User Reviews

Review written as I watch: Okay, so I'm watching Dracula The Dark Prince. No, not the good one from 2000 starring Rudolf Martin or even the Hammer film called Dracula: Prince of Darkness. This shares the name of the Rudolf Martin film but that is a far superior movie.

In here we have a blond Fobio-esque Dracula. The opening is a crude reenactment of the opening of the Gary Oldman movie. The problem I have with it is he renounces God after finding out his own men killed his wife. Why? Why renounce God? It makes no sense here. No one said she was damned.

It's Leonardo Van Helsing. A Medieval / early Renaissance (though this looks more Dark Ages) Van Helsing... No wonder there are idiots out there who think Van Helsing defeated Dracula in the middle ages instead of the 1890s.

Renfield is an intelligent councilor of the kingdom. Dracula ruled a Principality you morons. It's in your Title DARK PRINCE! The 2000 film with Rudolf Martin... Where for art thou, Rudolf?! Your film of the same name was actually good! I got used to Dracula as a blond in Dracula: The Series (90s version) because I figured he had adapted to look Yuppie-esque. There's no reason for him to be a blonde here yet it looks like they actually went out of their way to make him blond, not that it was just the actor's natural color, but that they went out of their way for it.

NBC's Dracula is suddenly looking good...

"There is word of slayers" seriously? This sounds like a bad role playing game gone wrong.

I'm glad he has the mobile shadow but why does it have wings? I guess to show he's "demonic". Oooh! Because, you know, being an immortal blood sucker who can shapeshift and control the weather just isn't enough these days.

The Light Bringer is the cane from the Cain and Abel story? "It was used to slay the innocent and so it was transformed into God's weapon." How does that even make sense?! God was angry about Abel's death. Why would he grant the weapon that did it powers? And Dracula is descended from Abel now because you know they had to trump Dracula 2000 deciding he was Judas somehow. What's next? Dracula is Adam? No, he's Satan himself! Seriously, why can't Dracula just be Dracula? Why do they keep having to add religion to the idea of an immortal war lord? Why does the man Leonardo VAN HELSING have an Italian accent? An Italian with a Dutch name in ...fifteen hundreds? His accent... it's inconsistent. It hurts.

Why is it every cliché movie and books make the mysterious West wing? Beauty and the Beast, Jane Eyre, Dark Shadows (TV series) and now this.

(Confused) Van helsing from Italy has a tricorner hat. WHAT YEAR IS THIS!?? They gave Dracula's wife the name Erzsébet like Elizabeth Bathory or perhaps the name they used for his first wife used in the Gary Oldman movie (her real name was lost to history, only the second wife's name is remembered).

So... Our young male hero (not Leonardo Van Helsing) is a thief because he's descended from Cain and all descendents of Cain are doomed to be criminals. How does that even make sense? And Dracula is descended from Abel so they are destined to kill each other. ...Seriously?! Oh, God, isn't this over yet? ...I have an hour left.

The Light Bringer (the weapon that killed Abel) and can now only do good can only be used by a descendant of Cain even though they are... predestined to be criminals. This doesn't make sense. And yet again, Dracula is descended from the innocent one, Abel. Shouldn't this be reversed? Well, the three female vampires are trying to seduce Alina (the apparent reincarnation of Dracula's wife even though it looks like we're no more than ten years after her death!).

"Slayers do not drink alcohol" yet the Demon Slayer village is heavily stocked with booze and has a tavern, where Leonardo Van Helsing has to take the bottle away from our hero in training...

And a wench had to be sent back with another bottle of alcohol...

Nosferatu in this means to be only half-turned into a vampire and to suffer. And means "unclean." Nosferatu means unfinished vampire?! No, call that a dhampir or if it must be so bad, then ghoul, don't do that to the word Nosferatu!! Nosferatu in the Dracula novel was used to mean "not dead" which just means VAMPIRE! Period. Dracula called himself a Nosferatu. ...My poor head. Why change what Nosferatu means?!

Dracula just bit his wrist and I realize he's supposed to be pouring blood on his wounded man but though I can HEAR it pouring there's no blood. Someone ACTUALLY forgot the computer generated blood in this scene! It just looks like he's holding his wrist and shaking it every so often over this guy as his wounds miraculously heal but it was clear he bit his wrist. They actually forgot to add the blood in post production.

Dario Argento's Dracula 3D is better than this.

Why does the holy relic / weapon make static noises? The Dracula actor isn't that bad, I can tell he's doing all he can with this mess.

What a surprise (sarcasm) that it was Renfield that killed the princess all along. ...Why was a Romanian named Renfield? When Renfield gets stabbed in the neck he tips his head back and screams before it even hits him.

Alina's fingerless gloves are obviously modern...

I think I am fully prepared for the NBC version now, which I was already dreading...

