Dracula's Curse

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.

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.

I won't say it was a bad offering, but why doesn't someone make a vampire film that actually is a vampire film and not another kung fu action movie where the villains just happen to drink blood? What we get from Dracula's Curse is once again lots of fancy gunplay, swordfighting and martial arts involving hot goth chicks, which seems to have become the rule for vampire films these days (Blade, Underworld, Van Helsing etc. etc.) The cast perform adequately, but there's nothing much for them to do except strike poses looking cool or angry. The fights are choreographed okay and there's no poorly done CGI to laugh at, but we have seen this sort of thing before and I expect better from The Asylum.

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!

OK this is a low budget movie - but even some low budget movies have good acting. The film "Manticore", for example was low budget but it did stand up because the acting was good.

Draculas Curse lacks any descent acting - in many scenes the actors seem unsure of what their next line is which makes me wonder if this film was properly story boarded. The poor screenplay, direction and editing back up my suspicions.

The fight scenes were consistent with the general low quality of the film.

The story was kind of interesting but is over shadowed by the over all poor quality of the film.

Avoid at all costs