KnotMissPriceless Why so much hype?

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Ghoulumbe Better than most people think

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Platypuschow One thing that can be said confidently is that there has never been any shortage of Dracula themed movies. Even after Hammer Horror were laid to rest we got wall to wall films cashing in on the popularity of the worlds favorite Transylvanian.This is one of those efforts that presents him as almost an anti-hero, forced into the darkness through anger at the loss of his true love.Trouble is this one simply isn't very good, it's a combination of classic mythology and modern nonsense that simply doesn't work.It looks shoddy, it sounds poor and poor Jon Voight looks very out of place.With a blonde dracula, practically no bites/blood/vamperic action and more Christian references than a priest could shake his tallywacker at this is a poor piece of Dracula cinema.The Good:A few decent designs here and thereThe Bad:Far too much of the stupidity that is christianityIncredibly dullThings I Learnt From This Movie:Jon Voight must have lost a bet

Sarah Joelyne Astor Luke Robert is the most suave & gorgeous Dracula ever - a very seasoned actor & it shows - also this version has a happy ending - His long blonde hair is a nu look for Dracula - but he steals the screen entirely - and the love scene - which U don't know if it's the past or a dream - is very tender - very sensuous as that kind of scene should be - good job guys!Ben Robson - is another newcomer - he is OK - but somewhat lacking - with his hair so short - he's not so appealing - he's the odd tough guyDidn't recognize Jon Voight - He plays Von Helsing Never seen Kelly Wenham before - she got better at the end - she played Dracula's love -Produced by Stephen Paul - Directed by Pearry Teo - he is also one of the writers - Would enjoy a sequel - but has to be Luke Robert - he was the best

WHO OPODER It would be a good movie if: Had no unnecessary nudity;The clothes were more appropriate to the time and more rustic;Women do not appear with a look from a beauty salon (much production in the face and hair);The younger actors seem to have left the Glee show.The story became very different, it was not bad, just different. The production is modest, within the available budget. Being a super production is not mandatory and does not guarantee a good movie. The film has some good actors, yes. And it's easy to see who they are, the more experienced and less exaggerated.

kosmasp Is the main actress hot? Does it really matter to the movie watching experience you are about to have? The first question I think most will tend to answer with a yes. The second one though ... well I don't think many will swing to a yes vote for that. The CGI is not really great, but that is to be expected with the budget this movie has. It does look like a million other movies with a C-budget (or is it D?).The fact that they can release this under the Dracula banner is almost an insult I guess. Especially when you think that really good movies had no rights to the name (see Nosferatu amongst others). But if you really have too much time and love those sorts of movies, I won't stop you from watching it. Don't say I didn't warn you (and you waved it away like all those traveling through Transylvania)