hyped garbage

An Exercise In Nonsense

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

To be honest I am not a fan of Dracula movies but this one intrigued me. It is a good thriller although Dracula is not as charismatic as the 60's and 70's versions the actual story is better than most. It almost makes the character believable! Definitely a thriller rather than a horror story I really enjoyed it. Good Dracula movies are few and far between. This one is at the top end of the scale. No special effects, no garlic and the cross isn't as destructive as in most. 6/10 from me.

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.

After a vampire (Francis Lederer) leaves his native Balkans, he murders a Czech artist, assumes his identity, and moves in with the dead man's American cousins.What to say about this film? It has Dracula, but not the same Dracula we know and love. He hates mirrors, stakes and crosses... he dislikes daylight. But he does not look like Bela Lugosi. I guess neither does Christopher Lee, though.There is one second of the film shot in color, and a good choice of shot, too. The picture in general is pretty good, if a bit dark, and it is a shame that the Dracula story was taken by Hammer and this story was forgotten (though we cannot fault Hammer for doing a good job).

This well made and nicely restored vampire film takes the basic set-up of Hitchcock's Shadow of a Doubt (1943)--sinister relative comes to visit wholesome family in small town, where young girl of family has an unspoken affinity with him--and reveals the vampire subtext of Hitchcock's more psychologically oriented film. Without excessive blood and gore and teeth, it manages to create an eerie atmosphere that many more expensive horror films never quite achieve. Francis Lederer, in one of his last roles before he retired from movies to live prosperously from his real estate investments, does a great job. For fans of Hollywood locations, Dracula's crypt is set in Bronson Caves, more usually a setting for low-budget westerns.