Good concept, poorly executed.

Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

The xenophobic invasion plot of Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula" has proved quite versatile in movie adaptations. In the "Nosferatu" films (1922 and 1979 versions), it was related to the plague. In "The Return of the Vampire" (1943), the Dracula-esque vamp was an allegory for the Nazis. For "Drakula Istanbul'da" (1953), it was a historical repetition of Vlad the Impaler's raids on Turkey. "Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary" (2002) updated it to reflect economic fears from East Asia. For most adaptations, it's tied in with religion and sex, as it was in the book. So, it seems appropriate to read an allusion to American paranoia of a communist invasion, as others have done for other 1950s horror films, as well as space-alien-invasion sci-fi, into this updated reworking of "Dracula" set in suburbia USA.Otherwise, this is a trashy, if fun, poverty-row production. In it, a vampire, who the title and characters in the film refer to as "Dracula," assumes the identity of man, who he kills on a train and who also happened to be an immigrant from somewhere in the Eastern Bloc. Especially with a red-paranoia reading, it's similar to "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (1956). Dracula, then, takes up residence in his (that is, the dead man's) relatives' home, where the teenage daughter goes from adoring him to suspecting him of horrendous acts, a la Alfred Hitchcock's "Shadow of a Doubt" (1943). With the train arrival, alias, adoring female and the American resetting, it's also akin to "Son of Dracula" (1943). The daughter, who is essentially the Mina-type Stoker character, has a teenage boyfriend, who stands in for Stoker's Jonathan Harker. There's also a Van Helsing-like character leading the vampire hunters, and Jennie, the blind girl, replays Lucy's ordeal from the novel."The Return of Dracula" begins with a failed vampire hunt, as did its contemporary Stoker adaptation, Hammer's "Dracula," renamed "Horror of Dracula" in the US. Additionally, whereas the Hammer film is entirely in color, the otherwise black-and-white "The Return of Dracula" features one brief color shot of blood splatter.Some moments make this film worthy of being categorized, at best, as so-bad-it's-good, and left me scratching my head or chuckling. For instance, I doubted Dracula was even Dracula, let alone the identity he assumed, when he claims that the family's new, cookie-cutter home has "a feeling of the old world." A "snow job," indeed, as the all- American teenage boyfriend quips—while standing beside his convertible, lest we forget they're in 1950s California. In another scene, Rachel is in a hurry to see her dying friend Jennie, but she has the time to wait stubbornly for her boyfriend to reluctantly open the car door for her! Or, reacting to an investigator's questioning whether they were close to the late Jennie, Rachel's mother replies, "No, a little girl we all knew and loved…." Well, which is it? Later, there's the feeblest Halloween costume competition ever filmed. And the script skips entirely over the confirmation and evidentiary stages in the Van Helsing stand-in convincing a priest, a couple cross-bearing policemen and others to open Jennie's coffin for the purposes of hammering a stake into her heart—all the while she's awake and, thus, would appear alive to anyone who hadn't had vampirism proved to them. Indeed, the priest cries out that they made a mistake and had buried her alive. Never mind, they put a stake in her chest, anyways.Rising above this stuff, Francis Lederer is a rather good Dracula. Czech-born, he has the best accent for the role since Bela Lugosi, and he suits the pattern of the non-Stoker-type suave Count, which most movie adaptations have followed. Otherwise, this Dracula is a somewhat interesting immigrant. He praises America for the freedom it offers him, and he criticizes its society for requiring conformity to be accepted. Of course, this is part of his defending his blood-sucking habits. Ironically, he also offers to the blind Jennie, to free her from darkness and, as a vampire, into the light. In another politically-charged moment, an immigration detective lectures Dracula on the lack of rights in his communist country. The climax takes place in a fallout-shelter-like abandoned mine, where Dracula offers the Mina and Jonathan types survival from the "dying world" outside—which can be read as alluding to the nuclear threat of the Cold War.Another interesting part of this "Dracula" is the updated technology. The new tech of Stoker's late-nineteenth century—such as blood transfusions, the phonograph, shorthand and the typewriter— was an important tool in humanity's defeat of the ancient vampire in the novel. Here, the car, telephone and, most intriguingly, a cigarette-lighter spy camera play a comparable role. The spy camera reveals that Dracula's image cannot be photographed. This is something that Stoker didn't include in the novel, but researchers have found in his notes that he considered including it. Thus, like the inability of mirrors to capture his reflection, neither could his likeness be portrayed in portraiture—photographic or otherwise. Too bad this movie, which portrays Dracula as an artist and the Mina type an aspiring designer, doesn't include an attempt to draw the Count.(Mirror Note: There's a nice mirror shot of Dracula's non- reflection, with the camera turning and appropriately dramatic score to reveal him behind Rachel. This mirror appears throughout earlier scenes, too, foreshadowing this pivotal moment.)

