IMDb > Dracula's Curse (2006) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Dracula's Curse
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Dracula's Curse More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]
Index 22 reviews in total 

21 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

pretty good little movie

Author: rustydolly from New York
20 May 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I have been going through a phase lately of renting new releases off the video shelf that i've never heard of before. You know the ones with just one or two copies. Sometimes they end up being surprisingly good and most of the time I understand why there are just one or two copies. Dracula's Curse surprised me. Don't get me wrong its not going to win any awards and it does not compare to the greats of its genre, like Bram Stoker's Dracula with Gary Oldman or even Blade. But it is a pretty entertaining little film for what it is. I assume the budget wasn't very big but the effects were damn good and a few scenes in particular were just nice to look at (see it and you'll know which scenes I'm talking about). The costumes and makeup for the most part were also good. The story could have been streamlined a bit more in my opinion, maybe some more editing, but it kept me interested and wanting to know what happened next. Also for the low budget I assume it had the acting was surprisingly well done. The vampires were all very different and cool to watch. The vampire hunters are also a diverse group and pretty fun at times. My only disappointment here was seeing again the red-head actress I had just seen in another low budget rental Satanic. She was horrible in that one and that whole movie was horrible by the way. I cannot understand how this girl keeps getting parts because she is one of the most stinko actresses i have ever seen, at least in a main role, and is really out of place here. The rest of the cast is pretty great. I definitely recommend renting this movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

An entertaining and complex low-budget vampire film.

Author: misbegotten from United Kingdom
8 December 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

A fun low-budget straight-to-video horror/action romp

Author: Woodyanders ( from The Last New Jersey Drive-In on the Left
18 March 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 27 people found the following review useful:

Dracula's Curse

Author: Horrorfan1972 from United States
6 July 2006

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

Cool but could have been a lot better

Author: juddl1 from United States
29 April 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

22 out of 38 people found the following review useful:

Good movie for what its worth

Author: jeff78 from United States
6 July 2006

While Dracula's Curse does have its flaws, it manages to be a very entertaining film. The cast reacted well off of each other and the story was pretty good with only a few plot holes. For a film with this small of a budget, they were able to turn it into something a little more.

I watch countless low budget straight to video movies. And this one is a gem. If your out at the video store, give this film a try. It's totally better than some recently bid budget horror films, like When a Stranger Calls and Bloodrayne)

The ending of the film came out of left field, which I liked. Defiently the best film to come out of The Asylum. I look forward to seeing more films from this director.


Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

The Usual Format

Author: Paul (Paul-4042) from Another England
3 May 2009

I won't say it was a bad offering, but why doesn't someone make a vampire film that actually is a vampire film and not another kung fu action movie where the villains just happen to drink blood? What we get from Dracula's Curse is once again lots of fancy gunplay, swordfighting and martial arts involving hot goth chicks, which seems to have become the rule for vampire films these days (Blade, Underworld, Van Helsing etc. etc.) The cast perform adequately, but there's nothing much for them to do except strike poses looking cool or angry. The fights are choreographed okay and there's no poorly done CGI to laugh at, but we have seen this sort of thing before and I expect better from The Asylum.

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 21 people found the following review useful:

That sneaky vamp

Author: wrlang from United States
4 September 2006

Dracula's Curse is a B class horror film done on a low budget. While most of the scenes were well shot and the dialog was adequate, there was stodgy editing that left a good deal of time between lines. The story is about three groups, the regular vampires, an elite group of powerful pure blood vampires decedents of Dracula, vampires out to dilute the pure blood line lead by Van Helsing, and the vampire slayers that protect humanity from out of control vampires. The enter into an armistice, that eventually fails and leads to the final battle of 'good' v evil. Interesting, but nontraditional plot. Dracula is spoken of many times, but never seen until the very end. Semi-entertaining.

Was the above review useful to you?

27 out of 49 people found the following review useful:

Quite Good

Author: TdSmth5 from US
8 June 2006

This is the first Asylum movie I've seen and I was impressed. The cheap DVD sleeve doesn't do justice to the film, which looks just great. Some flashback scenes have a terrific look, unlike anything you've seen in quarter billion dollar budget films. While it is done on a low budget, it, like many other low budget flicks, makes up for it with a solid and smart script. It is funny, action-packet, at times dark and a little erotic, too. One stunt is quite spectacular with a vampire girl flipping backward and ending up standing perpendicularly on a wall. The story is a venerable encyclopedia of vampirism including characters such as Dracula, Van Helsing, Bathory, Nosferatu, etc. It is a complex story with a surprising twist at the end. It is a little too long because the production team is trying to accomplish a lot. The acting is uneven, most actors do a very good job, a few don't, but they are working hard on a fairly long and difficult script and I appreciate that. I would have liked to have seen a lot more nudity and gore. I can't wait to see the rest of Asylum movies. Recommended for anyone looking for a good, smart vampire flick and tired of predictable, lame and stupefying Hollywood movies.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

You would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh

Author: dunfincin from Spain
24 January 2016

I write this review to save you from making the same mistake as I did.Bored on a Friday night,you download or rent this film.Rating nearly 5 on IMDb and with some positive reviews so should be good for a laugh at least.I guarantee that if you watch this film you may wince,cry,curse,cringe or throw crockery but you will not laugh.It is an absolute stinker.Truly awful. I suppose that if you were a 15 year old boy living on a farm in rural Kentucky and were keen to see lots of slim young girls with bare midriffs (for no apparent reason) then it might serve some mildly pornographic purpose particularly if you were trying to retain those images for later reflection but if you are not within that demographic there is little other merit. Abysmal in almost every respect,it has only one redeeming quality which is why I watched it for almost an hour and that was to catch an occasional glimpse of the beautiful Sarah Lieving.I won't try to itemise its failings in detail; I'll just give you one scene as an example.There is a man and a woman (trying in vain to remember their lines and not look at the camera at the same time) in a room about 3 feet apart having a dreary and irrelevant conversation about something or other.When the camera is on him ,he looks as if he is being lit by a constipated firefly but when the camera switches to her,she seems to be standing under a 200 kilowatt searchlight.And so it goes on. What I don't understand(and perhaps someone with a greater understanding of the workings of Hollywood can enlighten me)is why anyone would make this dross.Surely no one could have expected to make any money out of it? If you are a wannabe working part-time at Walmart and looking for some recognition for your talents,you must realise that any association with films like these is going to flush the vestige of your career down the toilet? It feels to me like a giant Dunning-Kruger proving ground.Better to go upstairs and read your kids some stuff about dinosaurs or fairies;at least you will feel good about yourself.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot synopsis Ratings External reviews
Parents Guide Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history