Dracula's Guest (2008) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
28 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
Just awful!
sprafkab19 July 2008
The worst Dracula film I've ever had the displeasure of viewing. I wish I could get the approx 1.5 hrs of my life back that I wasted watching this garbage!

Dracula is played by fat guy who looks like a 1980's heavy metal band cast off... not to mention he struggles with his "fangs" from start to finish. None of the "actors" have even a somewhat believable accent... the story line is ridiculous... nothing in this movie is commendable. There is simply no professionalism applied in this movie at all. Very low budget and completely noticeable! I am very surprised that Lion's Gate printed it. Don't waste your time or $$ on this one!
41 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Grade Z horror director branches out with little success
Bladerunner•8 August 2008
This is a VERY ambitious undertaking for Michael Feifer, who usually keeps to grade "Z" horror, and he is really in over his head. In fact, most of the actors are also in over their head in this vampire period piece. The accents, the acting, all are amateur at best (with one or two notable exceptions). The film does have a few merits, but they are overwhelmed by the poor direction and overall lackluster acting.

This tale is based on one of Stoker's short stories where Elizabeth is trapped by Dracula in his castle and Bram Stoker (himself) must save her. Obviously it takes liberties with the actual short stories (placing the author himself in the tome), but it is based on a couple of Stoker's tales, one of which is Dracula's Guest (the same name as the film).

In this film, Bram Stoker (yes, the lead character is named after the writer of the story this is based upon) and Elizabeth Murray are engaged to be married. Stoker is a junior associate at a real estate firm who gets his chance at a promotion through handling the property search for Count Dracula (obviously, it is very similar thus far in exposition to Stoker's novel, Dracula). Elizabeth's father, Admiral Murray (played terribly by Dan Speaker) refuses to give Bram his daughter's hand in marriage until they have separated — with no contact — for one year. Bram acquiesces to the Admiral's wishes much to the chagrin of Elizabeth who runs away in response where she runs into the Count who takes her to his castle by casting a spell over her. There he imprisons her to get to her father who the Count says descends from a long line of vampire hunters who have "wreaked havoc on {his} family for centuries". It seems Dracula wants to breed with Elizabeth to bear a child which will lift the curse on his family, by creating a new race of super vampires (one presumes, because actually his plot is confusing and never fully understood). Bram sets out to rescue Elizabeth, which pits him against the Count.

The film does manage a few positive elements, however one of them is *not* the soundtrack, which seems like it was created by a high school amateur in his living room on a Casio keyboard. Dracula is played by an actor (Andrew Bryniarski) who usually plays the stupid jock in films (The Program, Higher Learning) which is probably what he should continue playing, as he is not capable of pulling off a challenging and meaty role like Dracula. Andrew hams it up terribly, and for some reason constantly waves his hands around his face like he is auditioning to be a hand model.

Particularly bad is Dan Speaker who plays Admiral Murray, he is simply not an actor or shouldn't be. Second worse is Kelsey McCann who plays Elizabeth; she is very clearly a native product of California struggling (abysmally) to play an English débutante. Those two alone make it very, very difficult to keep watching the film. To be fair though, Kelsey does get a bit better as the film goes along, but not enough to merit her playing this role. The actor who plays Bram, Wes Ramsey, however does show potential. His acting is very natural and his accent quite realistic especially considering he was born in Louisville, Kentucky. He even manages to speak in a somewhat "lower-class" English dialect (a bit Cockney), which helps us understand the Admiral's objections to his marriage to Elizabeth who is from the upper classes.

The real crime though is committed by Feifer who has clearly not prepared his actors for their roles. I would doubt they did any rehearsal as each scene seems like the first time any of the actors have read the material. In fact, each scene seems like the first take he shot, as if Feifer is conserving film or a product of the Ed Wood school of film-making where the first take is the only take. The final sword fight in particular is a victim of this poor direction... it is pure camp, ridiculous and unrealistic. Count Dracula and the Admiral drone on and on, reciting the most inane dialog. The movie ends abruptly, with a sappy denouement.

