In his search for the Lightbringer, Dracula crosses paths with a beautiful crusader named Alina who bears a remarkable resemblance to his murdered bride. One look at her and Dracula is immediately smitten. Could Alina be the reincarnation of his long-dead love? Dracula has Alina kidnapped and brought to his castle where the Beast must now try to win his Beauty's heart.
Similar titles
Reviews
I love this movie so much
a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.
It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.
The acting in this movie is really good.
One thing that can be said confidently is that there has never been any shortage of Dracula themed movies. Even after Hammer Horror were laid to rest we got wall to wall films cashing in on the popularity of the worlds favorite Transylvanian.This is one of those efforts that presents him as almost an anti-hero, forced into the darkness through anger at the loss of his true love.Trouble is this one simply isn't very good, it's a combination of classic mythology and modern nonsense that simply doesn't work.It looks shoddy, it sounds poor and poor Jon Voight looks very out of place.With a blonde dracula, practically no bites/blood/vamperic action and more Christian references than a priest could shake his tallywacker at this is a poor piece of Dracula cinema.The Good:A few decent designs here and thereThe Bad:Far too much of the stupidity that is christianityIncredibly dullThings I Learnt From This Movie:Jon Voight must have lost a bet
It would be a good movie if: Had no unnecessary nudity;The clothes were more appropriate to the time and more rustic;Women do not appear with a look from a beauty salon (much production in the face and hair);The younger actors seem to have left the Glee show.The story became very different, it was not bad, just different. The production is modest, within the available budget. Being a super production is not mandatory and does not guarantee a good movie. The film has some good actors, yes. And it's easy to see who they are, the more experienced and less exaggerated.
Is the main actress hot? Does it really matter to the movie watching experience you are about to have? The first question I think most will tend to answer with a yes. The second one though ... well I don't think many will swing to a yes vote for that. The CGI is not really great, but that is to be expected with the budget this movie has. It does look like a million other movies with a C-budget (or is it D?).The fact that they can release this under the Dracula banner is almost an insult I guess. Especially when you think that really good movies had no rights to the name (see Nosferatu amongst others). But if you really have too much time and love those sorts of movies, I won't stop you from watching it. Don't say I didn't warn you (and you waved it away like all those traveling through Transylvania)
Spoiler Alert. Enjoy the movie before reading further if you don not want another's opinion of the movie.This movie could have been quite stylish and I have the feeling that it was shot then re shot to add some interesting scenes. The whole beginning of the movie where stills similar to "The 300" where live action and stills were mixed to interesting effect screamed potential.. But alas. It stinks. The scriptwriter was caught between writing a legitimate, alternate telling of the Dracula story full of mysticism, occult, symbolism and sexy lesbos who never really get it on but wander around being on the verge of orgasm all the time and a pratfall comedy that just never got going. Either way it;s a disaster dialog-wise and cinematically. Maybe undead lesbians who crave sex as much as blood is the basis of the attractiveness of vampires. The amount of unrestricted sex people think they get certainly hypes the interest of prepubescent boys and girls. After all, who is going to try to restrict the actions of a fifteen year-old dead boy or girl? All the social ramifications of his/her actions are gone. They are free to have sex with whomsoever they please and are constantly on the prowl for new conquests in literature of this ilk. Aah, the romance and stench of the undead. Just turns you on doesn't it?But back to the movie. Dracula has always been overtly sexual ever since Bram Stoker penned the character. Maybe only Nosferatu is the only non-sexual vampire. This one is as tortured as any of the enormous cadre of cohorts. He is a poor troubled soul who has lost his true love and must compensate by having sex with a bevy semi-attractive women. I guess the budget, after paying for Voight, must have been dramatically reduced so the bevy was of the bargain basement variety. .Voight is a good actor. He has given some superior performances and some real scenery chewers. This role, as Van Helsing, could have been a powerful one but his dialog was so hackneyed and his direction so over the top that one yearns for the character he created in "Anaconda." But here is something about this actor: He can create a character and bring that character to life. This puts him so far above the rest of the cast craft wise that's it's almost painful to watch them mouth lines that must have sent him wrenching to whatever substituted for a trailer or dressing room. I hope he cashed his check right after he got it. Here there was potential to take the movie to a new look at this well known Dracula character but both the writers and the director totally failed to realize any kind of concept and as much as Lugosi set the mold for the character, his depiction soars in comparison. Hell, even Brandon Lee's characterization was superior and that was a total disaster. The producers should have brought "The Bringer of Light" and had him illuminate the script because it just doesn't work. One of the things a director can do with a movie like this is add a concept or subtext that is metaphorically presented through the movie. But I fear only Voight understands how such a thing can be done and he wasn't directing the movie. Hell, he was barely acting in it and his performance was the best the movie had to offer.The movie reminds me of people who put on plays and opera in small towns. They advertise that they are going to have a fantastic production with all kinds of ideas brought out in the dramaturgy. But they end up being stock versions with period costumes and they fall as flat as some of the scenery. If this was a play, it would have been as dark as the dark prince after opening night.