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

Paul Magne Haakonsen "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.

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)

ted-peterson 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.