Dracula's Curse (2006)

A Masterpiece!

A lot of fun.

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

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.

A group of vampire hunters called the Nine get the various vampire clans to agree to an uneasy pact. All goes well for a spell until the evil Countess Elizabeth Bathorly (a deliciously wicked portrayal by the gorgeous Christina Rosenberg) breaks the pact. The rugged Rufus King (nicely played with assured macho aplomb by Thomas Downey), assisted by the wise, leery Jacob Van Helsing (the excellent Rhett Giles) and the hard-nosed Gracie Johannsen (a very strong and impressive performance by ravishing redhead spitfire Eliza Swenson), brings the Nine back together for a major showdown with Bathorly and her vicious female minions. Writer/director Leigh Scott relates the convoluted, but compelling story at a steady pace, stages the occasional stirring action set pieces with considerable brio and skill, offers a few fresh and inventive twists on standard vampire lore, and sprinkles a reasonable amount of grisly gore. Moreover, Scott does an especially solid job of creating and sustaining some interesting conflicts amongst the well-drawn and engaging main characters. Further kudos are in order for the sound and spirited acting from a game cast, with particularly stand-out work from Jeff Denton as fearsome, haughty bloodsucker Rafe, Amanda Barton as Bathorly's fierce, aggressive right-hand gal Darvulia, Rebekah Kochan as the brassy, hot-tempered Trixie McFly, Sarah Lieving as helpful, sympathetic vampire ally Alex Devereaux, Tom Nagel as naive, eager rookie vampire killer Tattinger, Justin Jones as grotesque ghoul Maximillian, and Scott as enigmatic bloodsucker leader the Old One. Both Swenson's funky, spooky score and Steven Parker's sharp cinematography are up to snuff. A hugely enjoyable flick.

Dracula's Curse starts as a pact between the waring Vampires & the Vampire hunters is agreed & signed, the Vampire hunter leader type guy Rufus King (Thomas Downey) warns the Old One (writer, editor & director Leigh Scott hiding under lots of make up & an awful wig) that if any Vampire kills a human being again the truce is off. Jump forward five years later as a pureblood descendant of Drakulya (pronounced Drac-You-Lar) named Christina Lockhart (Erica Roby) is kidnapped by Drakulya's three Hungarian brides who now serve Countess Bathorly (Christna Rosenberg) & need the pure blood of a pureblood (!) to gain strength in order to launch an attack on the worlds population & basically rule the Earth. Once King realises that the truce has been broken he & the rest of Vampire hunting mates gear up for action once more as they are the only ones who can stop Bathorly...Edited, written & directed by Leigh Scott who also has a small role in the film under lots of make-up one has to say that The Asylum doesn't have a great track record in making good horror films & Dracula's Curse only goes to enhance that reputation rather than change it. As I write this comment right now Dracula's Curse has a lowly IMDb user rating of 1.6 so considering 1 is the lowest any user can rate a film 1.6 (this will probably change over time but not by much) is just about as low as a film can get & one has to say that Dracula's Curse really does deserve that rating. There are so many things wrong with this film, the story is awful as it's some sort of horrible low budget cross between the Blade & Underworld franchises as the film portrays the now clichéd hidden Vampire society living within our own & a team of specialist Vampire hunters dedicated to eradicating them dressed in silly outfits & using 'cool' weapons. It doesn't work here, the Blade & Underworld films has sufficient scope & money behind them to make you believe that there were hidden Vampire societies amongst us but here in Dracula's Curse we see about five Vampires in a basement & that's it. All the character's are awful, there is constant annoying sub plots where they are given little personal problems & dilemmas which amount to nothing & just bore the absolute pants off the audience waiting to see some proper Vampire action. The dialogue is awful too. The story is rubbish with one Vampire bird & three other's seemingly saying they can take over the whole world by themselves, right. At almost two hours in length Dracula's Curse is a real chore to sit through & I would imagine a lot of people won't make it, it really is that bad on all fronts including a terrible twist ending which has zero impact.One of the most enjoyable aspects of both the Blade & Underworld series were the dazzling set-piece action scenes, the cool production design which mixed the sleek chrome plated modernistic up to date along with the imposing traditional Gothic with the over-the-top blood & gore special effects. Unfortunately for the audience Dracula's Curse has none of this, the production design amounts to some bland shotguns, a basement & a few rooms in a house while I can't remember a single action set-piece. OK there are a couple of really poor fights & a bit of shooting but nothing that will excite anyone & if all that wasn't bad enough I can't remember seeing a single drop of blood in the entire thing. A few Vampires are staked through the heart but they have green blood so that doesn't count, Countess Bathorly (like her obvious literary source) bathes in the blood of virgins to stay young but there is only one scene of her doing this & the blood is already in the bathtub so it just looks like red water. So to sum it up there's no action, there's no special effects apart from a monster at the end, there's no cool weaponry & if it wasn't for some swearing this wouldn't be far off a PG rating.Technically the film is an eyesore, while a lot of films have certain colour schemes to look stylish Dracula's Curse just looks as if sometime turned the colour settings down on your telly & it just looks bland & lifeless throughout. The fights are poorly staged, the Vampires just sort of stand there & wait to be killed by the hunters who have all sorts of weaponry. I mean if the hunters are flesh & blood humans why don't the Vampires just use guns to kill them? The sound effects suck as well. Some of the acting in this has to be seen to be believed, it really is that bad. Some of the delivery is just cringe inducing although one or two of the girls look quite nice.Dracula's Curse has nothing to do with Bram Stoker no matter what the film would lead you to believe, in fact it even changes Dracula to Drakulya. It's just a terrible film that deserves it's lowly 1.6 IMDb user rating, I mean it's that low for a reason people & you have been warned. Only for masochists & insomniacs.

