I won't say it was a bad offering, but why doesn't someone make a vampire film that actually is a vampire film and not another kung fu action movie where the villains just happen to drink blood? What we get from Dracula's Curse is once again lots of fancy gunplay, swordfighting and martial arts involving hot goth chicks, which seems to have become the rule for vampire films these days (Blade, Underworld, Van Helsing etc. etc.) The cast perform adequately, but there's nothing much for them to do except strike poses looking cool or angry. The fights are choreographed okay and there's no poorly done CGI to laugh at, but we have seen this sort of thing before and I expect better from The Asylum.
22 Reviews
That sneaky vamp
wrlang4 September 2006
Dracula's Curse is a B class horror film done on a low budget. While most of the scenes were well shot and the dialog was adequate, there was stodgy editing that left a good deal of time between lines. The story is about three groups, the regular vampires, an elite group of powerful pure blood vampires decedents of Dracula, vampires out to dilute the pure blood line lead by Van Helsing, and the vampire slayers that protect humanity from out of control vampires. The enter into an armistice, that eventually fails and leads to the final battle of 'good' v evil. Interesting, but nontraditional plot. Dracula is spoken of many times, but never seen until the very end. Semi-entertaining.
This movie was about 108 minutes too long!
microx9600224 July 2011
At 107 minutes, the least they could have done was offered the editor (if there was one) a pair of scissors! A few other things that might have come in handy 1. a script, 2. a director, 3. some actors (although if there's a half way decent script, I can make do with some wooden actors. 4. an editor, the movie was at least 35 minutes too long. 5. Some decent special effects, I don't know if anyone at "The Asylum" would know what decent special effects or make were. Poor Bram Stoker, he must have been crying out for a stake thru his heart as he spun in his grave or crypt! The movie had know scary scenes nor did it have any kind of atmosphere. The only thing going for it was the adherence old vampire traditions, not being able to go out in the sun, being allergic to wooden stakes etc. Give yourself a break from this kind of junk and go find a decent vampire movie, preferably one made by Universal in the 1930's or Hammer in the 1960's. You'll be glad you didn't waste your 107 minutes on this stinking pile of vampire waste!
pretty good little movie
rustydolly20 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I have been going through a phase lately of renting new releases off the video shelf that i've never heard of before. You know the ones with just one or two copies. Sometimes they end up being surprisingly good and most of the time I understand why there are just one or two copies. Dracula's Curse surprised me. Don't get me wrong its not going to win any awards and it does not compare to the greats of its genre, like Bram Stoker's Dracula with Gary Oldman or even Blade. But it is a pretty entertaining little film for what it is. I assume the budget wasn't very big but the effects were damn good and a few scenes in particular were just nice to look at (see it and you'll know which scenes I'm talking about). The costumes and makeup for the most part were also good. The story could have been streamlined a bit more in my opinion, maybe some more editing, but it kept me interested and wanting to know what happened next. Also for the low budget I assume it had the acting was surprisingly well done. The vampires were all very different and cool to watch. The vampire hunters are also a diverse group and pretty fun at times. My only disappointment here was seeing again the red-head actress I had just seen in another low budget rental Satanic. She was horrible in that one and that whole movie was horrible by the way. I cannot understand how this girl keeps getting parts because she is one of the most stinko actresses i have ever seen, at least in a main role, and is really out of place here. The rest of the cast is pretty great. I definitely recommend renting this movie.
Cool but could have been a lot better
juddl129 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Dracula's Curse was a nice idea that didn't really pan out. I watched the film with my wife last night and we both had basically the same reaction which is that it was too long and there were too many characters. Too many characters and bad acting on top of it doesn't a good movie make.
I had seen a few of writer/director Leigh Scott's films before, as I'm an indie horror film junkie you might say. I am usually impressed by Scott's work, with possibly the exception of King of the Lost World. If you haven't seen his films, I would suggest viewing Beast of Bray Road and Exorcism of Gail Bowers, both totally different films, but both show off Scott's skill as a director. Frankenstein Reborn was also a sharp stylish little horror film, but suffered from some of the same problems as Dracula.
Dracula's Curse follows a group of vampire hunters who make a pact with the vampires themselves, a cease-fire of sorts. Of course, the pact is ultimately broken and the hunters go back to work. A divide amongst the vampires creates a nice twist. Familiar characters in the film include Jacob Van Helsing, Countess Elizabeth Bathorey, and Dracula himself. Fans of the vampire genre will be pleased. There are some very cool scenes throughout the movie and the cinematography is pretty spectacular. One of the problems is that Scott tries to do too much. For every cool moment, there are 10 minutes of boring. There are too many needless side-stories which take away from the film. One storyline follows a young man, a human, whose girlfriend is kidnapped by the vampires because she is a pureblood. Maybe he should have been the main character and fleshed out more, adding some emotion to the story and helping the audience connect to a character. My wife and I found ourselves wondering after it was over, who was the main character and why were we supposed to care about any of them?
