 But the point is the film's official title is "Bram Stoker's Dracula", because it is based on the book. It's not derivative of the book, it's not borrowing elements of the book, it is a movie from the book. You can argue whether it was needed or not in a world already filled with many straight Dracula book based films, but I'd argue the vast majority were not done very well and there was room for a better version. I've got nothing against alternate vampire mythos.
Cryofax 1 year ago
@Cryofax You're nitpicking. The title of the 1931 film is simply "Dracula", even though Stoker is given writing credit.
The same is true of Dracula (1979), with Mina Van Helsing as the sickly friend of Lucy Seward.
The novel too, is simply titled "Dracula", so when I say Dracula (1931), (1979) or (1992), I obviously do refer to films based on the Stoker novel.
You are very knowledgeable, but maybe a little too serious.
YouTube counts characters, so at times I cut corners, just lighten up!
briang9581 1 year ago
@briang9581 Seems like our argument was based on a misunderstanding over what the other is trying to express. Common Internet occurrence. ;) I could care less about the scemantics of film titles. I was just addressing your statement about the 1992 film that it's derivitive/unoriginal. Of course it is, since it's covering the same material from the book and several other movies. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree as to whether it was a necessary film or not. It does not break new ground.
Cryofax 1 year ago
@Cryofax I never felt we were arguing, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I liked "Bram Stoker's Dracula", a lot. To me, it was both darkly haunting & visually striking. From beginning to end , it is a masterpiece of cinema.
My only point was not to arbitrarily count out other adaptations, set in eras Stoker never envisioned. These films may have had smaller budgets & sometimes less talented cast or crews, but they still manage to entertain while, expanding on the character, setting and lore.
briang9581 1 year ago
@briang9581 Oh I agree 100% about vampires in different adaptations. I wasn't being arbitrary or judging it based on its divergence from the original book. I saw the film and just didn't feel Dracula 2000 was one of the best vampire films. But it wasn't terrible. Much better than the majority I'd say. Jennifer Esposito is enough to warrant a viewing :) I'm a bit partial to the Hammer ones myself, although some are terrible I admit.
Cryofax 1 year ago
@Cryofax I feel the same about Sadie Frost in "Bram Stoker's Dracula" as you do about Jennifer Esposito in "Dracula 2000". Since the first time I saw the film, her scenes have always made the biggest impression on me.
I'm officially calling our so-called argument settled.
briang9581 1 year ago 3
@Cryofax I am completely aware of the Bram Stoker tag on the film. I'm not saying, that I didn't like the 1992 film, only that the story is a known quantity. Harker goes to castle Dracula, Dracula sees Mina's picture, Dracula delays Harker's return home, Dracula further weakens Mina's resolve by attacking her friend Lucy. Dracula seduces Mina. Van Helsing & Harker set about to free Mina of Dracula control.
Variations of the Bram Stoker source material have been filmed (forgive the pun) to death.
briang9581 1 year ago