This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

the acting is horrible. it looks and sounds as if it was filmed on a home video camera the background audio overpowers the voices throughout the whole movie. the sound effects have been repeated over and over, it seems everyone has the same scream the actor who played hell-sing cant even pronounce Nosferatu, he says "nosterfartu" how can the people that edited miss something so obvious, maybe they were too caught up in trying to make people disappear by stopping the camera, getting the actor to move out of screen then starting it again. the visual effects could be done better on a high school editing suite. action scenes are just a disorienting confusion of flashes of the weapons closeup of the actors, the story line.... pathetic

"Braw Stoker's Way of the Vampire" is a below decent vampire film.**SPOILERS**A hundred years ago, Dr. Abraham Van Helsing, (Rhett Giles) tracked down a coven of followers of Vampire Count Dracula, (Paul Logan) and nearly destroys the group. In the modern times, his descendant is also hunting the same group, now led by Sebastien, (Andreas Beckett) and Arianna, (Denise Boutte) whop are wanting a return to their glorious past and start a rampage through the city. Gathering a crew to face the vampire, Van Helsing launches an assault on the vampire hideout.The Good News: There wasn't a whole lot to this film that was really stand-out. The gore here is really the best part, and it's quite bloody at times. There's some nice looking ripped throats, the traditional neck bites, and some blood splatter sprayed around on the walls pretty liberally at the end. There's a little more blood in here as well, so it certainly will apply for gore-hounds looking for a little thrill. The action is pretty decent, especially the concluding fight but it never rises above decent. That's the general feel for the whole film, as it really didn't impress me all that much.The Bad News: Overall, this wasn't all that spectacular, even when it did make an impression. The film practically grinds to a halt when the series of Van Helsing training the vampire hunters in montage, which really destroys the momentum gathered up to that point. It's hardly ever a good idea to do such a move in a movie, and this one proves it. But those are the only real factors that strike against this one. It just didn't do anything for me.The Final Verdict: A hard movie to really latch onto, as it didn't do much at all for me, but was decent nonetheless. If you're vampire fans, there's worse ones out there, but if you're not a real hardcore fan of the genre and it's offerings, then exercise with extreme caution with this one.Rated R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language, Nudity and repeatedly coming back to the same sex scene

Until tonight, I was sure that the Third 'From Dusk Till Dawn,' was the worst vampire movie ever made. I was sadly mistaken. The F-grade acting, horrible cuts, sloppy dialogue, and lack of substantial story line make this the worst vampire movie I have ever seen. It is absolutely essential that you counter balance the respect you will lose in vampire movies with the following; 'Interview with a Vampire' (For its incredible acting and top-notch story-line), 'Blade' (For its scientific, as opposed to religious, take on the disease and symptoms), and 'Underworld' (for its action-packed entertainment value). If you have not, please do not, watch this movie, or do so only to contrast how good some Vampire movies are comparatively.

Unlike David Latt's War of the Worlds, this film by the aforementioned producer, Bram Stokers' Way of the Vampire, is a very sub-par film. At least with War of the Worlds, there were some acceptable performances and superb visual effects. This film had nothing more than an anemic (to use a "blood" term) script, with below-average dialogue. The acting was atrocious on almost every front. The production design budget also seemed to be lacking (unlike War of the Worlds which looked professional at least). Hmm, what else, before I forget what I watched? The sound - I could NOT hear almost half the dialogue been said - because the music (the score which suspiciously sounds a lot like War of the Worlds - surprise) and effects were turned up to completely drown out the inferior dialogue (perhaps this was intentional?) One positive thing I can say is that Mr. Latt knows how to turn out product, and one should keep in mind that this is a low budget film. Therefore, it isn't a bomb, but I can't give it more than 4 out of 10 stars.