Another huge problem with the film is the acting. Scott is actually fantastic in the film as one of the vampires called The Old One. Other characters who hold their own as well include the actress who plays the Countess and Rhett Giles as Van Helsing. Unfortunately for Scott he seems to be contractually obligated to work with the same bad actors time and again. This really holds Scott back from showing off what he can really do. Tom Downey, as Rufus King, is fine, but boring, and we've just seen him too many times already playing different variations on the same character. For those of us who see more than one of Scott's movies, this is distracting. Eliza Swenson, who Scott has used before, most disastrously in Frankenstein Reborn, is another problem. He inexplicably chooses to put her again in one of the larger roles in Dracula's Curse, and her character of Gracie is not believable at all, and Swenson comes across as stiff and awkward. Amanda Burton, another Scott veteran, as one of the Countess's clan, Darvulia, is just as bad. Sarah Lieving, on the other hand, a very talented and versatile actress, and not so bad on the eyes, is underutilized in a small throw-away role, which she nails by the way. The wife and I were impressed. I don't recommend that Scott put her in the lead in all of his films though because Lieving would run the risk of turning into another Downey, who Scott's audience has frankly had enough of.
I don't usually take the time to write comments on the films I see but I was moved to do so on this one. Dracula's Curse could have been Scott's finest hour, but just wasn't because of these problems. I recommend renting it because it does have its moments, and just fast forward through the bad. I will still keep my eye out for Scott's films to see what he comes up with next.
I had seen a few of writer/director Leigh Scott's films before, as I'm an indie horror film junkie you might say. I am usually impressed by Scott's work, with possibly the exception of King of the Lost World. If you haven't seen his films, I would suggest viewing Beast of Bray Road and Exorcism of Gail Bowers, both totally different films, but both show off Scott's skill as a director. Frankenstein Reborn was also a sharp stylish little horror film, but suffered from some of the same problems as Dracula.
Dracula's Curse follows a group of vampire hunters who make a pact with the vampires themselves, a cease-fire of sorts. Of course, the pact is ultimately broken and the hunters go back to work. A divide amongst the vampires creates a nice twist. Familiar characters in the film include Jacob Van Helsing, Countess Elizabeth Bathorey, and Dracula himself. Fans of the vampire genre will be pleased. There are some very cool scenes throughout the movie and the cinematography is pretty spectacular. One of the problems is that Scott tries to do too much. For every cool moment, there are 10 minutes of boring. There are too many needless side-stories which take away from the film. One storyline follows a young man, a human, whose girlfriend is kidnapped by the vampires because she is a pureblood. Maybe he should have been the main character and fleshed out more, adding some emotion to the story and helping the audience connect to a character. My wife and I found ourselves wondering after it was over, who was the main character and why were we supposed to care about any of them?
Another huge problem with the film is the acting. Scott is actually fantastic in the film as one of the vampires called The Old One. Other characters who hold their own as well include the actress who plays the Countess and Rhett Giles as Van Helsing. Unfortunately for Scott he seems to be contractually obligated to work with the same bad actors time and again. This really holds Scott back from showing off what he can really do. Tom Downey, as Rufus King, is fine, but boring, and we've just seen him too many times already playing different variations on the same character. For those of us who see more than one of Scott's movies, this is distracting. Eliza Swenson, who Scott has used before, most disastrously in Frankenstein Reborn, is another problem. He inexplicably chooses to put her again in one of the larger roles in Dracula's Curse, and her character of Gracie is not believable at all, and Swenson comes across as stiff and awkward. Amanda Burton, another Scott veteran, as one of the Countess's clan, Darvulia, is just as bad. Sarah Lieving, on the other hand, a very talented and versatile actress, and not so bad on the eyes, is underutilized in a small throw-away role, which she nails by the way. The wife and I were impressed. I don't recommend that Scott put her in the lead in all of his films though because Lieving would run the risk of turning into another Downey, who Scott's audience has frankly had enough of.
I don't usually take the time to write comments on the films I see but I was moved to do so on this one. Dracula's Curse could have been Scott's finest hour, but just wasn't because of these problems. I recommend renting it because it does have its moments, and just fast forward through the bad. I will still keep my eye out for Scott's films to see what he comes up with next.
One of the worst movies
leandros-13 January 2008
We have to agree for the full 100 percent with Jesse from Australia: After about 30 minutes we stopped this.... Very poor audio, poor camera-work and very bad acting of some amateurs. And the dialog being out of sync, made things only worse.
The quality of acting and sound made us sometimes think, it was an X-rated version of Dracula, where the explicit scenes were taken out.
Jesse wrote that one should wait until somebody else is renting it or wait for the 2-Dollar-bin..... We don't think it is even worth it.... Just a waste of time.
If you like this kind of movies, you better rent and see "Dracula 2000" with Gerard Butler, for example
The quality of acting and sound made us sometimes think, it was an X-rated version of Dracula, where the explicit scenes were taken out.
Jesse wrote that one should wait until somebody else is renting it or wait for the 2-Dollar-bin..... We don't think it is even worth it.... Just a waste of time.
If you like this kind of movies, you better rent and see "Dracula 2000" with Gerard Butler, for example
Terrible
cliff_bd6 January 2008
OK this is a low budget movie - but even some low budget movies have good acting. The film "Manticore", for example was low budget but it did stand up because the acting was good.
Draculas Curse lacks any descent acting - in many scenes the actors seem unsure of what their next line is which makes me wonder if this film was properly story boarded. The poor screenplay, direction and editing back up my suspicions.
The fight scenes were consistent with the general low quality of the film.
The story was kind of interesting but is over shadowed by the over all poor quality of the film.
