Dracula: Reborn (2012) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
An interesting take on an old tale, but little in chills and thrills
spoken18 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I don't know about reviewing movies, but I'll share my opinions.

First of all, I love the music. It's perfect for those of us who prefer orchestral flow, and it is hauntingly enthralling throughout. If ever the music is silenced then the break was appropriate as I did not notice at all.

Secondly, this has the feel of the classic Dracula flicks in black and white, and I don't know any serious Horror fan who doesn't have at least some appreciation for those. I like to watch the whole set once per year. If you do, too, then you might just like this movie.

Lastly, "Dracula: Reborn" is thoroughly modern but with an old tone or feel. Characters' names are slightly changed but recognizable and the sequences of events are, too, but changed to modernize. I think Lina's story will surprise you, so pay attention from the very beginning.

Take a chance on this one if you like the old-style horror that really doesn't include much in the way of chills and thrills for modern fans of scares and gore. I think the ending is worth the risk.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Adaptation set in modern US has its points, but can't compare to Hammer or Universal
lemon_magic10 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
If I were to take one thing away from "Dracula Reborn", it would be that "Nobody Walks In L.A."

Seriously - 30% - 40% of the movie appears to be about the characters driving around, parking, and getting in and out of cars. (Oh, and signing papers). Take away those scenes, and the movie would be about 50 minutes long. While that definitely sets a feel for the environment and modern living, it also drags a lot of the action to a crawl, and gives an airless, disconnected feel to the proceedings.

The other big problem: the urban sprawl that is the setting for the movie appeared to have about a dozen people in it altogether (including 3 gang-bangers with the worst case of verbal diarrhea in the history of cinema). I think this is meant to throw the dynamics of the struggle between Harker and the vampire for the soul of his wife into sharp relief (and to make the most of a small budget). But it also (again) drains the movie of a lot of the energy and vitality that a good Hammer or Universal movie could generate.

Pluses: The makeup effects when the vampire (who is never actually called "Dracula", BTW) exerts his hypnotic stare are pretty good, if overused. The actor playing Harker is decent, even if he can't quite carry the movie by himself. As he plays the character, Harker is quite attractive and likable, but not impressive. The music is definitely subordinate to the events on screen, but it's well done and helps set a mood. The screenplay's conception of the character of Renfield is pretty fresh. And there is one serious jolt in the middle of the movie involving a motor vehicle homicide that genuinely startled and upset me. (I don't count the nasty twist ending, which I saw coming a mile away,because that's what 2nd rate horror films do these days).

But overall, the movie has no real life or energy. Although there is obvious professionalism and effort going into what you see on screen,it's like looking at one of those cardboard props you see in furniture stores that simulate an actual computer or television - the shape is there, but no guts.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Poor Script/Dialogue. Decent FX and Acting, but actors had nothing to work with. A for effort. D for movie
Bababooe27 April 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Poor Script/Dialogue. Decent FX and Acting, but actors had nothing to work with. A for effort. D for movie

The main problem with this movie is the script/dialogue/plot. It just goes nowhere. What did Dracula want to do with the warehouse? Too much soap opera with the Mr. & Mrs. Harker. Van Helsing comes out of nowhere and then gets killed quickly. The fx were interesting. But this movie has zero atmosphere. The cinematography was OK, no shaky camera, but nothing special.

So basically poor script, decent fx, actors had nothing to do, cinematography was just OK, music was boring. The production/editing looks fine but without the script, we have boredom.

