Space is a vacuum, right? Therefore, space sucks. Vampires also suck. A really bad vampire movie set in space would have twice the sucking power, right?

It started with what could have been a fun premise. Retelling Bram Stoker's Dracula story in the future. There's a salvage crew that's sent out to investigate a cargo ship that's lost in space called the Demeter. Fans of the original novel will unwittingly assume that this is to be a straightforward retelling of Dracula set in the future... unfortunately, short of sharing character names, this one takes the lowbrow route and goes into the B-movie galaxy twenty minutes later when Coolio becomes a vampire. Trust me when I tell you he's the best actor in the movie, and that's not saying much.

Casper Van Dien should be peddling his wares on daytime television. Erika Eleniak should have quit after she left Baywatch and poor Udo Kier is having trouble reading from the cue cards. The guy who plays Dracula in this one is more ridiculous than Frank Langella was in the 1970's version. If you can manage to sit through the whole movie, you will be rewarded with the worst ending imaginable. The ending makes one wonder if the actors and the crew realized what a piece of garbage they were making and walked off the set.

Take heed, vampire fans. This one sucks twice as hard.

My goodness. And here I thought that there were no directors worse than Uwe Boll.

Imagine the number of decisions necessary to produce a motion picture. Conceptual approval. Scriptwriting. Dialogue editing. Casting. Set and prop design. Location selection. Acting. Timing. Cinematography. Lighting. Music. Sound and video editing. Direction.

Now imagine that every single one of those decisions was made wrong.

Result: Dracula 3000.

For a film supposedly set in the 2900s, this movie looks surprisingly like a cheap gangsta flick of the 1970's. The set is ridiculous for the period. The dialogue is atrocious. The timing of each scene is ludicrous. The acting is beyond abysmal. Everything stinks.

Let's just take props, for example. If you have a movie set on a space freighter built in 2900, how likely is it that it will have the exposed piping and hydraulic doors of a 1960's era oil tanker? What, technology hasn't changed in 900 years? The 'Professor' uses a standard tandy keyboard and Radio-Shack flipswitches to "reprogram" the computer. What, they haven't figured out voice control yet? Of course, the Prof is tethered to a wheelchair. With wheels. Even though, you know, they've got intergalactic hyperdrive...but apparently not even a motorized wheelchair, much less a floating one, or bionic legs or something. And apparently this freighter was carrying an intergalactic consignment of rosewood caskets. How convenient. Then there are the weapons -- the crew carry standard late 20th-century firearms. In a ship. In the vacuum of space, where one bullethole would kill them all. Nice planning there, prop department.

Oh, why go on.

I have no interest in yet another vampire movie. So why did I pick "Dracula 3000"? Well, it's made its way onto the infamous IMDb Bottom 100 list--the worst rated films of all-time. And, I have a perverse love of bad films...on occasion. So, unlike most folks who tried watching this film, I HOPED that it would be terrible! So is the film terrible in a fun way or just plain terrible?

Well, the answer surprised me. Yes, it IS a bad film but it really isn't that bad. In fact, at times it almost seems on the verge of being good...but doesn't quite hit the mark. It isn't that the plot idea is that bad but it's because the writing of the characters IS. Many of them are just broad caricatures--such as the big dumb black guy, the stoner black guy (wow, the writer sure seems to have it out for black guys),the hot second in the command, etc.. However, one of these folks really confuses me...the 'brainy guy'. He's in a wheelchair...and the 31st century is about to begin and they have intergalactic space travel!!! Huh?!

Overall, I'd say that I have no idea how it made the Bottom 100 list. Making the Bottom 1000 (if they had it) would make sense, but I have seen at least 300-400 films worse than this clichéd and occasionally silly film. Not 100% bad....just 97%.