WakenPayne The real reason I watched this is because this is my brother's vote for "worst movie of all time". I personally think that award goes to Monster A Go-Go (and if there is a worse movie I do not want to know about it - but then again I doubt that).Now firstly, I was unbiased entering. Even to my brother's opinion. I entered expecting a B-movie and got a really bad B-movie, I was also unbiased to how cheap the movie looked (because a movie looking cheap has not stopped me from entering one in my personal top 5 movies of all time).The plot of this movie is simplistic. Vampire Hunters have a truce called by the vampire population to not kill humans but instead kill animals. Five years later Countess Elizabeth Bathorly's three servants kill a woman. Then her fiancée undergoes training to kill vampires. Then it movies from the hunters finding the descendants of Dracula's brides. Then when they find out that the last one is amongst them they take the fight to Bathorly.The plot of this movie could have made way for a fun little movie movie. Some of the characters are interesting enough once written down on paper but instead we stick to the 2 very bland head vampire hunters trying to be badass, which of course doesn't work. For a fact some of these interesting characters vanish inexplicably for over half the movie. There's one vampire hunter trainee for example that gets trained, then sticks to them, then he appears in the final fight. Makes you wonder where he was.Another thing, WHO THE F##K DID THE SOUND EDITING TO THIS MOVIE? I could have done a better job by finding sound effects on YouTube and splicing that into the movie. In the beginning you might think I have nothing to complain about but towards the end EVERYTHING from stakes through the heart to your average punch... they ECHO! I don't know what kind of effect the sound editor was trying to create but this doesn't work.Then you have the acting. In my opinion it ranges from "could be decent" to atrocious. The person who plays Bathorly especially is awful. The costume design (I don't even judge a movie based on this) for most of the female vampires make them look like hookers rather than dangerous creatures of the night.So this is not a good movie. It is easy to make fun of. It is just an incompetent movie in most (if not - all) departments. It isn't the worst movie ever made but it is pretty close.

leandros-1 We have to agree for the full 100 percent with Jesse from Australia: After about 30 minutes we stopped this.... Very poor audio, poor camera-work and very bad acting of some amateurs. And the dialog being out of sync, made things only worse. The quality of acting and sound made us sometimes think, it was an X-rated version of Dracula, where the explicit scenes were taken out. Jesse wrote that one should wait until somebody else is renting it or wait for the 2-Dollar-bin..... We don't think it is even worth it.... Just a waste of time. If you like this kind of movies, you better rent and see "Dracula 2000" with Gerard Butler, for example

misbegotten I enjoyed this movie. Considering the budget and time restraints that it was clearly filmed under, it's an entertaining film that packs a lot of story into it's running time.However, there are perhaps too many characters - more than the story actually needs - and as a result we learn hardly anything about most of them (various members of The Nine, for example, often have little to do beside standing around in the background holding guns). Unfortunately, if we don't know anything about these people, we don't care about them, and the movie seems slightly overpopulated. I think the same thing can be said about the only other Leigh Scott film I've currently seen, 'Transmorphers'.Also the final twist about Fox's true identity was ruined for me by the fact that during the earlier flashback to the first meeting between the Countess and Dracula, despite the scene of Dracula removing his helmet being filmed from behind his shoulder, I could still recognise actor Tom Downey's distinctive bone structure. It might have been better if Downey had worn a long wig to cover the side of his face during that scene.But I stress that these are minor quibbles. 'Dracula's Curse' boasts a good script and good performances, and I consider those factors to be more important than lavish sets and big budget special effects. Thumbs up to Scott and the leading cast-members.

Horrorfan1972 Although at times some of the acting is a bit stiff and the special effects are a bit lacking, Bram Stoker's Dracula's Curse, the latest release from director Leigh Scott and The Asylum Home Entertainment, is still packed full of enough gun fights, sword fights and vampire action to deliver a "popcorn" roller-coaster ride of a fun movie. In true Scott tradition, the movie is a blend of action, horror, and some comedy. Even with this large a blend, Scott makes sure that one style never overtakes the entire film. The movie will draw comparisons to other recent vampire flicks, such as Underworld and even John Carpenter's Vampires, but also makes sure to add enough new material to carve out a niche of its own. Although Bram Stoker's Dracula's Curse does have some faults, it more than makes up for them thanks to a solid cast, lots of action, and an entertaining plot. The movie is easily one of the best Asylum has release to date, and is probably one of Scott's best (although Frankenstein Reborn remains my favorite). It has a little bit of everything mixed in to bring a movie that has a bit of a "popcorn" feel to it, but manages to keep you entertained.