Wrath of Dracula

The film centers around the story of Jonathan Harkers incarceration by Count Dracula. He writes a note of dismay home to his beloved Mina, warning her of his impending doom. Mina who finds help with the dull, boring all knowing Van Helsing begins a journey to castle Dracula to rescue her beloved. Not before though she must train, to have the strength to fight the vampires. For she cannot handle the weight of a hammer to drive the steak through the Lord of the darkness' Heart. Though she can lift suitcase containing a heavy typewriter which weights far more. Anyway she trains in martial arts, for some reason, and learns it rather quickly from mere illustrations, our Heroine is far stronger willed than we would assume her pretty demeanour. The castle is a let down, the vampires and action scenes are poor, sound poor, look worse and the script is tedious. Jonathan Harker is a weak performance in every way a good C- GCSE. Van Helsing isn't bad but the script doesn't do much for his excitement. It's slow and a waste of time. It's not even worth the B movie viewing novelty. The model castle though is great. Draculas lisp is hilarious. The rain effect is probably my most favourite element to the film. It was the moment that most caught my attention, trying to figure out how long they spent adding it. Much like the sound of the wolf howls. Mina is clearly the best paid actress perhaps only paid actress and isn't too bad, I'd expect a decent performance from Hannaj with a decent script and a hint of a budget. The credit sequence is better than the film. Look I get it, it's budget b movie and fun for the crew to make. You'd hope. For Stoker fans, which is why I gave it my time, it's not worth it.

I recently watched "The Wrath of Dracula," and it took me a good 40 minutes to realize it was not your typical horror flick but rather at time's a black comedy. The film presents a unique take on the well-trodden Dracula story, blending humor into the narrative. I hope it was intended

The performances were decent, with the cast embracing the film's comedic elements. However, I found myself questioning the necessity of adapting this familiar story into another film. While the twist towards comedy was unexpected, it didn't necessarily enhance the overall viewing experience for me.

Despite my reservations about the film's choice of direction, I appreciate the attempt to bring something new to the Dracula narrative. "The Wrath of Dracula" might not be everyone's cup of tea, but if you're open to a comedic spin on classic horror, it could be an interesting watch.

Overall, the film leaves an impression with its unexpected genre shift, but whether it successfully revitalizes the well-known Dracula story is up for debate.

I was liking this as soon as i saw Hannaj Bang Bendz in the opening credits, i think she really adds to any role.

Ok, this time Mina travels to Castle Dracula to find Jonathan. Upon arrival she runs into Van Helsing and from there, well you know the rest. Most of the acting was good.

The film is very pleasing, the set design, the lighting, it just looks good. The story drags on too slow, as though its an episode of a series.

There is a real PG13 feel of this, a very soft approach, total lack of gore and an odd interjection of camp in one of the few fight scenes. I sort of got the feel they were trying different things during the course of production. To me there was a real lack of consistancy.

Overall its not bad and after watching it, my impression was that it had the look of a pilot movie for a tv series. The ending even supported this. So much that it reminded me of the Dracula tv series from 2013 that was cancelled mid first season.

You dont see much of Dracula in this movie at all. That really leaves me wondering about the title. He is sctually portrayed as a wimp.

Its worth watching, it has entertainment value.

However they had a decent cast and could have made it much more lively.

Mark Topping plays a hesitantly spoken chauvinistic Van Helsing, and Hannaj Bang Bendz is a resilient, modern-looking Mina Harker in this wordy adaption of Bram Stoker's most famous story. The project is helmed by prolific writer/director Steve Lawson, the man behind the equally dialogue-driven 'Jekyll and Hyde', 'Ripper Untold' and 'Mummy Resurrection' among others, all released over the last few years. He specialises in modestly budgeted productions, alongside Creativ Studios who maintain that the limited number of sets and locations look good.

Films like this are an acquired taste. Some reviewers seem offended by the static style of such productions, but they are obviously successful enough to continue. I rather like them - they are invariably well-acted and the stories are interestingly told. This is an adaption that creates an even bigger enemy than Sean Cronin's bullet-headed Count - sexism against women. Mina, always glamorous and confident, interrupts her vampire hunting, where she's hoping to rescue Dean Marshall's wet hubby Harker, to explain how able women generally are, and how the world seems designed to undermine them, often with a raised eyebrow; Van Helsing can only bow his head in quiet agreement.

Some of the action sequences don't work, but other than that, this is up to the usual standard of Steve Lawson's productions. It won't appeal to everyone. But what it does, it does well. The performances are very good (there's a real sense of menace and power from Cronin's Dracula) and the adaption is thoughtfully told. Interestingly, a series of out-takes play under the end credits. My score is 7 out of 10.

I don't tend to publicly review, due to being an indie filmmaker myself and having to be careful. But after Sean Cronin proved he has the most fragile ego in the world by harassing me - very unprofessional - via various social media accounts (simply for saying I don't rate his work), I felt like I may as well review.

This is one of the most pointless films I've ever seen. The production values are the highlight. The castle actually looks semi-decent. But everything else is abysmal.

The writing is fundamentally terrible - which is a trend with this writer/director and his straight-to-streaming terrible adaptations. I've watched a couple of his films, and they are equally poor.

The highlights though are Cronin and Snow's awful performances. Cronin in particular, for all his experience, remains unable to act on even a basic level. His Dracula has no presence. He has no charisma. His accent is abysmal and the poor dialogue doesn't help him. Overall, it's one of the very worst Dracula's I've ever seen.

Snow is the highlight of crappiness, though. I don't understand how she keeps getting roles. She's always sold as 'sexy', but she really isn't. She looks like she hasn't eaten a meal in a year. Her accent is hilariously awful, and her dialogue is equally ass.

Prime example of 'desperate actors who'll do anything for five minutes of attention'

Absolutely abysmal, from start to finish. A slog to sit through, despite a short run time.

Bottom-of-the-barrel trash.