The one thing that really made this movie was Luke Robert's Dracula. Hey I can take a blonde Dracula when he's that freaking gorgeous and such a fine actor. His performance elevated the movie which kind of played out like a graphic novel. I'm really watching out for him. Hope someone snaps him up for a hit role fast. He showed a lot of range in this role, and he's totally hot! Reminds me a lot of Gerard Butler. A lot of the story was well fleshed out analogy wise. Like Wes Craven's Dracula 2000, it played out biblical themes of sin and redemption. I don't think Bram Stoker had any idea of the Pandora's box he was opening up. Can you believe that this one little horror novel has spawned so much historical extrapolation, inner exploration of what is truly good, and what is truly evil, and of course that old axiom: Love conquers all. If you really understand the symbols, Dracula is but one of Joseph Campbell's "The Hero With a Thousand Faces." Watched it twice, will probably watch it again. Absolutely LOVE Luke Roberts!! He's a star waiting to be plucked. And let's be real okay, those old Hammer Dracula films also had Cover Girl worthy vampire chicks too, complete with false eyelashes, but we still love 'em. Give me a break!

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 guy

Didn'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

Spoiler Alert. Enjoy the movie before reading further if you don not want another's opinion of the movie.

This movie could have been quite stylish and I have the feeling that it was shot then re shot to add some interesting scenes. The whole beginning of the movie where stills similar to "The 300" where live action and stills were mixed to interesting effect screamed potential..

But alas. It stinks. The scriptwriter was caught between writing a legitimate, alternate telling of the Dracula story full of mysticism, occult, symbolism and sexy lesbos who never really get it on but wander around being on the verge of orgasm all the time and a pratfall comedy that just never got going. Either way it;s a disaster dialog-wise and cinematically.

Maybe undead lesbians who crave sex as much as blood is the basis of the attractiveness of vampires. The amount of unrestricted sex people think they get certainly hypes the interest of prepubescent boys and girls. After all, who is going to try to restrict the actions of a fifteen year-old dead boy or girl? All the social ramifications of his/her actions are gone. They are free to have sex with whomsoever they please and are constantly on the prowl for new conquests in literature of this ilk. Aah, the romance and stench of the undead. Just turns you on doesn't it?

But back to the movie. Dracula has always been overtly sexual ever since Bram Stoker penned the character. Maybe only Nosferatu is the only non-sexual vampire. This one is as tortured as any of the enormous cadre of cohorts. He is a poor troubled soul who has lost his true love and must compensate by having sex with a bevy semi-attractive women. I guess the budget, after paying for Voight, must have been dramatically reduced so the bevy was of the bargain basement variety. .

Voight is a good actor. He has given some superior performances and some real scenery chewers. This role, as Van Helsing, could have been a powerful one but his dialog was so hackneyed and his direction so over the top that one yearns for the character he created in "Anaconda." But here is something about this actor: He can create a character and bring that character to life. This puts him so far above the rest of the cast craft wise that's it's almost painful to watch them mouth lines that must have sent him wrenching to whatever substituted for a trailer or dressing room. I hope he cashed his check right after he got it.

Here there was potential to take the movie to a new look at this well known Dracula character but both the writers and the director totally failed to realize any kind of concept and as much as Lugosi set the mold for the character, his depiction soars in comparison. Hell, even Brandon Lee's characterization was superior and that was a total disaster. The producers should have brought "The Bringer of Light" and had him illuminate the script because it just doesn't work.

One of the things a director can do with a movie like this is add a concept or subtext that is metaphorically presented through the movie. But I fear only Voight understands how such a thing can be done and he wasn't directing the movie. Hell, he was barely acting in it and his performance was the best the movie had to offer.

The movie reminds me of people who put on plays and opera in small towns. They advertise that they are going to have a fantastic production with all kinds of ideas brought out in the dramaturgy. But they end up being stock versions with period costumes and they fall as flat as some of the scenery. If this was a play, it would have been as dark as the dark prince after opening night.

"Dracula: The Dark Prince" is a take on the classic Bram Stoker story that perhaps shouldn't necessarily have had seen the light of day - pardon the pun.

Why? Well, because it just wasn't a fulfilling movie. There were several things that just weren't fully working out for this particular movie. First of all, lets start with a blonde Dracula. Well, sure, why not, but that just really took away that Romanian / Eastern European appearance that is a natural in the area where the movie was supposed to take place. And also, why would he keep two massive stone crosses - relics of the God that abandoned and cursed him - in his crypt? That just doesn't make sense. Nor did that stone sarcophagus Dracula rested and regenerated in make any sense in terms of how awfully fake it was. It didn't even resemble stone in any possible way.

And if Dracula's wife was slain by the hands of Renfield back in the time when Dracula's curse came to be, wouldn't that totally be somewhat of a plot hole, because Renfield was not a native to Romania, and he name just screams non-Eastern European. That was just stupid.

Effects-wise, then "Dracula: The Dark Prince" was alright, not super great, mind you, but not really bad either. The effects were to the point and served what they were supposed to do.

Acting-wise, well then "Dracula: The Dark Prince" didn't really fully deliver. People weren't really doing much of convincing the audience with their performances. Jon Voight, usually performing well in movies, was really poorly cast for the role of Van Helsing - he just lacked the grace, conviction and ability to come off as a hunter of the undead. And I am not really sure how I feel about Esme and Alina characters, they were really out of place in that movie, they seemed like something out of a Xena episode or low budget Robin Hood movie. Perhaps it was their outfits that worked against them.

