Dracula Rising

...well, a *pretty* good movie, anyway. But the movie wrapped around it is so confused and disorganized that it'll never find its way out. Theresa, an artist and art conservator, accepts an assignment in an unnamed Eastern European country (Bulgaria, in a fine performance as Romania) and finds it's located in a gorgeous ancient monastery inhabited by Vlad the Impaler's undead son, Vlad the Monk, and his victim/tormentor, Alec. There follows the 3000th version of the old vampire-meets-the-reincarnation-of-his-sweetheart plot, variant B (vampire heroically resists the temptation to turn her into a tormented *yawn* creature like himself). Add some dodgy historical research (i.e, a witch-burning, which didn't happen in the Orthodox countries; when the Impaler does appear he's wearing a bizarre armored half-mask to hide horrible burn-scarring, which looks as if he swiped it from the Broadway Phantom of the Opera), some hilariously inappropriate 1950s-style love songs, and a jaw-droppingly goofy sequence set in Hell (that's right) where the vampires suddenly acquire magic powers and hurl animated bolts at each other like cartoon wizards, and you'll have some idea what a mess this is. Give it a few points for pretty scenery (both landscape and physical - there's a totally nude underwater love scene) but otherwise, pass.

This film essentially begins with an artist by the name of "Teresa Jennings" (Stacey Travis) showing off some of her recent work at a gallery when she meets a young man by the name of "Vlad" (Christopher Atkins) who she seems to have an immediate connection with. Not long afterward she receives an invitation from a mysterious man named "Alec" (Doug Wert) to travel to Europe to help restore an extremely old painting from the renaissance. Eager for such an opportunity she accepts immediately and upon traveling to the monastery where the painting is kept she not only meets Alec-but Vlad as well. Yet even though she is happy to reuinite with Vlad she gets the feeling that something is not quite right-and then the horrors begin. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this was a very poor low-budget vampire movie which suffered from bad acting and an even worse script. In addition to that I thought that Christopher Atkins was terribly miscast for his particular role as well. That being said, I have few positive things to say about this film and for that reason I have rated it accordingly.

The initiative for this movie to be made probably came from cashing in on Coppola's 'Dracula' aka 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' (the love story plot is similar, the subplots are omitted) and this movie is also known as 'Corman's Dracula' (Roger Corman produced it).

'Dracula Rising' is very atmospheric nothingness with all the good early/mid-90's B-movie stuff like rhythm and atmosphere over content; vivid colors and use of colored lighting (mostly red and orange here); wafts of mist; low-key lighting with deep blacks; skewed camera angles; a lot of concern for picture composition; sporadic use of unusual image processing (has some shots of negative images); over-accentuated sound design (every step a character takes is like a drum beat and a fan that does half a rotation per second goes "WOOOSH", "WOOOSH"); practical effects and effects done with animation; relatively little action and the action it has is shot in medium or wide shots with a static camera and with not too rapid editing; theatricality crossing over into surrealism in production design, staging and acting; a super-basic but outlandish premise; shot in an old European country (Bulgaria); Gothic elements; female protagonist (the woman has at least as much screen time as the title character); lots of eroticism & at least one sex scene; this chiller doesn't miss much.

I actually saw this movie a couple of years ago, but I just thought about it now. Not sure why. Hmm, I'll put it on my list of questions that need answering. Hee hee. Just kidding! "Dracula Rising" isn't a bad movie, but it's not great. It has a great story with a lot of romance and horror. I'm also a fan of Christopher Atkins, that partly helped too. This was a movie at the time I rented it, couldn't get out of my head. I would recommend it for vampire or Dracula lovers. And I mean movies! Ahem. Overall, a good movie that just needed more direction. That's all, but there is something in this film you just have to enjoy. How in the heck otherwise would I have thought about it in a couple of years? 7/10

3 is underrating this movie. I give 10 out of 10. It has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. If it does not scary you no movie will. Dracula (1992) is better. Dracula (March 1931) is also. But still this great film. It is very scary. It more about Dracula's son then Dracula. It is still very scary. Nosferatu (1922) is better. This is a lot better then Nosferatu (1979). That is one awful Dracula movie. This is a Dracula sequel. There are a lot of Dracula sequels. And most of then a great film. This is one that is great. This is a very scary move. I need more lines and I am running out of things to say.