Avoid at all costs
Draculas Curse lacks any descent acting - in many scenes the actors seem unsure of what their next line is which makes me wonder if this film was properly story boarded. The poor screenplay, direction and editing back up my suspicions.
The fight scenes were consistent with the general low quality of the film.
The story was kind of interesting but is over shadowed by the over all poor quality of the film.
Avoid at all costs
You would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh
dunfincin24 January 2016
I write this review to save you from making the same mistake as I did.Bored on a Friday night,you download or rent this film.Rating nearly 5 on IMDb and with some positive reviews so should be good for a laugh at least.I guarantee that if you watch this film you may wince,cry,curse,cringe or throw crockery but you will not laugh.It is an absolute stinker.Truly awful. I suppose that if you were a 15 year old boy living on a farm in rural Kentucky and were keen to see lots of slim young girls with bare midriffs (for no apparent reason) then it might serve some mildly pornographic purpose particularly if you were trying to retain those images for later reflection but if you are not within that demographic there is little other merit. Abysmal in almost every respect,it has only one redeeming quality which is why I watched it for almost an hour and that was to catch an occasional glimpse of the beautiful Sarah Lieving.I won't try to itemise its failings in detail; I'll just give you one scene as an example.There is a man and a woman (trying in vain to remember their lines and not look at the camera at the same time) in a room about 3 feet apart having a dreary and irrelevant conversation about something or other.When the camera is on him ,he looks as if he is being lit by a constipated firefly but when the camera switches to her,she seems to be standing under a 200 kilowatt searchlight.And so it goes on. What I don't understand(and perhaps someone with a greater understanding of the workings of Hollywood can enlighten me)is why anyone would make this dross.Surely no one could have expected to make any money out of it? If you are a wannabe working part-time at Walmart and looking for some recognition for your talents,you must realise that any association with films like these is going to flush the vestige of your career down the toilet? It feels to me like a giant Dunning-Kruger proving ground.Better to go upstairs and read your kids some stuff about dinosaurs or fairies;at least you will feel good about yourself.
Dracula's Curse: 100% what you'd expect
Platypuschow13 December 2018
The third and final of the Asylum monster universe see's a battle between vampires and hunters and of course the prince of darkness himself is thrown in for good measure.
Following The Beast of Bray Road (2005) and Frankenstein Reborn (2005) this cheaply made traditionally terrible Asylum movie is exactly what you'd expect going in.
To it's credit the practical effects are oddly on point, but that's basically all it has going to it. Once again the same cast are present but playing different characters which I can't figure out for the life of me why they thought that'd be a good idea. The CGI is poor, the acting is mostly weak and the story and writing just doesn't help matters at all.
The Asylum are known for bad movies so going in people should have low expectations that way they'll likely be met.
Bad stuff, but they've made worse.
The Good:
Practical effects are better than you'd imagine
The Bad:
Some ropey acting
Standard Asylum problems
Things I Learnt From This Movie:
I hate being interrupted during a monologue as well
Sarah Lieving is so much better than this nonsense
Following The Beast of Bray Road (2005) and Frankenstein Reborn (2005) this cheaply made traditionally terrible Asylum movie is exactly what you'd expect going in.
To it's credit the practical effects are oddly on point, but that's basically all it has going to it. Once again the same cast are present but playing different characters which I can't figure out for the life of me why they thought that'd be a good idea. The CGI is poor, the acting is mostly weak and the story and writing just doesn't help matters at all.
The Asylum are known for bad movies so going in people should have low expectations that way they'll likely be met.
Bad stuff, but they've made worse.
The Good:
Practical effects are better than you'd imagine
The Bad:
Some ropey acting
Standard Asylum problems
Things I Learnt From This Movie:
I hate being interrupted during a monologue as well
Sarah Lieving is so much better than this nonsense
New meaning to B Grade
jesserockliffe30 November 2006
I could only watch about half an hour of this movie - it was so bad that I was glad I rented it instead of buying it. The audio was so poor that I had to turn the volume up just to hear it and when there was gunfire it almost blew my audio system apart! The dialogue was completely out of sync and the camera work was so poor that you could quite often see the overhead microphone appearing in the picture. The only good part of the movie is the few sexy women wearing mid drift tops but that was soon ruined as soon as they spoke. I guess I'm just not a fan of B grade flicks and this movie doesn't help! If you want to see this movie, wait until someone else rents it or pick it up in the $2 bargain bin.
