Recensioni degli utenti

The acting was terrible. The storyline was just an excuse for showing boobs. Did I mention terrible acting. Don't waste your time. This movie used the names in the original Dracula but had none of the excitement, intelligence or suspense. Garbage.

It's been years since I saw acting this bad, the story line is wooden as is the acting. Honestly don't waste your time with this film, I managed 20min before finally giving in.

What was Michael Ironside thinking when agreeing to be in this movie.

Absolutely terrible. Horrible special effects. Terrible acting. This should never have been made. This is a insult to not only the Dracula story but also cinema as a whole.

Avoid like the plague.

Wooden acting, predictable script, dire direction. Why, just why, that's all I was left asking myself. Dracula has such potential, yet to be fully realized.

With Asylum I learnt to look for what the actual content is, because their titles are 99:100 deceiving.

So this was titled Dracula, and looked like a costumed flick (long time passed since anyone did such), but I expected a twist.

The twist was, this is not your Dracula-story with Dracula-characters, but a female Sherlock Holmes. I say why not, and once figured out what is going on, I could dive into the experience.

The catsing of "Dracula" was an interresting choice, I mean who'd hire someone who looks like the Laughing Vampire from Twilight, but sure, why not. And in vampire-form he looked like Radu. Radu is funny. It isa reference I like wether intentional or not.

On the mockbuster part, this looks and feels better than Morbius for me to be honest. I'd watch this in cinema sooner than that.

A boring Thursday night, put this on in the background and quite enjoyed it. The main characters - who were all newbies - did ok in my opinion. Yeah it's a big cheesy, yeah there were some dodgy moments but I thought it was an ok watch. I've seen a hell of a lot of bad films and this was fine for me.

I have watched many Dracula movies but this is the worst I have ever seen. You can tell the "stars" are in their first movies. The dialogue is stilted. And poor Michael Ironside was the only good thing in this movie. This is the worst movie I have seen him in and I have watched Highlander 2.

But the worst part of it was the lighting. You couldn't see two thirds of the movie. And they had electric lamps, why was everything lighted by lamps?

Do not see this movie unless you want a terrible movie to riff on. My friend Dok had riffed on it a lot. There was less gratuitous T and A in a piranha movie. Why did we have to see dead tits over and over again.

Wow this hurt.

I'm not suprised the 3 young ones haven't worked since this movie, it's terrible. I would like to 1 star it.

Ironside is Ironside, plank like, he must have done this to relieve boredom or for pocket money.

Ugh, well of course it had to happen. The Asylum breaks out another can of mockbuster, and this time it is the upcoming "Morbius: The Living Vampire" movie that gets the treatment in "Dracula: The Original Living Vampire".

When I saw the movie's poster and read the movie's title, I was immediately aware of this being another The Asylum movie, without a doubt, and yet I opted to sit down and watch this 2022 movie from writer Michael Varrati and director Maximilian Elfeldt. And I will say, actually, that this movie wasn't actually all that bad.

Sure, you are not in for an evening of Shakespearian cinema here, but at least The Asylum upped their game tremendously in terms of budget, production and effects. So it was a pleasant surprise to watch "Dracula: The Original Living Vampire" actually, despite of the insanely lazy writing from Michael Varrati, as it was essentially just the classic Bram Stoker story "Dracula" with slight modifications to the story, and with some not-so-subtle-shoved-into-the-stage Woke mentality as well.

I wasn't familiar with a single performer on the cast list in "Dracula: The Original Living Vampire", aside from Michael Ironside, which is something I actually do enjoy when I watch movies. And I will say that the performances put on by the actors and actresses were actually quite good.

The production in "Dracula: The Original Living Vampire" was great, and actually felt like a proper movie, instead of the usual rubbish low budget attempts of making a movie that The Asylum has been pushing out by the dozens each year. So that was a great accomplishment.

And the visuals too were greatly improved, which impressed me, because The Asylum usually have questionable and dubious special effects, but not in "Dracula: The Original Living Vampire". Thumbs up on that accomplishment.

Ultimately, then I was definitely pleasantly surprised with "Dracula: The Original Living Vampire" and found it to be a watchable movie and entertaining enough for what it was.

My rating of "Dracula: The Original Living Vampire" lands on a five out of ten stars.

The only thing you will be missing after watching this movie is the last hour and half of your life. Don't waste your time, it is indescribably bad, really bad.

This is a very poor adaptation of a classic story; throwing in "modern" twists such as same sex relationships is a pathetic attempt to bring a different slant on it. A female lead investigator is also not sufficient to add a new slant. The acting is at best wooden, the script lacks depth and the whole thing is almost incongruous.

The direction is non-existent; special effects are OK but even on a budget this film is a let down.

