Dracula Rising (1993) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
There's a good movie in here somewhere...
angelynx-218 June 2000
...well, a *pretty* good movie, anyway. But the movie wrapped around it is so confused and disorganized that it'll never find its way out. Theresa, an artist and art conservator, accepts an assignment in an unnamed Eastern European country (Bulgaria, in a fine performance as Romania) and finds it's located in a gorgeous ancient monastery inhabited by Vlad the Impaler's undead son, Vlad the Monk, and his victim/tormentor, Alec. There follows the 3000th version of the old vampire-meets-the-reincarnation-of-his-sweetheart plot, variant B (vampire heroically resists the temptation to turn her into a tormented *yawn* creature like himself). Add some dodgy historical research (i.e, a witch-burning, which didn't happen in the Orthodox countries; when the Impaler does appear he's wearing a bizarre armored half-mask to hide horrible burn-scarring, which looks as if he swiped it from the Broadway Phantom of the Opera), some hilariously inappropriate 1950s-style love songs, and a jaw-droppingly goofy sequence set in Hell (that's right) where the vampires suddenly acquire magic powers and hurl animated bolts at each other like cartoon wizards, and you'll have some idea what a mess this is. Give it a few points for pretty scenery (both landscape and physical - there's a totally nude underwater love scene) but otherwise, pass.
14 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A product of its limitations but more importantly also a product of its time (which in my case is a good thing)
The initiative for this movie to be made probably came from cashing in on Coppola's 'Dracula' aka 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' (the love story plot is similar, the subplots are omitted) and this movie is also known as 'Corman's Dracula' (Roger Corman produced it).

'Dracula Rising' is very atmospheric nothingness with all the good early/mid-90's B-movie stuff like rhythm and atmosphere over content; vivid colors and use of colored lighting (mostly red and orange here); wafts of mist; low-key lighting with deep blacks; skewed camera angles; a lot of concern for picture composition; sporadic use of unusual image processing (has some shots of negative images); over-accentuated sound design (every step a character takes is like a drum beat and a fan that does half a rotation per second goes "WOOOSH", "WOOOSH"); practical effects and effects done with animation; relatively little action and the action it has is shot in medium or wide shots with a static camera and with not too rapid editing; theatricality crossing over into surrealism in production design, staging and acting; a super-basic but outlandish premise; shot in an old European country (Bulgaria); Gothic elements; female protagonist (the woman has at least as much screen time as the title character); lots of eroticism & at least one sex scene; this chiller doesn't miss much.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Unbearable Angst...........
SinnerByte4 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
If it were an intentional comedy flick, I'd rate it higher. And the best thing about this was the burning at the stake scene, which looks pretty good. I think they spent the entire budget on that, which didn't leave anything left for the rest of the scenes. Draculas dead pan continuous monotone voice is just plain boring. I've heard computer voice programs from the 80's that had more life and character in them! And as someone else posted, it's truly a yawn of a plot, Vampire meeting reincarnated "Lover", and struggling with the (God help us all) Vampir-y ANGST.....(Oh, the unbearable lightness of being Dracula!) of not turning the girl he's waited hundreds of years for into a "horrible" creature like himself..... yeah yeah, blah blah blah, whatever........ Do us all a favor and drive a stake thru your own heart before we all die of Eternal Boredom, will ya, Drac baby? Geeezzz........ And the fireball throwing session in "Hell" or whatever it was supposed to be literally had me rolling on the floor howling at the comic ridiculousness of it....... I say its worth alook with a heavy fast forward thumb, to enjoy the unintentional hilarity of the fireballs, and the pretty cool burning scene. Then pop in something good....... ;-)
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Has the story, but doesn't know how to deliver just right
Kristine5 February 2005
I actually saw this movie a couple of years ago, but I just thought about it now. Not sure why. Hmm, I'll put it on my list of questions that need answering. Hee hee. Just kidding! "Dracula Rising" isn't a bad movie, but it's not great. It has a great story with a lot of romance and horror. I'm also a fan of Christopher Atkins, that partly helped too. This was a movie at the time I rented it, couldn't get out of my head. I would recommend it for vampire or Dracula lovers. And I mean movies! Ahem. Overall, a good movie that just needed more direction. That's all, but there is something in this film you just have to enjoy. How in the heck otherwise would I have thought about it in a couple of years? 7/10
9 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
one of those movies full of romance and deep feelings
ahmed_rahmy1 September 2003
Warning: Spoilers
one of those movies full of romance and feelings although it is an horror movie, the theme song is great and the lyrics are describing the movie, it is so sad that he had to die at the end, i just wish that he could have turned her to a vampire and live happily forever with each other.
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A great horror film
jacobjohntaylor130 August 2016
3 is underrating this movie. I give 10 out of 10. It has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. If it does not scary you no movie will. Dracula (1992) is better. Dracula (March 1931) is also. But still this great film. It is very scary. It more about Dracula's son then Dracula. It is still very scary. Nosferatu (1922) is better. This is a lot better then Nosferatu (1979). That is one awful Dracula movie. This is a Dracula sequel. There are a lot of Dracula sequels. And most of then a great film. This is one that is great. This is a very scary move. I need more lines and I am running out of things to say.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
had lots of potential but does not come through WARNING!!!!!!! SPOILERS!!
callanvass3 August 2004
Warning: Spoilers
had lots of potential but does not come through because it was kinda dull and the script is uneven it does have some impressive set pieces some decent atmosphere at times and plenty of nudity and it has plenty of gore but the acting is so so Christopher Atkins does okay here i thought he over did at times but overall he came out of this looking decent Stacey Travis is pretty but she isn't that great of an actress although granted she's not asked to do much here Doug Wert was just brutal i hated him he played his part very well it has a decent finale if a bit silly when the bats rip off alec's flesh overall this could have been a perfectly acceptable vampire flick but it wasn't meant to be i guess passable *1/2 out of 5
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews