I've just sat through all three movies and I have to say that the Dracula 2000-series' best before date was... well the year 2000.<br /><br />I chose to comment on the last movie since it's the one not deserving the rating it has here. My guess is it will go down quite a bit as more people actually have seen it.<br /><br />The first movie, although it did contain some really bad and ridiculous elements, still was pretty entertaining imo. The second movie was... decent at least. This was well below the line of what is acceptable. The story was rather dull and pointless and also full of clichés - bad one's that is.<br /><br />Furthermore, the movie never scared me. Well, there was one point where I wasn't prepared, but that was it. Isn't this still supposed to be a horror movie? I guess they tried to make sort of a surreal feel to the movie with the amusement park vampires and the setting in the ending with the blood hoses and that "orgie", but it all came out rather cheesy and silly to me - not frightening as intended.<br /><br />Also, the whole background story about a civil war (or whatever) in Romania and the resistance movement was totally ridiculous! And unnecessary. A simple straightforward we're-going-to-Dracula's-castle-to-finish-him-off-once-and-for-all approach would have sufficed actually. The focus of the movie was flawed in other words.<br /><br />... and who casted Rutger Hauer as Dracula??? Oh my god... And how did Dracula suddenly get so old after a couple of years? Compared to the second movie that is. The should have kept the same guy throughout the series instead.<br /><br />3/10