Production however is one area which rises above. The sets and items like carriages seem authentic to the period. Some however are a bit out-of-place, for example the scene where Elizabeth seeks to leave Dracula's mansion and ends up in a hallway of stored crematory urns. It is clearly a modern crypt (an indoor cemetery). It looked to me like the Hollywood crypt I visited as a tourist many years ago. Still, many of the sets are very good. The costumes are by far the best element in this film, particularly considering the shoestring budget with which this movie was made. A couple of times there appears an anachronistic shirt collar and such, but overall the costume design is superior.

In different hands and with a better cast this story would have merit. It is one that hasn't been seen in the mainstream, although Coppola did direct the quintessential Bram Stoker novel, Dracula (a different story than this). The production designer has a lot to be proud of (as does the costumer) and lets hope we see more from Wes Ramsey, but the director should stick with low budget horror films.
17 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Terrible
darthfusion12 July 2008
Whoever cast a Fat guy to play Dracula should be shot. It just simply doesn't fit with the character nor the character description.

Though the basic plot outline sounds decent, but don't be fooled, it's 125minutes you'll never get back.

The special effects and sound effects are like that of a low budget 70's movie.

The movie itself plays out horribly slow. The majority of the acting in the movie is TERRIBLE. Not just bad, but cheesy-porno movie bad.(Most notably 'The Admiral's and (Big)'Dracula's overacting and the Coach Driver... he's just awful...) Kelsey McCann (Elizabeth)and Wes Ramsey (Bram) perform well however and are a bit of an exception. I actually expect to see more of Kelsey in the future.

DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE (Unless someone pays you to do it ;P)
33 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
So stupid
Smells_Like_Cheese20 November 2009
During Halloween we have a lot of scary movies on TV, it's always a lot of fun because I love horror. It's an adventure and an escape from the real world. Dracula is one of my favorite stories because he's such an interesting character, he's the only real monster that has personality. Because he has this image of being human, he's charming and you can easily be memorized by his charm while underneath he's a monster that wants to drain your body of blood and make you into his slave. Bram Stoker, I wonder if he ever knew how much impact his story would have to this day. But then again, I wonder if he knew what kind of crud some Hollywood producer would do to his material like they did with Dracula's Guest.

Even though it was a bit confusing, I'll try to explain the plot as best as I can. Bram Stoker and his fiancée Elizabeth, cannot wait to get married. But after her father sees Bram putting his arm around her and kissing her forehead(which I suppose was 3rd base at the time), he thinks they are not ready for marriage and that they should wait for a year to see if their love will stay strong and real. Bram agrees to please her father but Elizabeth hates the idea and runs away. Bram has gone to secure the Carfax Abbey for Dracula. While Elizabeth is on her way to find him, she meets Dracula and he kidnaps her to his castle. He rapes her, trying to breed with her to restore his family that has been cursed by her father's wars. Bram finds out that she has been kidnapped and now is on an adventure to save his love from the cursed count.

The acting and casting is just awful. You can tell these are the actors that are dying to get their big break and stop waiting tables. Especially Kelsey McCann who plays Elizabeth, possibly the worst British accent, up there with Keanu Reeves, and also probably took acting lessons from him as well. Andrew Bryniarskin who I will never understand why he was cast as he looks like a former heavy metal band member from the 70's. Not to mention his talking with the fangs was just so funny. Dan Speaker who plays Elizabeth's father is just laughable as his material is so cliché. The only redeeming quality was Wes Ramsey who played Bram and seemed to take the role seriously and work with what he was given.

I don't know if it was just the material, the movie or the cast, but everything about this film was just not redeemable. I don't know what I was expecting, but this is very possibly the worst Dracula movie of all time. It's not even a movie that you could say it's so bad that it turns into good again, just trust me this movie is frustrating. The plot has a lot of flaws and the cast makes this movie into a reason to take more acting lessons.

1/10
12 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I wish it was possible to give this a minus 10
albertflasher17 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
It was that bad! I've seen some terrible horror movies in my time, but this was the absolute worst!

