Dracula's Curse

The third and final of the Asylum monster universe see's a battle between vampires and hunters and of course the prince of darkness himself is thrown in for good measure.

Following The Beast of Bray Road (2005) and Frankenstein Reborn (2005) this cheaply made traditionally terrible Asylum movie is exactly what you'd expect going in.

To it's credit the practical effects are oddly on point, but that's basically all it has going to it. Once again the same cast are present but playing different characters which I can't figure out for the life of me why they thought that'd be a good idea. The CGI is poor, the acting is mostly weak and the story and writing just doesn't help matters at all.

The Asylum are known for bad movies so going in people should have low expectations that way they'll likely be met.

Bad stuff, but they've made worse.

The Good:

Practical effects are better than you'd imagine

The Bad:

Some ropey acting

Standard Asylum problems

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

I hate being interrupted during a monologue as well

Sarah Lieving is so much better than this nonsense

At 107 minutes, the least they could have done was offered the editor (if there was one) a pair of scissors! A few other things that might have come in handy 1. a script, 2. a director, 3. some actors (although if there's a half way decent script, I can make do with some wooden actors. 4. an editor, the movie was at least 35 minutes too long. 5. Some decent special effects, I don't know if anyone at "The Asylum" would know what decent special effects or make were. Poor Bram Stoker, he must have been crying out for a stake thru his heart as he spun in his grave or crypt! The movie had know scary scenes nor did it have any kind of atmosphere. The only thing going for it was the adherence old vampire traditions, not being able to go out in the sun, being allergic to wooden stakes etc. Give yourself a break from this kind of junk and go find a decent vampire movie, preferably one made by Universal in the 1930's or Hammer in the 1960's. You'll be glad you didn't waste your 107 minutes on this stinking pile of vampire waste!

Dracula's Curse is a B class horror film done on a low budget. While most of the scenes were well shot and the dialog was adequate, there was stodgy editing that left a good deal of time between lines. The story is about three groups, the regular vampires, an elite group of powerful pure blood vampires decedents of Dracula, vampires out to dilute the pure blood line lead by Van Helsing, and the vampire slayers that protect humanity from out of control vampires. The enter into an armistice, that eventually fails and leads to the final battle of 'good' v evil. Interesting, but nontraditional plot. Dracula is spoken of many times, but never seen until the very end. Semi-entertaining.

We have to agree for the full 100 percent with Jesse from Australia: After about 30 minutes we stopped this.... Very poor audio, poor camera-work and very bad acting of some amateurs. And the dialog being out of sync, made things only worse.

The quality of acting and sound made us sometimes think, it was an X-rated version of Dracula, where the explicit scenes were taken out.

Jesse wrote that one should wait until somebody else is renting it or wait for the 2-Dollar-bin..... We don't think it is even worth it.... Just a waste of time.

If you like this kind of movies, you better rent and see "Dracula 2000" with Gerard Butler, for example

I write this review to save you from making the same mistake as I did.Bored on a Friday night,you download or rent this film.Rating nearly 5 on IMDb and with some positive reviews so should be good for a laugh at least.I guarantee that if you watch this film you may wince,cry,curse,cringe or throw crockery but you will not laugh.It is an absolute stinker.Truly awful. I suppose that if you were a 15 year old boy living on a farm in rural Kentucky and were keen to see lots of slim young girls with bare midriffs (for no apparent reason) then it might serve some mildly pornographic purpose particularly if you were trying to retain those images for later reflection but if you are not within that demographic there is little other merit. Abysmal in almost every respect,it has only one redeeming quality which is why I watched it for almost an hour and that was to catch an occasional glimpse of the beautiful Sarah Lieving.I won't try to itemise its failings in detail; I'll just give you one scene as an example.There is a man and a woman (trying in vain to remember their lines and not look at the camera at the same time) in a room about 3 feet apart having a dreary and irrelevant conversation about something or other.When the camera is on him ,he looks as if he is being lit by a constipated firefly but when the camera switches to her,she seems to be standing under a 200 kilowatt searchlight.And so it goes on. What I don't understand(and perhaps someone with a greater understanding of the workings of Hollywood can enlighten me)is why anyone would make this dross.Surely no one could have expected to make any money out of it? If you are a wannabe working part-time at Walmart and looking for some recognition for your talents,you must realise that any association with films like these is going to flush the vestige of your career down the toilet? It feels to me like a giant Dunning-Kruger proving ground.Better to go upstairs and read your kids some stuff about dinosaurs or fairies;at least you will feel good about yourself.