Dracula's Curse

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

This is a sequel to Dracula. There are a lot of the Dracula sequels. Most of them are good. This one is not. It is acting is very bad in this movie. The story line is awful. 2.8 is underrating it. It is not that bad. But it is not very good. Do not see this movie. See Dracula (March 1931). That is a mush better. Do not waste your time. And do not waste your money. Dracula (1979) good movie. See that one. Dracula's Cure (2002) is a remake. That is a good movie to see. Dracula (1992) is very good has well. But this is just a very bad movie. Do not see it. See Nosferatu that is a silent version of Dracula from 1922. That is a great movie. But you should skip this one.

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.

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!

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