First of all, the plot did not make anysense. Why would Dracula want to impregnate a human woman to make arace of "super vampires?" Their offspring would obviously be half-human. And the guy who played Dracula was awful. No offense to heavier people, but Dracula was described as tall and thin. This actor,Andrew whatever his name was, just did not fit the part. He looked like a washed-up WWF pro wrestler. He struggled with his fangs through the movie and I thought that he was going to 1) spit them out or 2) swallow them. The actress who played Elizabeth seemed like a Valley Girl who, you know, was shopping at the mall for some kewl clothes and uh, got lost at the mall and wandered into the home of umm, this really creepy, fat vampire dude. And what was the point of the scene with "Bram Stoker" (Wes Ramsey)and the French-speaking people who were trying to kill him? They were talking about the guillotine, and the Revolution had ended a century before! They definitely needed to get out more.

The only bright point in this awful mess was Wes Ramsey. He is handsome and personable and does have talent. Quick Wes, cross this off your resume and find a new agent!
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
It's as bad as they say
slake0930 November 2008
Dracula wants to breed with Bram Stoker's girlfriend and Bram himself attempts to rescue her.

The other reviewers have trashed this movie and they're right - it's that bad. The great costumes and high production values fool you for a minute into thinking this is going to be good, but the awful acting and terrible screenplay tell the real story.

Dracula is a fat dude who looks like he spends all his time in his mother's basement, eating pizza and playing video games. The female lead is like your sexually repressed sister-in-law, only less interesting. When the two of them get together for a breeding session it's about as erotic as a visit to the dentist.

There's a serious lack of naked women in this movie, usually a staple of low budget horror, and something that could have made it worth watching. Sadly, it's an attempt by bad actors to do something serious, with predictably bad results.

As for horror, the only horrible thing about this film is that it was made. I've seen scarier things in a K-Mart on Christmas Eve.

It's not even so bad that you can have a good time making fun of it. Instead you'll be embarrassed for the actors and actresses; imagine your friends and family seeing you in this movie. There's the real horror.
13 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Why do they always destroy a perfectly good story?
claireena2726 April 2009
When i rented this movie i wasn't expecting much, the only reason i rented it was because it had Dracula in the name. I know it is a stupid reason but i thought that it would be like another low budget vampire movie that was still entertaining.

The movie as i suspected had a semi good plot, but it was ruined by terrible actors, affects and director. The movie could have been good if they didn't cut everything out. It sounded good when i read the plot at the back of the DVD but when i watched it i was laughing most of the time.

Dracula was played by a large guy who didn't know how to work his fangs. Elizabeth couldn't do an English accent to save her life and her character seemed to whine and whine and whine. Elizabeth's father made me laugh because he was way over dramatic and Bram Stoker... well he just couldn't act.

This movie looked like it was made by students for a school project.

Its just too bad that this movie could have been good.

I recommend that you just skip this film and enjoy your night watching something else.

2 / 10
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Demon Seed
kdmode7 June 2009
This movie is SO bad that I can barely stop laughing! The worst accents, acting, costumes, soundtrack, oh, and the dumb and dumbest storyline anyone could ever conceive of! In some scenes you could see LA in the background, and even hear the traffic! The chubby guy who plays Dracula looks more like he'd be I interested in eating a slice of pizza than impregnating Elizababeth, which is apparently the only point of this otherwise pointless movie... As a prior reviewer said, this movie is like cheesy porn without the porn... The most hilarious and cringe-worthy scene is when Dracula is lying on top of Elizabeth after implanting her with his 'demon seed' and she says "I will thrust myself on a ?? (gate of??) spikes!" I initially thought she said "ancient spike" - sorry, the accent was so bad I couldn't make it out! Anyway, the thought of Dracula as an 'ancient spike' is probably right. Elizabeth: "He planted the seed of the beast within my body" Bram: "I will tear him limb from limb!" Enough said.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Unbelievably Horrible
rstone-274 August 2008
There are very few movies that I will downgrade to a (1)but this one definitely deserves it. Andrew Bryniarski who stars as Dracula does not fit the part in ANYWAY. --

The Director Michael Feifer, who also wrote this pile of rubbish, must have been out of his mind to put out anything this sub level. There are "B" grade movies but this one goes all the way to a "Z"... If I could I would rate this movie a -10 and sue for my money and time back.

