Mary Shelley and Bram Stoker are turning in their graves!

Rating: Null/10 (13 May 2004)

I won't say that I had no expectations going in. I did. And coming out I thought, "Everyone knows that Mina Harker was instrumental in the death of Dracula." And when I look at it from a non-biased view point, I really must say... it still blew! The movie lost me when Jekyll/Hyde showed up. I thought, "Oh look, deleted scenes from A League of Extraordinary Gentlemen." Then the so-called "plot twists" kept getting worse and worse. How many movies does Kate Beckinsale need to be in that are werewolves vs. vampires? And how many roles does Hugh Jackman need where he has chops and Berserker claws? While the graphics and action sequences were entertaining, the acting seemed over the top and a little too comical to do anything but hurt the movie. Dracula was unsexy, his brides were just 90210 bitches with wings, and the whole vampire offspring twist seemed a little like it was the idea of a desperate Red Bull drinking writer. I thought most of it could have been done much better without changing it too much. And the rest would have sucked no matter what. Dracula met Van Helsing at a completely different era than the one in which Dr. Frankenstein was making his monster. And the Roman war "Gabriel" made reference to which was sited in the movie as being 73 b.c. was actually about 200 a.d. It all gave the impression that it was made too fast to be anything but what it was, a bad movie with good enough action scenes to gross billions. I just hope that money helps the makers sleep at night, cos it wouldn't help if it were me.