Dracula: Reborn (2012) Reviews

• An interesting take on an old tale, but little in chills and thrills

  spoken2013-08-18

  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.

  More

• Adaptation set in modern US has its points, but can't compare to Hammer or Universal

  lemon_magic2017-06-10

  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.

  More

• Poor Script/Dialogue. Decent FX and Acting, but actors had nothing to work with. A for effort. D for movie

  Bababooe2017-04-27

  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.

  More

• A bad movie

  jacobjohntaylor12015-04-18

  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.

  More

• Dracula: Reborn

  a_baron2017-02-06

  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.

  More