Please do NOT waste your time, even if you have nothing to do but stare at 4 walls -- thats better than sitting through this unbelievable trash their trying to push out as a movie.... Shame on you LionsGate -- just down right Shame on You!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
16 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Bad accents, storyline and actors
smordant17 May 2010
Wife has this playing on Fear Net, have to say I loves me a good Dracula movie, but this is far from good, down right awful.

Being a Brit in the US I get fed up of Americans trying to sound English.

Another reviewer mentioned the guy playing Stoker having a lower English, Cockney accent, he is actually speaking in an Irish accent which shows someone did some research as Bram Stoker was Irish.

The rest of the accents and acting were really bad and the actor playing Dracula was a bad choice, he looked comical rather than dark and brooding as you'd expect.

I don't necessarily expect a scary movie to scare the life out of me to enjoy it but when it is cringe-worthy to watch it is just comical in a bad way.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Forget Lost Boys, Dracula Curse is for real vampire lovers.
horrorcritic725 August 2008
With the recent disappointment of Lost Boys II (Uggh), I was itching to see a good vampire film and thank god Lionsgate delivers once again.Intelligent and fright filled are the best ways to describe this dark atmospheric take on Bram Stoker's Dracula's Guest. If your expecting a cliché - 5 teens go to the woods and get killed off story then your not going to find that here as this is clearly a well thought out horror film that uses tension and scares effectively.

Not sure if it was shot in Eastern Europe but it definitely retains the period feel and has some horrific scenes in Dracula's castle that I won't spoil but horror fans will be pleased.The Lead actress is also a hottie that plays the part of the damsel in distress well.

Andrew Bryniarski plays a convincing bloodsucker and has a legion of beautiful succubi that also won't disappoint. While he may be one of the tallest actors to play the role of Dracula, he brings his own spin to the character and seems more believable as a guy from Transylvania than the usual American with dyed black hair. If your a vampire freak and love the classic Dracula films of Lugosi, Christopher Lee,and Klaus Kink then I highly recommend you add this to your Vampire Collection.
28 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
No coffin! No blood! No acting!
sgfarrell_93 November 2009
If my students would have presented this film to me in a film class, I would have given it a B minus. Then, again, I'd be a pushover as a professor. Some of the shooting was beautiful and some of the scenes were interesting.

However, considering the budget of this film, the flaws were really outstanding. It seemed like somebody had set-out to sabotage this production. Why did Dracula appear in the daylight twice with no explanation? He should have at least had on sunglasses or closed the shades.

Mortimer, Bram Stoker's friend, is hung by Dracula in the daylight. By that time the Count had already gone back to Romania! It's illogical even by the standards of vampire standards.

Bram and the Admiral (traveling separately) go from England to Romania in 3 days. Impossible in 1890. The scene with the coachman being attacked by the wolf was creepy.

Both Bram and the Admiral separately locate the secret cavern below the castle where Elizabeth was kept prisoner. I cringed when Elizabeth gave them both almost exactly the same speech. Elizabeth came across like a snotty and rich high school cheerleader with an attitude problem.

Dracula looked like a Slavic wrestler and Dracula's Castle looked like a bank after hours. I was looking for elevators. I did like the work of the actor who played Bram Stoker. His Irish accent stayed consistent throughout the movie. But it was never explained that Bram was a budding writer who would use his real encounters with Count Dracula for a novel in the future.

Still worth a look.
11 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Complete Dross - laughable
mike_gp2 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
OH yawn.............. "father please tell me something before you go, it's important"................ "it can wait daughter"............ I guess dad dies soon afterwards! Never watched to see if I was right.............. It wasn't even worth watching properly, just jumping from scene to scene, terrible acting, terrible dialogue, absolute c r a p, surely the 'actors' realised how bad it was going to be.....