Rating is a D, or 3 stars at best.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A bad movie
jacobjohntaylor118 April 2015
I found this movie to be is very disappointing. Dracula is a great book. And most movies based on it are great. But this remake is not. It is is badly written. Badly acted. And is has an awful ending. In is not scary like most Dracula movie. It is a bad movie. Don't wast your money don't see it. It is pooh pooh. Pooh pooh. Pooh pooh. Pooh pooh. Stinky pooh. This a great story being ruined by bad acting bad writing and a s.h.i.t. ending. That was not how B.r.a.m Stoker ended is book. He new how to tell a good horror story. These people don't have a clue. I was very disappointed. I expect so mush more from a Dracula movie. Bad movie bad movie bad movie.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Dracula: Reborn
a_baron6 February 2017
As might be inferred from its title, this is a reworking of the tale of our old fiend Count Dracula. Most viewers will not be surprised to find that instead of turning up in late Nineteenth Century England he chooses herein to relocate to the West Coast where doubtless he will develop a taste for California girls. Indeed he has already, the wife of his estate agent, a bloke with the unsurprising name of Jonathan Harker. And if you have read the book or even if you haven't, you've probably guessed the name of the evil count's faithful henchman - Renfield.

There is also a Van Helsing, but there is no actual Dracula, our bad guy having another name entirely, and there is no real suggestion he is an aristocrat. While Harker has heard of vampires, he hasn't heard of the classic Count either. If that can be forgiven, the slow plot can't - murders aside. This is anything but an inspiring film, even if it does have a twist right at the end.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Dracula Stillborn
zardoz-1313 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
This lackluster contemporary adaptation of Bram Stoker's classic novel "Dracula" suffers from low-budget constraints, colorless direction, and amateurish performances. Writer & director Patrick McManus has certainly read the vintage 1897 novel, but he generates few palatable thrills and chills with the surefire material. A huge part of the problem is the absence of the Gothic characteristics, and the way that McManus has staged everything in such a straightforward fashion. Specifically, McManus has changed the sex of Dr. Seward; instead, he has become a she. Renfield still performs Dracula's errors, but he is a well-mannered, urbane gentleman with a shaved head who doesn't giggle fiendishly or catch flies. Quincy Morris is no longer a cowboy. Stuart Rigby headlines as the legendary bloodsucker, but he doesn't inspire anxiety of any sort. When he goes into menace mode, his entire face appears cadaverous, and he transfixes his victims with his steely-eyed stare. Neither the ghosts of either Bela Lugosi or Christopher Lee need to worry about their legacy. Dracula doesn't shape-shift into bats and wolves. Crucifixes exert no harm on him when humans brandish them in his presence. Worse, poor Rigby bears a hilarious resemblance to superstar actor Tom Cruise. Mind you, "Dracula Reborn" doesn't really get down and dirty until the finale when our heroes go after Dracula with sharpened stakes.