This is not a sequel to the Bela Dracula. Actual, I re-watched the Bela Dracula and there are only a couple of parts that are great, the castle scene was one. The rest of the movie sucks, in a bad way. I also re-watched the Horror of Christoper Lee's Dracula and that movie also sucks, in a bad way. I have fond memories of watching the Hammer horror films as a kid. But watching now, the best parts are the sets/colors/cinematography and the music. The stories, dialogue, acting are all poor. Christopher Lee's first line in the movie is about, wait for it, cataloging his library. His freaking LIBRARY! Lee's acting, his dialogue are pretty freaking lame. Gary Oldman in the 1992 Dracula was great. Unfortunately, his acting was placed in a garbage cartoon comic movie with lousy actors including Anthony Hopkin, Keanu Reeves, Winona Ryder and others. So, what are we left with. A patchwork of Dracula movies. Non of them great. Maybe Nosferatu the original. The 1979 remake with Klause Kinsky, I could not even watch. Maybe someone someday will make a serious Dracula movie and have Gary Oldman revise the character.Now for this movie, Leave it to Draculas Beaver, the Dracula actor is very good, but his dialogue and the story sucks. The Van Helsing character was good as well. And the girl was decent. All the other characters were just there. Nothing much happens. The movie is in black and white except for 2 seconds of blood, when one of Draculas brides gets staked. That was a nice touch. And when Dracula gets killed at the end that was decent.It's on youtube, so it's free to check out. Rating is a C, or 4 stars. Mostly for the acting. At least better acting that Chris Lee's Dracula. But the story sucked.

It's odd how my reaction to this film seems not to sync with the quality of the film itself. This is a film with great acting, great photography, a nicely evocative story...and it's even got a clever twist in the mythos to keep things fresh.I could see the quality and care that went into every scene. I enjoyed the way Lederer played the count as a world-weary, well- spoken, decadent aristocrat - far more "Peter Lorre" than "Christopher Lee". And I appreciated the subtlety and crispness with which he and the director showed the audience his hidden evil and shifting moods. At some points, Lederer even seems to be acting on a couple levels at once, a surface courtliness combined with a contempt for his future victims that only the audience can see.The actress playing "Rachel Mayberry" was perfect for the part, and she was gorgeous and desirable. And there was hardly a moment of dead air in the movie. I even liked the way the movie wrapped up. Usually one of my complaints with the Hammer "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" films was that they just...stop...short...seconds after the monster's demise. That's what happens here...but it didn't bother me as much for some reason, maybe because the young hero's assertions somehow are just what is needed, and there really aren't any other plot threads to look after.So this was a very well made movie with some killer performances...and yet my reaction was lukewarm. I guess I just prefer my Dracula somewhat more feral, and working over in Eastern Europe, rather than "Leave It To Beaversville" California. Still, if anyone asks, I will tell them this was a GOOD movie.

One of the best horror movie sequels ever. The Return of Dracula is a must see. Almost as scary has Dracula (1931). The movie has great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. If you like scary movies then you should see this movie. Francis Lederer was a great actor. He is great a Count Dracula. Norma ELberhardt was great actress. Ray Stricklyn was a great actor. Dracula (1992) is better. But still this a great movie. John Wengraf was a great actor. This is movie about Dracula in Modern time. It is one of the best horror movie from the 50's. It is very intense. Do not watch this movie alone a night.