Oh man, please rescue us from similar dross in future............ I think I had more believable play scenes when I was 5 yrs....... its playing as I am typing this guys, don't waste your time
9 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
You mean this is a professionally made film?
minlin4 April 2010
I watched this on the FEARnet website, for free thank goodness. If I'd paid money to see this thing I'd have been quite ticked off. I seriously thought it was a fan-made film, something a group of amateurs had done for fun. Or maybe a student film. Then I found out it was released by Lions Gate. Seriously?! The plot was confusing and incoherent, much of the dialog was sappy and the 'acting' by most of the cast was atrocious. I gave it a 2 because it did make me giggle a few times, so I guess it could be considered slightly entertaining. However, it wasn't amusing enough for me to recommend it even as 'so bad it's good'. Don't waste your time.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
If only there were zero stars...
icer_rose3 November 2008
I really tried to give this movie a chance, I really did. I am a fan of cheesy horror flicks, especially if they involve zombies or vampires. However, I've seen high school video projects that are more entertaining than this waste of time. The sets, costumes, and actors were all sub-par to the extreme. "Dracula's castle" was just an old and not very large house. The plot was complete rubbish and had no relation to the actual "Dracula's Guest" story by Bram Stoker. I tried fast-forwarding through the boring parts, but that left me almost skipping through the entire movie. Furthermore, making Bram Stoker a character, and a rather weak character at that, was a horrible idea. I wouldn't be surprised if Bram Stoker himself came back from the dead to prevent any more people from watching this film. Do not waste your time or money on this garbage.
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Bad Literature Adaptation !
rls081229 June 2011
There are tons of movies based off of stories and poems, but there is one that gets under my skin every time I think of it. "Bram Stoker's Dracula's Guest"

This movie is based off of the short story "Dracula's Guest" and was by Bram Stoker in 1914 ( duh ) http://www.literature.org/authors/stoker-bram/draculas-guest . Produced in 2008, it looks like it was produced in 1988.

Scenes exist just to confuse the watcher, very poor editing, , plot holes the size of a school bus, character inconsistencies, bad shot control, a lot of missing footage .... it just makes the whole movie experience uncomfortable to sit through.

This is the worst movie I have ever watched ! And I have watched such gems as "Autumn", "Mom And Dad Saves The World", "Terminators", and "Cyborg".

It could have been an all right movie, if a competent directer had done it. How can a "Hero rescues his true love from an evil villain" plot be SO badly done!

To the movie's credit, the set design, most of the time, is very well done!
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
adventure? horror? comedy?
nirothegreat17 August 2008
when i found myself giggeling again and again i went back to look at the genre and sure enough it was not meant to make me laugh. so i decided to go on watching with anticipation for the promised adventure and horror. not found any. sorry. sorry? oh no! those who made this ridiculous production, from A to Z, they should be most sorry and very sad for proving themselves (all of them) as non-talented artists, no matter what was their part in this 'gurnisht' (yiddish for = nothing / zero / void). it took me 35 minutes off my life, and i'm very furious! quite made me to consider a suit against the producer for robbing my precious time! weak plot, shallow/amateur acting (choose your way), mediocre directing. would production aim to a nice-light comedy, could be a hit (or not).
4 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Bad Bad Bad Did I mention that it was Bad
wroutson11 August 2008
For as long as I can remember I've been a fan of horror movies, as a child I couldn't get enough it didn't matter if it was a Boris Karloff movie or a Bela Lugosi movie or the earlier Lon Chaney Jr. flicks vampires, mummies, the living dead, werewolves, invisible men or the giant monsters that always seemed to attack Tokyo. And later the low budget remakes even made me smile as well as the alien attacks films from the 50's and on, I'm an equal opportunity movie fan I enjoy both foreign and domestic offerings subtitles don't scare me. But what gets under my skin is the recent offerings from Lions Gate this company floods the market with sub par films and this one is no exception here we are given what I consider is the worst Dracula movie I've ever seen I swore that I would watch the entire movie from beginning to end before deciding where it fit in the long history of Dracula films at least in my mind and while I fell asleep no less than three times during the film and chaptered back and fourth to find where I left off I finally finished watching it and here are my thoughts on this film. When I look at a film I like to consider the cinematography the sets the effects so this takes care of the overall appearance of the film as I see it next I look at the cast their acting if accents are used I like to examine them for authenticity (are they believable) and do the actors fit the roles quite often the casting leaves a lot to be desired as is the case here. As far as the sets most are impressive but I seriously doubt that Dracula would reside in a mausoleum while the marble facade's are impressive I none the less don't believe the whole mausoleum thing in the more historic tellings of the Dracula tale it is a foregone conclusion that most of Draculas castle is in ruins except for a small portion where most of the film takes place in this film Dracula must employ Merry Maids as the floors are spotless and shine like they are brand new, points deducted for shiny floors also in the classic adaptations Dracula has a serious reaction to sunlight, not here he seems capable of standing in front of brightly lit windows with no adverse reaction, once again points deducted for straying from the established path. Acting is for the most part over acted and the accents are in no way believable the story flows like mud and is about as coherent as a fever dream in fact I felt myself slipping into a coma more times than I can count. The movie looks to have been filmed with a video camera and while there are post production processes that can take a movie shot on video and give it the look of film it was not used here and probably would not have helped in the least. What made me laugh is the makeup effects that were used or lack there of the "Lee Press On Nails" worn by Dracula were there in one scene and gone in the next, then on one hand and not the other, and some were missing on one hand in a scene and back again in the next. Yet again more points deducted. In all I was not impressed by this movie and was bored out of my skull once again it gives me a solid basis in my belief that Lions Gate is killing the horror genre off one film at a time. After watching this film my over all opinion is that it is a waste of time and money for all concerned, don't buy it or rent it wait for it to be shown on the Sci-Fi Channel or on cable if there is nothing else on that day or if you have the need to punish yourself for something you did as you will never get the hour and a half back of your life. So in closing all I can say to Lions Gate and the people who made this movie is that "YOUR MOVIE SUCKS"