Better than expected, if too over-ambitious
TheLittleSongbird26 October 2013
Seeing as Dracula's Curse was from The Asylum, you would expect bad acting, bad production values, bad scripting, bad special effects, bad story, bad everything really. Dracula's Curse does show more effort than most other Asylum outings, so it wasn't the case of not trying. The problem was that Dracula's Curse came across as too ambitious. There are good things certainly. The monster is cool-looking and does look good. Not all the acting is bad either, the best actor is easily Rhett Giles who oozes charisma and intensity and close behind is Christine Rosenberg as the villainess. And the costumes and sets are a step above most Asylum movies, not opulent but not amateurish. The camera work and editing is hit-and-miss, in the fight scenes they can get confused but everywhere else they're adequate. The sound does sound rather muddied and somewhat dated. The fight sequences do suffer from confusing editing and are not particularly exciting, while the dialogue is written in a way that begged for several re-readings/writes because it sound rather stilted and senseless at times. It is also too talky, some of what was said agreed could have been shown instead. The rest of the acting is not very good, Rebekah Kochan is just grating and Eliza Swenson is so stiff in quite possibly the biggest female role in the movie. Thomas Downey is nowhere near as problematic, but he is one of those cases where he is hindered by not having enough to work with. But it was really the story and the way the characters are written. The story does get bogged down by too many side-stories(not all of them relevant either) and draggy pacing, and because there are some scenes that are pondered on too long and others(often the more important) skimmed over some of the story can come across as convoluted. The most interesting scene was probably the weapons scene. That there are too many characters also hurts Dracula's curse, and hardly any of them are developed that well, the most interesting probably is Jacob Van Helsing. The villainess Bathorly was the worst case, Rosenberg is very commanding as her but Bathorly was very under-utilised and the "less talk, more show" thing would have helped. Others like Kochan's Trixie McFly veer on pointless. The twist is okay if not particularly mind-blowing or memorable. All in all, Dracula's Curse is not a terrible movie and is much better than other Asylum movies(and with director Leigh Scott's movies I'd say it's one of his better ones too) but suffers from over-ambition, convoluted storytelling and too many characters. 4/10 Bethany Cox
A fun low-budget straight-to-video horror/action romp
Woodyanders18 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
A group of vampire hunters called the Nine get the various vampire clans to agree to an uneasy pact. All goes well for a spell until the evil Countess Elizabeth Bathorly (a deliciously wicked portrayal by the gorgeous Christina Rosenberg) breaks the pact. The rugged Rufus King (nicely played with assured macho aplomb by Thomas Downey), assisted by the wise, leery Jacob Van Helsing (the excellent Rhett Giles) and the hard-nosed Gracie Johannsen (a very strong and impressive performance by ravishing redhead spitfire Eliza Swenson), brings the Nine back together for a major showdown with Bathorly and her vicious female minions. Writer/director Leigh Scott relates the convoluted, but compelling story at a steady pace, stages the occasional stirring action set pieces with considerable brio and skill, offers a few fresh and inventive twists on standard vampire lore, and sprinkles a reasonable amount of grisly gore. Moreover, Scott does an especially solid job of creating and sustaining some interesting conflicts amongst the well-drawn and engaging main characters. Further kudos are in order for the sound and spirited acting from a game cast, with particularly stand-out work from Jeff Denton as fearsome, haughty bloodsucker Rafe, Amanda Barton as Bathorly's fierce, aggressive right-hand gal Darvulia, Rebekah Kochan as the brassy, hot-tempered Trixie McFly, Sarah Lieving as helpful, sympathetic vampire ally Alex Devereaux, Tom Nagel as naive, eager rookie vampire killer Tattinger, Justin Jones as grotesque ghoul Maximillian, and Scott as enigmatic bloodsucker leader the Old One. Both Swenson's funky, spooky score and Steven Parker's sharp cinematography are up to snuff. A hugely enjoyable flick.
An entertaining and complex low-budget vampire film.
misbegotten8 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I enjoyed this movie. Considering the budget and time restraints that it was clearly filmed under, it's an entertaining film that packs a lot of story into it's running time.
However, there are perhaps too many characters - more than the story actually needs - and as a result we learn hardly anything about most of them (various members of The Nine, for example, often have little to do beside standing around in the background holding guns). Unfortunately, if we don't know anything about these people, we don't care about them, and the movie seems slightly overpopulated. I think the same thing can be said about the only other Leigh Scott film I've currently seen, 'Transmorphers'.
Also the final twist about Fox's true identity was ruined for me by the fact that during the earlier flashback to the first meeting between the Countess and Dracula, despite the scene of Dracula removing his helmet being filmed from behind his shoulder, I could still recognise actor Tom Downey's distinctive bone structure. It might have been better if Downey had worn a long wig to cover the side of his face during that scene.
But I stress that these are minor quibbles. 'Dracula's Curse' boasts a good script and good performances, and I consider those factors to be more important than lavish sets and big budget special effects. Thumbs up to Scott and the leading cast-members.
However, there are perhaps too many characters - more than the story actually needs - and as a result we learn hardly anything about most of them (various members of The Nine, for example, often have little to do beside standing around in the background holding guns). Unfortunately, if we don't know anything about these people, we don't care about them, and the movie seems slightly overpopulated. I think the same thing can be said about the only other Leigh Scott film I've currently seen, 'Transmorphers'.
Also the final twist about Fox's true identity was ruined for me by the fact that during the earlier flashback to the first meeting between the Countess and Dracula, despite the scene of Dracula removing his helmet being filmed from behind his shoulder, I could still recognise actor Tom Downey's distinctive bone structure. It might have been better if Downey had worn a long wig to cover the side of his face during that scene.
But I stress that these are minor quibbles. 'Dracula's Curse' boasts a good script and good performances, and I consider those factors to be more important than lavish sets and big budget special effects. Thumbs up to Scott and the leading cast-members.