McManus has shifted the setting from England to sunny Southern California, and Premiere company real estate agent Jonathan Harker (Corey Landis of "Chrysalis") feels bad about selling a warehouse to Vladimir Sarkany (Stuart Rigby of "Meet the Spartans") during a late evening in Los Angeles. A trio of armed Hispanic thugs shows up to threaten Sarkany, but the well-dressed gentleman calmly stares them down and they leave hurling insults. Harker goes back home to celebrate the impending sale with his 28-year old wife, Lina Harker (Victoria Summer of "The Zombie Diaries"), who is desperate to have a child. Jonathan isn't as enthusiastic about the prospect of being a father as much as Lina is a mom. Meantime, Harker meets with Sarkany again to go over the papers, and he notices a nude painting of a woman hanging in Sarkany's house that reminds him of his wife. He shows Sarkany a photo of his wife on his cell phone and Sarkany admits that he would be delighted to meet her. After Harker leaves Sarkany's residence, he surprised by a frantic man, Quincy Morris (Krash Miller of "Spoils of War") who has concealed himself in the back seat of Harker's Toyota Prius. You would think that it would be rather difficult not to spot an intruder hidden in the back seat of a Prius. Nevertheless, Harker's unwanted guest wields a stick and demands to know about Harker's relationship with Sarkany. This unkempt stranger complains that his girlfriend, Lucy Spencer (Linda Bella of "The Paper Boat") disappears at Sarkany's house when she is discussing a real estate deal with Sarkany. According to Quincy, he saw Sarkany bite Lucy on the neck. Quincy is startled when Sarkany spots him eavesdropping, and he tries to flee. Sarkany confronts him and hurls him into a deep ditch. After Harker convinces this lunatic that he is not one of Sarkany's confederates, Quincy asks to be taken to a nearby police station. Two plainclothes detectives visit Sarkany's residence. Later, Harker brings his wife out to visit Sarkany to see the painting, and Lina comments that the resemblance is striking between them. During their drive home, Jonathan and Lina find themselves stranded when their Prius mysteriously stops. The spent the night in the woods because they cannot get cell phone service. Sometime during the evening, Harker has a nightmare and Lina discovers what they believe are spider bites. The Harkers' physician, Dr. Joan Seward (Dani Lennon of "The Slammin' Salmon"), points out that Lina is afflicted with anemia. Furthermore, she discovers later on that Lina has some kind of organism in her blood that is neither bacteria nor a virus. She states that the organism seems to be rapidly multiplying. Afterward, Harker encounters Quincy again, and Quincy is quite adamant about killing Sarkany. Sarkany has been framed by Dracula. Dracula has chopped Lucy's head off, deposited her head in Quincy's trunk, and sent the cops after Quincy. Unfortunately, Quincy doesn't survive long. He is run down in the street by Renfield driving a mini-bus. Nevertheless, Harker receives a worn, well-thumbed copy of a book about vampires that Quincy had sent him. Harker arrives home to find Lina transformed into a vampire and summons Dr. Seward who administers an injection that knocks Lina out. After Harker learns about Quincy's demise, Van Helsing (Keith Reay of "Dark Space") shows up, and he gives Harker a short course on vampires. "A vampire is always on guard. He can sense your every move, read your thoughts, and in an emotional state like this, can take over your mind, bend you to its will. I have experienced this horror with my own eyes. Now, we can't tip our hand. We have to outsmart him. Strike during the daylight hours while it is in repose." Unfortunately, Van Helsing turns out to be less than resourceful when Harker and he intrude on Dracula's warehouse where he sleeps in his coffin and has Lina stretched out nearby in repose. Harker manages to save Lina, but little does he know that she is beyond the point of no return where being a vampire is concerned. The death of Van Helsing ranks as the most violent scene, especially when Dracula rips his heart out of his chest.

"Dracula Reborn" is a mild improvement over the World War II adventure "Spoils of War." This is one of those horror movies were evil triumphs.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Despite some flaws, this movie is actually very good!
UnderworldRocks2 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I have watched every vampire movie I could get my hands on, from Nosferatu (1922) to A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night (2014). The list is a long one. I have seen over 100 vampire movies.

As an expert on vampire movies, I really enjoyed this one.

Let's talk about the flaws first. Spoilers alert!

First, Dracula should have killed Quincey Morris instead of throwing him into a ditch. Second, it was November, and they were able to sleep under the stars in the wild wearing underpants only, despite the cold?

That's every flaw I can say about this movie.

Now, here is why I like it. SPOILERS ALERT!

This movie has the coolest Renfield in vampire cinema history! And I really love that in the end Draucla killed Van Helsing by ripping his heart out. It was great that in the end Lina took charge of her life by killing both Dracula and Jonathan Harker, took the mansion for herself. I guess she got all the money, in addition to immortality. Lina Harker will definitely go down in movie history as one of the most badass vampires, on my list, at least.

Despite some flaws, this movie is actually pretty good. I actually enjoyed it better than Coppola's Dracula (1992), where nothing much happens. This movie, however, definitely hit my excitement point. When was the last time you saw Van Helsing get killed by Dracula? Never! Not until THIS MOVIE!

That's why this movie is so groundbreaking. I give this movie 10 out of 10. Am I biased? Definitely! I like this movie. Giving it 10 out of the 10 is the least I can do to express my gratitude to the filmmakers.

Last but not least, RIP, Bailey, to whom this movie is dedicated. :)
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

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


Recently Viewed