Ps. To Andrew Brynarski I know you and have talked with you on several occasions and while I like you and get a kick out of you at the conventions you've got to get it together and straighten out dude your on a downward spiral and I'd hate to see it end badly. I really wanted this to be a good movie for you and I know you tried but you've got to shake your demons. Pull it together you made a great Lobo and god only knows who the villain in the next Superman film may be but you totally owned Lobo in that short http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0353672/
3 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Vlad bad and others worse
mandy-soulsby-bodart14 November 2010
If this movie weren't so spectacularly awful, we would have scored it a one. However, the overall degree of dreadfulness compelled us to watch, in mounting disbelief, as it got progressively worse...and worse. Special mention must go to range of appalling cameo roles - particularly the housekeeper, who does the most unconvincing 'wossit got ta do wiv yew!' I have ever seen outside of local amateur dramatics, to the tottering table in the "French"? farmhouse. Actually, I take that back,as the actions of the table were more riveting than those of the actors. I think this film will appeal to those who enjoy watching re-enactments of train crashes - the opening scene indicates just how bad it is going to be, but one feels drawn to witness the disaster regardless.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Dracula's turkey
trashgang27 June 2012
I picked this up just to have an extra discount, so in fact I had it for free and was I glad that I didn't spend valuable money on it. although it had Andrew Bryniarski (Texas Chainsaw remakes as leatherface) in it it still looked ridiculous.

The effects used, if we can say effects looked like they were done by students, in fact the overall look of this flick had a student feeling making their end terms.

But I kept watching for some reason I haven't find out, still, it's a turkey. Dracula looked funny and didn't do anything at all except some magic with his fingers. The way he died was as stupid as you could get it.

the acting itself wasn't one to notice too. No gore to see, or any bite or red stuff, the hanging of a man was done off-screen, go figure that out, even that couldn't be seen in a horror. Called Bram Stoker's Dracula's Guest but be advised that Bram Stoker's name was just attached to fool viewers.

Gore 0/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 0/5 Story 1/5 Comedy 0/5
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Completely underrated movie
alexgtelephone18 September 2018
This movie got undeservedly a lot of bad review's,it really is by no means a bad film.

The character of Dracula is a little over the top and exaggerated but is well played,Dracula is show has a bloodthirsty sadist that is very brutal in his methods lacking some of the finesse of previous films,but by no means is that a bad thing since it adds a lot of intensity to the character.

The scenarios are dark,gritty and quite enjoyable to look featuring some old European aesthetics (very romanticized and morbid but beautiful).

The girl who plays Elizabeth played her role well and you could truly sense her terror of being maintained prisoner by Dracula. Her lover and the main lead played by Wes Ramsey lacked a bit in performance at times, the plot also making the character look unrealistically emotionally invested in the wrong events(Wanting to Fight his friend over unimportant silly comments but then not having much of a reaction hearing his lover got brutalised by Dracula.)Again the actresses performance however continued to be of high quality and greatly written.