Pretty bad
jacobjohntaylor15 June 2016
This is a sequel to Dracula. There are a lot of the Dracula sequels. Most of them are good. This one is not. It is acting is very bad in this movie. The story line is awful. 2.8 is underrating it. It is not that bad. But it is not very good. Do not see this movie. See Dracula (March 1931). That is a mush better. Do not waste your time. And do not waste your money. Dracula (1979) good movie. See that one. Dracula's Cure (2002) is a remake. That is a good movie to see. Dracula (1992) is very good has well. But this is just a very bad movie. Do not see it. See Nosferatu that is a silent version of Dracula from 1922. That is a great movie. But you should skip this one.
More horrible low budget horror film crap.
poolandrews11 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Dracula's Curse starts as a pact between the waring Vampires & the Vampire hunters is agreed & signed, the Vampire hunter leader type guy Rufus King (Thomas Downey) warns the Old One (writer, editor & director Leigh Scott hiding under lots of make up & an awful wig) that if any Vampire kills a human being again the truce is off. Jump forward five years later as a pureblood descendant of Drakulya (pronounced Drac-You-Lar) named Christina Lockhart (Erica Roby) is kidnapped by Drakulya's three Hungarian brides who now serve Countess Bathorly (Christna Rosenberg) & need the pure blood of a pureblood (!) to gain strength in order to launch an attack on the worlds population & basically rule the Earth. Once King realises that the truce has been broken he & the rest of Vampire hunting mates gear up for action once more as they are the only ones who can stop Bathorly...
Edited, written & directed by Leigh Scott who also has a small role in the film under lots of make-up one has to say that The Asylum doesn't have a great track record in making good horror films & Dracula's Curse only goes to enhance that reputation rather than change it. As I write this comment right now Dracula's Curse has a lowly IMDb user rating of 1.6 so considering 1 is the lowest any user can rate a film 1.6 (this will probably change over time but not by much) is just about as low as a film can get & one has to say that Dracula's Curse really does deserve that rating. There are so many things wrong with this film, the story is awful as it's some sort of horrible low budget cross between the Blade & Underworld franchises as the film portrays the now clichéd hidden Vampire society living within our own & a team of specialist Vampire hunters dedicated to eradicating them dressed in silly outfits & using 'cool' weapons. It doesn't work here, the Blade & Underworld films has sufficient scope & money behind them to make you believe that there were hidden Vampire societies amongst us but here in Dracula's Curse we see about five Vampires in a basement & that's it. All the character's are awful, there is constant annoying sub plots where they are given little personal problems & dilemmas which amount to nothing & just bore the absolute pants off the audience waiting to see some proper Vampire action. The dialogue is awful too. The story is rubbish with one Vampire bird & three other's seemingly saying they can take over the whole world by themselves, right. At almost two hours in length Dracula's Curse is a real chore to sit through & I would imagine a lot of people won't make it, it really is that bad on all fronts including a terrible twist ending which has zero impact.
One of the most enjoyable aspects of both the Blade & Underworld series were the dazzling set-piece action scenes, the cool production design which mixed the sleek chrome plated modernistic up to date along with the imposing traditional Gothic with the over-the-top blood & gore special effects. Unfortunately for the audience Dracula's Curse has none of this, the production design amounts to some bland shotguns, a basement & a few rooms in a house while I can't remember a single action set-piece. OK there are a couple of really poor fights & a bit of shooting but nothing that will excite anyone & if all that wasn't bad enough I can't remember seeing a single drop of blood in the entire thing. A few Vampires are staked through the heart but they have green blood so that doesn't count, Countess Bathorly (like her obvious literary source) bathes in the blood of virgins to stay young but there is only one scene of her doing this & the blood is already in the bathtub so it just looks like red water. So to sum it up there's no action, there's no special effects apart from a monster at the end, there's no cool weaponry & if it wasn't for some swearing this wouldn't be far off a PG rating.
Technically the film is an eyesore, while a lot of films have certain colour schemes to look stylish Dracula's Curse just looks as if sometime turned the colour settings down on your telly & it just looks bland & lifeless throughout. The fights are poorly staged, the Vampires just sort of stand there & wait to be killed by the hunters who have all sorts of weaponry. I mean if the hunters are flesh & blood humans why don't the Vampires just use guns to kill them? The sound effects suck as well. Some of the acting in this has to be seen to be believed, it really is that bad. Some of the delivery is just cringe inducing although one or two of the girls look quite nice.
Dracula's Curse has nothing to do with Bram Stoker no matter what the film would lead you to believe, in fact it even changes Dracula to Drakulya. It's just a terrible film that deserves it's lowly 1.6 IMDb user rating, I mean it's that low for a reason people & you have been warned. Only for masochists & insomniacs.
Edited, written & directed by Leigh Scott who also has a small role in the film under lots of make-up one has to say that The Asylum doesn't have a great track record in making good horror films & Dracula's Curse only goes to enhance that reputation rather than change it. As I write this comment right now Dracula's Curse has a lowly IMDb user rating of 1.6 so considering 1 is the lowest any user can rate a film 1.6 (this will probably change over time but not by much) is just about as low as a film can get & one has to say that Dracula's Curse really does deserve that rating. There are so many things wrong with this film, the story is awful as it's some sort of horrible low budget cross between the Blade & Underworld franchises as the film portrays the now clichéd hidden Vampire society living within our own & a team of specialist Vampire hunters dedicated to eradicating them dressed in silly outfits & using 'cool' weapons. It doesn't work here, the Blade & Underworld films has sufficient scope & money behind them to make you believe that there were hidden Vampire societies amongst us but here in Dracula's Curse we see about five Vampires in a basement & that's it. All the character's are awful, there is constant annoying sub plots where they are given little personal problems & dilemmas which amount to nothing & just bore the absolute pants off the audience waiting to see some proper Vampire action. The dialogue is awful too. The story is rubbish with one Vampire bird & three other's seemingly saying they can take over the whole world by themselves, right. At almost two hours in length Dracula's Curse is a real chore to sit through & I would imagine a lot of people won't make it, it really is that bad on all fronts including a terrible twist ending which has zero impact.
