Dracula: Reborn

I found this movie to be is very disappointing. Dracula is a great book. And most movies based on it are great. But this remake is not. It is is badly written. Badly acted. And is has an awful ending. In is not scary like most Dracula movie. It is a bad movie. Don't wast your money don't see it. It is pooh pooh. Pooh pooh. Pooh pooh. Pooh pooh. Stinky pooh. This a great story being ruined by bad acting bad writing and a s.h.i.t. ending. That was not how B.r.a.m Stoker ended is book. He new how to tell a good horror story. These people don't have a clue. I was very disappointed. I expect so mush more from a Dracula movie. Bad movie bad movie bad movie.

As might be inferred from its title, this is a reworking of the tale of our old fiend Count Dracula. Most viewers will not be surprised to find that instead of turning up in late Nineteenth Century England he chooses herein to relocate to the West Coast where doubtless he will develop a taste for California girls. Indeed he has already, the wife of his estate agent, a bloke with the unsurprising name of Jonathan Harker. And if you have read the book or even if you haven't, you've probably guessed the name of the evil count's faithful henchman - Renfield.

There is also a Van Helsing, but there is no actual Dracula, our bad guy having another name entirely, and there is no real suggestion he is an aristocrat. While Harker has heard of vampires, he hasn't heard of the classic Count either. If that can be forgiven, the slow plot can't - murders aside. This is anything but an inspiring film, even if it does have a twist right at the end.

Needless to say that I had never actually heard about this 2012 movie titled "Dracula Reborn" from writer and director Patrick McManus. But I happened to stumble upon it by random chance here in 2023, and with it being a vampire movie and a horror movie that I hadn't already seen, of course I opted to sit down and watch it.

I have to admit, though, that I harbored absolutely zero expectations to the movie, as I sat down and watch it. The mere title of the movie was enough to make the movie reek to high heavens of a low budget cash in on the classic Bram Stoker work. But hey, on the off-chance that the movie would prove to be good, I opted to give it a fair chance.

But I should have followed my gut instincts, because writer and director Patrick McManus slaughtered Bram Stoker's classic "Dracula" story by his re-writing and trying to make the novel up-to-date and a modern version of the classic tale.

Sure, if you've never read Bram Stoker's novel, or seen the 1992 movie "Dracula" or any of the old Hammer Horror movies for that matter, then you might find some enjoyment in "Dracula Reborn". However, I have, and thus I found Patrick McManus's movie to be a slap to the face with a cold, dead fish.

The storyline in "Dracula Reborn" had been rewritten to a great extend, but it wasn't making the story any more enjoyable. And the constant showing of actor Stuart Rigby's face turning ashen grey, his eyes blackening and black veins forming on his face whenever he was enforcing his vampiric will upon the humans grew very tiring, very quickly.

The acting performances in "Dracula Reborn" were adequate, but the actors and actresses very fighting an already lost uphill battle, because the script was atrocious and horrible. And the character gallery in the movie was just laughable, especially the Hispanic gangbangers, wow, it was so cringeworthy to watch and listen to.

Visually then "Dracula Reborn" was actually a fair enough movie. But you grew very bored with watching the same effects used over and over and over and over.

If you never have had any experience with the Bram Stoker novel "Dracula" in any form or shape, then by all means sit down and watch "Dracula Reborn". But if you have experience with the classic novel, do yourself a favor and skip of writer and director Patrick McManus's butchery of the works.

My rating of "Dracula Reborn" lands on a three out of ten stars.