There is nothing much to say about the rest of the characters,they are at large unimportant and the dialogues of such characters are poorly delivered.

The movie Starts at a slow pace and then quickly rants up Mid-Late Act making you Wonder what will happen to the faith of Bram and Elizabeth as the odds turn against their favor.

So to conclude it is not a perfect film but it is worth a watch if you are looking for a different take on the Dracula Mytho.

You won't regret it.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
'Bad' really doesn't do it justice
carflo18 December 2011
I have seen many movies that are bad: bad script, bad directing, bad special effects. But what I have never seen before is such bad acting. Where did they get these people? Surely, somewhere in world they could have found better actors. The cast from one of the senior plays from a local high school would have been infinitely better. Every line was 'signifcant' and melodramatic especially from the fat Dracula. (Who ever heard of a fat vampire?) Of course, it may have been the director and if it was, he should never be allowed on the set of any production for the rest of his life. But even if it was the director, the actors should be cast out of the Actors Guild for so shamelessly degrading their craft. 'Bad' cannot possibly cover the awfulness of this so called movie.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The worst thing I've ever attempted to watch
chewyman624 June 2014
This movie is terrible, honestly terrible. I bought this movie as an ex-rental from a local video store, but I can honestly say I wish I had spent the money on something else. I think that them putting the name Bram Stoker so prominently on the cover is a complete con, and unfortunately I was suckered in by it. I have sat through some absolute stinkers in my time, but the acting in this film was by far and away the worst I've ever seen, I mean there must be low budget porno films with more committed acting than this pile of garbage. It was so bad I couldn't force myself to sit through more than about half an hour of it. I would say save your money, don't buy this film, it's a waste of money and your time.......don't even watch it for free.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Incredibly lame and uneventful vampire effort
kannibalcorpsegrinder24 October 2014
After accidentally losing his girlfriend, a real-estate broker learns she's in the company of an evil vampire count who feels the same way about her and tries to free her before it's too late.

There's hardly anything right about this one as it has a lot of flaws. One of the biggest strikes against this one is the fact that there's just no action in this that keeps this interesting. Not only are scenes like their initial encounter or the ball together just interminably boring with barely anything happening as it just wanders around with barely any enthusiasm to keep this alive. The plot-points are handled to a degree which basically renders them drained of any importance by how woefully underwhelming they are because of the low-key energy they display. Nowhere else, though, are the scenes involving the girlfriend in the castle as a hostage is this displayed better which are just some of the most utterly boring scenes in the whole movie. Not only missing the Gothic splendor required for such a film with this kind of story, there's just nothing happening during these scenes as they just continually pile on scene after scene that never actually accomplishes anything which tends to make this all the more boring than it really should be. As well, the lack of action throughout really brings down the scare factor about the film since we're supposed to be fear of her condition but yet this is exactly the opposite as nothing happens so we don't get any kind of fear or chills from the film. Finally, it revolves way too much on simply knocking her unconscious to prevent her from snooping around yet it's repeated so often that there's simply no way to think of it being anything different and it becomes comical for how often it happens. This makes the few action scenes that occur here a little more tolerable as they tend to stand out here. The first encounter in the house where he first fights off against the Count to their fine sword-fight at the end come off as quite fun and enjoyable due to their frenetic movements against such static surroundings, and a second attack in the woods with spiritual women swarming over him proves far better as a real highlight. There's really not a lot, though, that makes up for the boredom that runs throughout this one.

Rated PG-13: Violence and Language.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Indie adaptation of a classic short story
Leofwine_draca31 May 2018
Warning: Spoilers
BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA'S GUEST is a screen adaptation of the Bram Stoker short story, which was based on the early passages of his novel DRACULA. Sadly, this is an indie film and as such it's very poor indeed, with cheap-looking execution and a budget which stretches to a few period costumes and that's about it. The guy playing Dracula is some beefy guy whose overacting I found quite off-putting. The good news is that he doesn't have much screen time. Like many indies, much of it takes place in a nondescript countryside location.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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


Recently Viewed