One of the most enjoyable aspects of both the Blade & Underworld series were the dazzling set-piece action scenes, the cool production design which mixed the sleek chrome plated modernistic up to date along with the imposing traditional Gothic with the over-the-top blood & gore special effects. Unfortunately for the audience Dracula's Curse has none of this, the production design amounts to some bland shotguns, a basement & a few rooms in a house while I can't remember a single action set-piece. OK there are a couple of really poor fights & a bit of shooting but nothing that will excite anyone & if all that wasn't bad enough I can't remember seeing a single drop of blood in the entire thing. A few Vampires are staked through the heart but they have green blood so that doesn't count, Countess Bathorly (like her obvious literary source) bathes in the blood of virgins to stay young but there is only one scene of her doing this & the blood is already in the bathtub so it just looks like red water. So to sum it up there's no action, there's no special effects apart from a monster at the end, there's no cool weaponry & if it wasn't for some swearing this wouldn't be far off a PG rating.
Technically the film is an eyesore, while a lot of films have certain colour schemes to look stylish Dracula's Curse just looks as if sometime turned the colour settings down on your telly & it just looks bland & lifeless throughout. The fights are poorly staged, the Vampires just sort of stand there & wait to be killed by the hunters who have all sorts of weaponry. I mean if the hunters are flesh & blood humans why don't the Vampires just use guns to kill them? The sound effects suck as well. Some of the acting in this has to be seen to be believed, it really is that bad. Some of the delivery is just cringe inducing although one or two of the girls look quite nice.
Dracula's Curse has nothing to do with Bram Stoker no matter what the film would lead you to believe, in fact it even changes Dracula to Drakulya. It's just a terrible film that deserves it's lowly 1.6 IMDb user rating, I mean it's that low for a reason people & you have been warned. Only for masochists & insomniacs.
The Girls
bemyfriend-4018415 February 2021
Dracula's Curse
Horrorfan19726 July 2006
Although at times some of the acting is a bit stiff and the special effects are a bit lacking, Bram Stoker's Dracula's Curse, the latest release from director Leigh Scott and The Asylum Home Entertainment, is still packed full of enough gun fights, sword fights and vampire action to deliver a "popcorn" roller-coaster ride of a fun movie. In true Scott tradition, the movie is a blend of action, horror, and some comedy. Even with this large a blend, Scott makes sure that one style never overtakes the entire film. The movie will draw comparisons to other recent vampire flicks, such as Underworld and even John Carpenter's Vampires, but also makes sure to add enough new material to carve out a niche of its own. Although Bram Stoker's Dracula's Curse does have some faults, it more than makes up for them thanks to a solid cast, lots of action, and an entertaining plot. The movie is easily one of the best Asylum has release to date, and is probably one of Scott's best (although Frankenstein Reborn remains my favorite). It has a little bit of everything mixed in to bring a movie that has a bit of a "popcorn" feel to it, but manages to keep you entertained.
Really needs work, but there's worse out there
slayrrr66618 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
"Dracula's Curse" is a pretty problematic vampire effort.
**SPOILERS**
Following a successful mission, Col. Rufus King, (Tom Downey) and his team, Jacob Van Helsing, (Rhett Giles) Gracie Johansson, (Eliza Swenson) Trixie McFly, (Rebekah Kochan) Anastasia Ravenwood, (Marie Westbrook) Sadie Macpherson, (Sarah Hall) Nebraska, (Chriss Anglin) and Maximilian, (Justin Jones) are told of a truce between the vampire elite and their representatives, ending their fighting. After several years of relative peace, Rafe, (Jeff Denton) informs him that a member of the vampire clans has started abducting women who are of pure-blood descent in order to regain the power they once had. When they come across Rick Tollinger, (Tom Nagel) the boyfriend of one of their victims, who offers to help them out, they realize all along that Countess Bathory, (Christina Rosenberg) and her three brides have been responsible for all the recent vampire trouble and they race to get the others back together before they can complete their evil plan.