Speaking of undead, the Scourge - the undead ghouls/zombies/revenants/whatever they were - that served Dracula, while they wore pretty nice armor, what was up with the painfully obvious latex masks that they were wearing? That was just ridiculous to look at.

I will say, though, that the wardrobe and props department worked well in favor of the movie, actually. The armors that were used looked very nice, as did the weaponry (well, aside from the Lightbringer), and the costumes were also nicely put together.

And the whole idea of the Lightbringer weapon was, well... In theory great, but in execution really poor. That weapon was just the worst constructed weapon in the history of warfare, and how it would be useful in actual mêlée is just beyond my comprehension. The weapon seemed to fragile and ill-constructed. And for some reason it was able to reflect a massive beam of light, apparently, when the group were in the Carpathian mountains looking for Dracula's castle. For such a small blade on the weapon it sure cast a massive reflection of light.

The whole experience of watching "Dracula: The Dark Prince" was just a notch below mediocre, and the movie is the type of movie that you watch once and forget about it soon thereafter, never to watch it again.

In order to help blur the debate: "Vampires, good or evil?" We now add this film to the mix. Introducing bad Bible plot points, Dracula descends from Abel (who BTW was childless) and is an agent of God. When his love is killed, Dracula renounces God and becomes The Dark Prince, forced to live forever with his tortured soul. This information is given to us prior to the credits with cartoon narration and English subscripts.

The film moves 100 years later (1453+100 years) when everyone in the world speaks modern English and subscripts are no longer needed. Xena, er ah Alina (Kelly Wenham) and her plucky side kick sister Esme (Holly Earl) run into Lucian (Ben Robson) a Robin Hood type of guy who steals their box with a wooden walking stick known as "The Light Bringer." They are trying to deliver this item to Van Helsing (Jon Voight) to be used to kill Dracula and perhaps help Voight with his accent that left much to be desired. What was that? German? Slav? The walking stick (originally used to kill Abel) activates when touched by the blood of a Cain descendent and turns into a powerful killing scythe with a compass in the stock (seriously)...good work Red Ryder the Almighty.

Now in order to be like other successful films, we have a Wrath(Vasilescu Valentin) that looks like the Witch King from LOTR. The party of rescuers are aided by a huge ax wielding viking (Richard Ashton). Sorry, no elves.

The film felt like something Asylum would try if they had a budget. At times it felt like they wanted to make the definitive Dracula epic and at other times I though they were going for B grade cheese. The sets were certainly better than Asylum, but still had that manufactured look to them. The fighting choreography was noticeably bad, especially Jon Voight who I generally like in films.

Oh yes. This is also a love story as Alina resembles Dracula's lost love.

Recommend as a low end rental. Not bad if you want a campy film.

Parental Guide: No f-bombs. Sex and nudity (Kelly Wenham, Biljana Misic, + others)

Pathetic! What a mess! Irritating and painful to watch.

As silly as Francis Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Even Uwe Boll's Bloodrayne 1 & 2 are better than this.

Where to begin? The plot is so boring that it's tough to get through the very first 3 minutes. This largely clichéd opening even attempts to imitate Francis Coppola's unworthy work.

A century later...

The retarded minions jump like spider monkeys.

Surprise! The little thief leader wields this ugly-ass piece of wood they call "lightbringer", the ultimate weapon that will kick Dracula's ass.

Thus comes the first crusade of Dracula by a bunch of losers.

The whole thing is laughable.

It won't help even if the audience is willing to give this crap a chance.

It simply doesn't have anything intriguing to offer.

......

The only few decent things about this film include the light music used during the scene of romance, the costume, the set designs, and a few good lines ("God has the power to create life. I prevent Him from taking life away.").

Pathetic! If only all those advantages, all the effort of making this unworthy crap could be used for creating a decent film about Vlad the Impaler!

I liked this movie!

It had very good acting and the story was good. The action was good and I liked the love story angle to the Dracula Story. I would have given a higher rating except that I didn't like how it ended so much. I like happier endings. It could have been better, but that's life. Or death in this matter...lol.

The movie keep my interest and I found myself rooting for the Vampire. That was interesting. But in the end, we all know that not everyone can win. It's an overall good movie and worth a watch.

Enjoy this Vampire movie. Jim

Yes.. the CGI is pretty poor and the stagery ditto, but I like the plot-twists to the usual told story of the evil Dracula and the effort of telling a lovestory instead - of a monster with a longing human heart (Beauty and the Beast-like). And though I'm not impressed by the general acting performance, Luke Roberts (Dracula) is an exception. Styling him perfectly like a Castlevania character and Roberts' downplayed expressions - and sudden emotional explosions - makes the character very interesting. His almost aristocratic facial features certainly doesn't hurt. The Fiennes-brothers would have been a good choice too - especially Joseph. All in all a decent watch.

I would take this as a romantic comedy fantasy vampire film.

Cheesy lines. Clumsy thieves Creepy Villian Hot? cursed Prince and pretty good for nothing heroine Semi hot second lead Wise old man with prostetic nose

Unnecesary nudity