Way of the Vampire (2005)

Very disappointing...

So much average

It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

This is a great movie. 1.9 is underrating it. I give this movie 10 out of 10. This movie is very scary. It is a Dracula sequel. It has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also great special effects. This is a great movie. I do not no why people do not like it. Dracula (March 1931) is better. Dracula (1992) Dracula's Daughter (1936) is also better. Son of Dracula (1943) is also better. House of Frankenstein which a sequel to Dracula and Frankenstein is also better. But still this a great movie. See it. If you like horror movie you will like it. Van Helsing is better. But still this is one the scariest movie of all time.

Maybe I'm mistaken but I doubt Bram Stoker would had been happy about it that his name was attached to this movie. And I don't even know why his name is attached to this movie in the first place (well, marketing reasons of course). It features the characters Dracula and Van Helsing but these are literally the only two things this movie and Bram Stoker's novel have in common.I'm honestly still quite puzzled what this movie was supposed to be all about. Perhaps all you simply need to know is that Van Helsing is hunting down Dracula. There of course isn't really much else you need to know about the story and there honestly is also nothing more to the story really. At least not that I ever noticed.It's also true that I'm simply starting to get fed up with horror movies placing classic stories and characters in modern times. It has been done far too often already and it is also very rarely works out satisfying enough. So why keep trying and doing it? Probably because its cheaper to place a movie in modern times than in ancient ones and its also easier to sell a movie that way to a younger crowed. It's too bad that us vampire- and horror lovers have to suffer because of that.A thing that I also really didn't liked about this movie was that it placed for too many characters in it. Why couldn't it focus on just Van Helsing alone and why did it had to throw in so many different characters, that aren't even properly developed or even very interesting in the first place. It is also definitely true that most of them come across that way simply because they aren't exactly being played by any of the best actors around.I don't really understand what this movie tried to achieve but it seemed to me as if it was going for a cool and hip modern approach and style. This however never works out because the movie obviously didn't had the budget for it and it's action and editing simply is really below par. At times the movie looks as if it got put together by a couple of high school students, who decided to make a cool vampire movie, in their spare time.No, I'll admit that it's not the worst or most annoying genre film I have ever seen (it's also simply luckily too short for that) but there still is basically no reason why anyone should ever watch this.3/10 http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Until tonight, I was sure that the Third 'From Dusk Till Dawn,' was the worst vampire movie ever made. I was sadly mistaken. The F-grade acting, horrible cuts, sloppy dialogue, and lack of substantial story line make this the worst vampire movie I have ever seen. It is absolutely essential that you counter balance the respect you will lose in vampire movies with the following; 'Interview with a Vampire' (For its incredible acting and top-notch story-line), 'Blade' (For its scientific, as opposed to religious, take on the disease and symptoms), and 'Underworld' (for its action-packed entertainment value). If you have not, please do not, watch this movie, or do so only to contrast how good some Vampire movies are comparatively.

Unlike David Latt's War of the Worlds, this film by the aforementioned producer, Bram Stokers' Way of the Vampire, is a very sub-par film. At least with War of the Worlds, there were some acceptable performances and superb visual effects. This film had nothing more than an anemic (to use a "blood" term) script, with below-average dialogue. The acting was atrocious on almost every front. The production design budget also seemed to be lacking (unlike War of the Worlds which looked professional at least). Hmm, what else, before I forget what I watched? The sound - I could NOT hear almost half the dialogue been said - because the music (the score which suspiciously sounds a lot like War of the Worlds - surprise) and effects were turned up to completely drown out the inferior dialogue (perhaps this was intentional?) One positive thing I can say is that Mr. Latt knows how to turn out product, and one should keep in mind that this is a low budget film. Therefore, it isn't a bomb, but I can't give it more than 4 out of 10 stars.