The Good News: There was some good stuff here. One of the better elements here is the film's rather fun action scenes, which are a lot of fun. The opening encounter is a great example, with the confrontation in the crypt, complete with the utterly-freaky vampires as well as the atmospheric setting in the dank basement and the bloody markings along the wall in the highway before it gets to the main action in the staking in the big coffin-filled room and the later efforts with the kung-fu fight in the adjacent room as well as a very enjoyable gunfight to go along with it. Another big action scene is the shoot-out in the bar, as the creatures are mowed down in automatic gunfire before turning into a rather nice brawl and into the best part when it becomes a full-on martial arts fight between the lesbian brides in a very energetic scene. A later sword-fight between several individuals later on is also rather good, and a later attack scene between them is rather nice. The big action scene, though, is the ambush on the vampire-den, where the hunters deal with the first wave of vampires quite nicely, the confrontations with the queen are quite good and the final revelation, handled through flashback, is impressive for the impact it has on the rather unique storyline it presents and the images created, as the visual impact of the winged demon appearing in the forest is rather impressive, and all around the scene is really good. There's also some nifty and quite-striking visuals in here, as the flashback dream to the Transylvanian woodlands, with the eerie fog and dead trees in the area create a rather creepy and unsettling sequence, and the savagery of the turning and the sensuality of the brides are all meshed together into a great scene. This one's also got some fun with its sleaze, mainly in the brides but also the abduction scene which shows them seducing the girl while she's with her boyfriend. Another one is the vampires bathing nude in a bathtub of blood as they cavort around her. The last plus here is the storyline, which is quite nice as it mixes actual history to rationalize its new-found mythology, but these are all that work.
The Bad News: There was a lot of stuff wrong with this one, one of the biggest problems here is the fact that, in spite of the film's extreme length, this one still feels the need to talk everything out instead of showing it. The length would be ideal to have scenes such as the attack on the vampire counsel or their rampage through the underworld, yet there is a series of huge problems here. First, the former is the only one attempted yet hardly any of it is shown and instead is explained out in detail later on, while the latter never is and both tend to showcase that one point, it never shows anything and talks everything out. That is especially troubling since it is the main plot point to engage the film's later actions, and if it can't be bothered to show the actions everyone is so concerned and freaked-out over, then it really diminishes the power it has over the ability to fear the main villain and really drags this one out. By really showing a lot more of those scenes, it shortens the film and doesn't become a problem to get over. Another problem in the film is that, in order to compensate, some scenes just go on way too long and aren't that exciting or thrilling. The extended training sequence filled with rather useless tactics and clichéd training scene segments that are just plain expected to be in here, only at a much longer clip and expanded. The montage of getting the group back together and the updates on their lives are like that as well, going far longer than it really should in just dragging its action out, and especially since this is the first time several of them are definitively named for us, it's just one more problem to overcome. The fact that the rules and regulations in the vampire society are never quite clear is something else to this, and it's pretty confusing to see all this rule-breaking going on when we don't know it's something that's breaking the rules. The last flaw to this one is the fact that the editing during the vampire den assault is just utterly confusing, makes the results so hard to figure out that it really robs the chaos of the moment. These here are the film's flaws.
The Final Verdict: Definitely a problematic entry, if for no other reason than a couple of story problems rather than anything else fundamental about it, so it's still got some good stuff to it. Recommended for those interested, fans of the studio or the actors or vampire aficionados, while others should heed caution.
Rated R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language and Nudity
**SPOILERS**
Following a successful mission, Col. Rufus King, (Tom Downey) and his team, Jacob Van Helsing, (Rhett Giles) Gracie Johansson, (Eliza Swenson) Trixie McFly, (Rebekah Kochan) Anastasia Ravenwood, (Marie Westbrook) Sadie Macpherson, (Sarah Hall) Nebraska, (Chriss Anglin) and Maximilian, (Justin Jones) are told of a truce between the vampire elite and their representatives, ending their fighting. After several years of relative peace, Rafe, (Jeff Denton) informs him that a member of the vampire clans has started abducting women who are of pure-blood descent in order to regain the power they once had. When they come across Rick Tollinger, (Tom Nagel) the boyfriend of one of their victims, who offers to help them out, they realize all along that Countess Bathory, (Christina Rosenberg) and her three brides have been responsible for all the recent vampire trouble and they race to get the others back together before they can complete their evil plan.
The Good News: There was some good stuff here. One of the better elements here is the film's rather fun action scenes, which are a lot of fun. The opening encounter is a great example, with the confrontation in the crypt, complete with the utterly-freaky vampires as well as the atmospheric setting in the dank basement and the bloody markings along the wall in the highway before it gets to the main action in the staking in the big coffin-filled room and the later efforts with the kung-fu fight in the adjacent room as well as a very enjoyable gunfight to go along with it. Another big action scene is the shoot-out in the bar, as the creatures are mowed down in automatic gunfire before turning into a rather nice brawl and into the best part when it becomes a full-on martial arts fight between the lesbian brides in a very energetic scene. A later sword-fight between several individuals later on is also rather good, and a later attack scene between them is rather nice. The big action scene, though, is the ambush on the vampire-den, where the hunters deal with the first wave of vampires quite nicely, the confrontations with the queen are quite good and the final revelation, handled through flashback, is impressive for the impact it has on the rather unique storyline it presents and the images created, as the visual impact of the winged demon appearing in the forest is rather impressive, and all around the scene is really good. There's also some nifty and quite-striking visuals in here, as the flashback dream to the Transylvanian woodlands, with the eerie fog and dead trees in the area create a rather creepy and unsettling sequence, and the savagery of the turning and the sensuality of the brides are all meshed together into a great scene. This one's also got some fun with its sleaze, mainly in the brides but also the abduction scene which shows them seducing the girl while she's with her boyfriend. Another one is the vampires bathing nude in a bathtub of blood as they cavort around her. The last plus here is the storyline, which is quite nice as it mixes actual history to rationalize its new-found mythology, but these are all that work.