This film is really not worth watching other than to show film students how NOT to make films. I'm unsure what they were thinking when producers gave a green light to this production but clearly ot wasn't logic!!!

Couldn't stomach 15 minutes of this movie. Everything about it is wrong.... casting, direction, lighting, acting, costumes, sets, props.... Impossible to even tell what time period it was set. Obviously very little budget and made by people who have no clue what "production value" means. If you're going to make a movie (can't call this a "film") set in a specific historical period, at least make an attempt to have the characters look as if they're from the period and not just have them walk onto the set in whatever they pulled out of their closet that morning. Not one of the actors was wearing period clothing and don't get me started on the hair styles and makeup. Then there's the acting. I've seen better performances from community theatre groups in church basements.

The cast do their best with the terrible contemporary rewriting of the classic tale. The directing isnt much better than the writing but at least the production value and music are decent.

Imdb still trying to force spoiler laden reviews with the new minimum character limit imdb still trying to force spoiler laden reviews with the new minimum character limit imdb still trying to force spoiler laden reviews with the new minimum character limit imdb still trying to force spoiler laden reviews with the new minimum character limit imdb still trying to force spoiler laden reviews with the new minimum character limit.

I found this movie to be highly entertaining, altho I didnt take it seriously in the slightest! Drac is inspired by the Goth in the IT crowd I think :D

Sorry to crimp your night (haters ) - Some great one liners, get some friends round, drink and laugh!

A dark comedy that bites! :D.

... the 'original' living vampire, not this pasty-faced newcomer 'Morbius (2022)!' From Asylum films, this 'mockbuster' set in designer-Victorian times, takes its title from the original Marvel Morbius comic strips, always subtitled, 'The living vampire.'

There are some atmospheric recreations of Gothic castles and general Victorian-looking panoramas. I couldn't work out if they were model work, enhanced actual cityscapes or CGI, which is the whole point, I'm sure.

The historical accuracy is loose at best but looks good, and the actors do a fair job of getting their tongues around some very olde-world dialogue - and fangs - and some very interesting things are done with many characters from the original novel - different genders, different sexual preferences and different beliefs. The result is very talky a lot of the time but features occasional effects that are pretty impressive, and ultimately, I enjoyed this.

I love vampire movies but this has to be the biggest pile of tosh I've ever had the misfortune to spend 20 minutes on. It jumps rapidly from one gothic cliché to another, barely barely stopping for more than a split 2nd on any of them except, unsurprisingly, the naked boobs. The acting is appalling and it comes across like there was no direction whatsoever. Vampire movies need to build some kind of atmosphere and horror anticipation but this just lurches from one scene to another without any without any thought for creating any suspense.

Like it was produced by a bunch of college kids as a school project. Do not waste your time.

A particularly shaky film. And this time the lack of budget is clearly not the problem. Nothing is going well, the staging goes back and forth between mediocre and approximate, the historical context is thrown in the trash, the tone is very monotonous, the light burns out the characters at times and the music is never used the right way. And worst of all, we know the whole plot by having read the title and watched the 5 minutes of films.

This part of the criticism is useless, it took 600 letters but I said everything in 500 so I'm supplementing with blabla which is useless, Good day and thank you for reading to the end.

The story line has nothing new to add to the countless Dracula movies that have been done over the years. From that standpoint there's really no need to watch. There are a couple of aspects that raise it above a one-star movie. First, the set designs were actually good. With a few notable exceptions things seemed pretty consistent with a late 19th century setting it claimed to be. The telephone and electric fan, though old, were not that old. Second, for a cast of mostly no-name actors, the acting wasn't the worst I've seen. No future Oscar winners here, but the acting wasn't bad enough to be a distraction.

In the list of cast members, Jake Herbert that is shown on the internet is the wrong Jake Herbert. The one on one site shows a wrestler who has no film credits. I'm guessing no one did their research and making sure the correct photo of the correct Jake Herbert was found and used. I'm not sure who I would get in touch to get this correct. If you go onto Google and search the name of the film and click on cast, you will see what I am talking about.

Apart from that the film is ok and worth a watch. I love anything to do with Dracula. It is always good to see some films redone with some changes (like a female Van Helsing).

Why do these people insist on having to have a lesbian couple in a 19th century movie, what is wrong with these people, they are only trying to inject lesbianism, they are not good writers because they are only concerned about injecting viewpoints associated with them rather than making a movie that should really reflect the times. All though the acting was at a b level, the movie itself was just no better than a c. This is by far the worst Dracula movie I've ever watched. Even the actual script was bad. And no, it's not about me being homophobic, it's about the truth. I can only hope these people don't bother making more movies.