Dracula's Curse was a nice idea that didn't really pan out. I watched the film with my wife last night and we both had basically the same reaction which is that it was too long and there were too many characters. Too many characters and bad acting on top of it doesn't a good movie make.I had seen a few of writer/director Leigh Scott's films before, as I'm an indie horror film junkie you might say. I am usually impressed by Scott's work, with possibly the exception of King of the Lost World. If you haven't seen his films, I would suggest viewing Beast of Bray Road and Exorcism of Gail Bowers, both totally different films, but both show off Scott's skill as a director. Frankenstein Reborn was also a sharp stylish little horror film, but suffered from some of the same problems as Dracula.Dracula's Curse follows a group of vampire hunters who make a pact with the vampires themselves, a cease-fire of sorts. Of course, the pact is ultimately broken and the hunters go back to work. A divide amongst the vampires creates a nice twist. Familiar characters in the film include Jacob Van Helsing, Countess Elizabeth Bathorey, and Dracula himself. Fans of the vampire genre will be pleased. There are some very cool scenes throughout the movie and the cinematography is pretty spectacular. One of the problems is that Scott tries to do too much. For every cool moment, there are 10 minutes of boring. There are too many needless side-stories which take away from the film. One storyline follows a young man, a human, whose girlfriend is kidnapped by the vampires because she is a pureblood. Maybe he should have been the main character and fleshed out more, adding some emotion to the story and helping the audience connect to a character. My wife and I found ourselves wondering after it was over, who was the main character and why were we supposed to care about any of them? Another huge problem with the film is the acting. Scott is actually fantastic in the film as one of the vampires called The Old One. Other characters who hold their own as well include the actress who plays the Countess and Rhett Giles as Van Helsing. Unfortunately for Scott he seems to be contractually obligated to work with the same bad actors time and again. This really holds Scott back from showing off what he can really do. Tom Downey, as Rufus King, is fine, but boring, and we've just seen him too many times already playing different variations on the same character. For those of us who see more than one of Scott's movies, this is distracting. Eliza Swenson, who Scott has used before, most disastrously in Frankenstein Reborn, is another problem. He inexplicably chooses to put her again in one of the larger roles in Dracula's Curse, and her character of Gracie is not believable at all, and Swenson comes across as stiff and awkward. Amanda Burton, another Scott veteran, as one of the Countess's clan, Darvulia, is just as bad. Sarah Lieving, on the other hand, a very talented and versatile actress, and not so bad on the eyes, is underutilized in a small throw-away role, which she nails by the way. The wife and I were impressed. I don't recommend that Scott put her in the lead in all of his films though because Lieving would run the risk of turning into another Downey, who Scott's audience has frankly had enough of.I don't usually take the time to write comments on the films I see but I was moved to do so on this one. Dracula's Curse could have been Scott's finest hour, but just wasn't because of these problems. I recommend renting it because it does have its moments, and just fast forward through the bad. I will still keep my eye out for Scott's films to see what he comes up with next.