The Bad News: There was a lot of stuff wrong with this one, one of the biggest problems here is the fact that, in spite of the film's extreme length, this one still feels the need to talk everything out instead of showing it. The length would be ideal to have scenes such as the attack on the vampire counsel or their rampage through the underworld, yet there is a series of huge problems here. First, the former is the only one attempted yet hardly any of it is shown and instead is explained out in detail later on, while the latter never is and both tend to showcase that one point, it never shows anything and talks everything out. That is especially troubling since it is the main plot point to engage the film's later actions, and if it can't be bothered to show the actions everyone is so concerned and freaked-out over, then it really diminishes the power it has over the ability to fear the main villain and really drags this one out. By really showing a lot more of those scenes, it shortens the film and doesn't become a problem to get over. Another problem in the film is that, in order to compensate, some scenes just go on way too long and aren't that exciting or thrilling. The extended training sequence filled with rather useless tactics and clichéd training scene segments that are just plain expected to be in here, only at a much longer clip and expanded. The montage of getting the group back together and the updates on their lives are like that as well, going far longer than it really should in just dragging its action out, and especially since this is the first time several of them are definitively named for us, it's just one more problem to overcome. The fact that the rules and regulations in the vampire society are never quite clear is something else to this, and it's pretty confusing to see all this rule-breaking going on when we don't know it's something that's breaking the rules. The last flaw to this one is the fact that the editing during the vampire den assault is just utterly confusing, makes the results so hard to figure out that it really robs the chaos of the moment. These here are the film's flaws.
The Final Verdict: Definitely a problematic entry, if for no other reason than a couple of story problems rather than anything else fundamental about it, so it's still got some good stuff to it. Recommended for those interested, fans of the studio or the actors or vampire aficionados, while others should heed caution.
Rated R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language and Nudity
Good movie for what its worth
jeff786 July 2006
While Dracula's Curse does have its flaws, it manages to be a very entertaining film. The cast reacted well off of each other and the story was pretty good with only a few plot holes. For a film with this small of a budget, they were able to turn it into something a little more.
I watch countless low budget straight to video movies. And this one is a gem. If your out at the video store, give this film a try. It's totally better than some recently bid budget horror films, like When a Stranger Calls and Bloodrayne)
The ending of the film came out of left field, which I liked. Defiently the best film to come out of The Asylum. I look forward to seeing more films from this director.
Jeff
I watch countless low budget straight to video movies. And this one is a gem. If your out at the video store, give this film a try. It's totally better than some recently bid budget horror films, like When a Stranger Calls and Bloodrayne)
The ending of the film came out of left field, which I liked. Defiently the best film to come out of The Asylum. I look forward to seeing more films from this director.
Jeff
Quite Good
TdSmth58 June 2006
This is the first Asylum movie I've seen and I was impressed. The cheap DVD sleeve doesn't do justice to the film, which looks just great. Some flashback scenes have a terrific look, unlike anything you've seen in quarter billion dollar budget films. While it is done on a low budget, it, like many other low budget flicks, makes up for it with a solid and smart script. It is funny, action-packet, at times dark and a little erotic, too. One stunt is quite spectacular with a vampire girl flipping backward and ending up standing perpendicularly on a wall. The story is a venerable encyclopedia of vampirism including characters such as Dracula, Van Helsing, Bathory, Nosferatu, etc. It is a complex story with a surprising twist at the end. It is a little too long because the production team is trying to accomplish a lot. The acting is uneven, most actors do a very good job, a few don't, but they are working hard on a fairly long and difficult script and I appreciate that. I would have liked to have seen a lot more nudity and gore. I can't wait to see the rest of Asylum movies. Recommended for anyone looking for a good, smart vampire flick and tired of predictable, lame and stupefying Hollywood movies.
Great Film to add to Vampire Canon
lilrebma17 June 2006
If you love vampires, you'll love Dracula's Curse. I've seen quite a few Asylum films and this one has to be the best one I've seen so far. The acting is solid and the characters are developed. The filmmaker is able to have a large cast without making it confusing and making each character count. There are no superfluous characters here (very important for the ending battle). The special effects and make-up effects are amazing to look at. AND it has a great story-line. I'm also impressed with the filmmaker's ability to not subject the viewer to the 'norms' of low-budget (and recently big-budget) horror films - such as gratuitous nudity and gore. Yes, this movie does have some of that, but it doesn't hit you over the head with it and allows you to not forget the story. There's no need to make excuses for this film given it's minuscule budget - it delivers!!! I was personally disappointed in Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula, and I think this was the movie it was supposed to be - sexy, entertaining and a great addition to the vampire lore. Rent it!!!
Pretty good.
haley_hime28 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Unlike some Leigh Scott movies, this one had a plot to it.....I enjoyed this one, actually. It was pretty cool, but not a major bloodbath like Hillside Cannibals. Though, the beginning was a little iffy, kind of a rip-off of the Cal Leandros book series by Rob Thurman. Though, there were a little too many characters for my liking. Hell, half the people from Hillisde were in this one! Vaz, Erika, the Toms, what are they? Leigh Scott's pets or something? We could have done without a few characters though. But keep Tsorak, even though he's a minor character he kicks ass! And the special effects were kind of lame, but that's the joys of Leigh's films.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
