Powerful

Overrated

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

I liked this movie! It had very good acting and the story was good. The action was good and I liked the love story angle to the Dracula Story. I would have given a higher rating except that I didn't like how it ended so much. I like happier endings. It could have been better, but that's life. Or death in this matter...lol.The movie keep my interest and I found myself rooting for the Vampire. That was interesting. But in the end, we all know that not everyone can win. It's an overall good movie and worth a watch.Enjoy this Vampire movie. Jim

In the Sixteenth Century, a group of warriors are vanquished by Wrath (Vasilescu Valentin) and other demons in Romania. The teenagers Alina (Kelly Wenham) and her sister Esme (Holly Earl) flee with a box, but they are surprised the a group of thieves commanded by the young Lucian (Ben Robson) that wants the box. They disclose that inside the box there is the Lightbringer, the only weapon capable to kill Dracula (Luke Roberts). Soon the vampire hunter Leonardo Van Helsing (Jon Voight) comes to the camping of the thieves and when he is explaining the power of the Lightbringer, Wrath returns with the creatures and attack the group. They are defeated but Wrath kidnaps Aline and brings her to Dracula in his invisible castle. Her resemblance with Dracula's bride that was killed by traitors one century ago makes him believe that she is her reincarnation. Now Dracula wants to seduce Alina and he asks his assistant Renfield (Stephen Hogan) to take care of Alina. Meanwhile Van Helsing and Esme team up with Lucian and the hunter Andros (Richard Ashton) that seeks out Dracula to revenge the death of his sister Demetria (Poppy Corby-Tuech) and the unlikable group heads to the castle using a compass in the Lightbringer to rescue Alina from the vampire."Dracula: The Dark Prince" might have been an entertaining movie with improvements. Dracula blonde is ridiculous; the decrepit Jon Voight is annoying and also pathetic in the role of a vampire hunter. The two "Xenas" protecting the valuable box is also terrible. The modern haircut of Lucian is laughable. The female vampires in Dracula's harem seem to be in a fashion parade or beer advertisement. But the movie is watchable and makes laugh. My vote is five.Title (Brazil): "Drácula - O Príncipe das Trevas" ("Dracula - The Dark Prince")

It would be a good movie if: Had no unnecessary nudity;The clothes were more appropriate to the time and more rustic;Women do not appear with a look from a beauty salon (much production in the face and hair);The younger actors seem to have left the Glee show.The story became very different, it was not bad, just different. The production is modest, within the available budget. Being a super production is not mandatory and does not guarantee a good movie. The film has some good actors, yes. And it's easy to see who they are, the more experienced and less exaggerated.

Spoiler Alert. Enjoy the movie before reading further if you don not want another's opinion of the movie.This movie could have been quite stylish and I have the feeling that it was shot then re shot to add some interesting scenes. The whole beginning of the movie where stills similar to "The 300" where live action and stills were mixed to interesting effect screamed potential.. But alas. It stinks. The scriptwriter was caught between writing a legitimate, alternate telling of the Dracula story full of mysticism, occult, symbolism and sexy lesbos who never really get it on but wander around being on the verge of orgasm all the time and a pratfall comedy that just never got going. Either way it;s a disaster dialog-wise and cinematically. Maybe undead lesbians who crave sex as much as blood is the basis of the attractiveness of vampires. The amount of unrestricted sex people think they get certainly hypes the interest of prepubescent boys and girls. After all, who is going to try to restrict the actions of a fifteen year-old dead boy or girl? All the social ramifications of his/her actions are gone. They are free to have sex with whomsoever they please and are constantly on the prowl for new conquests in literature of this ilk. Aah, the romance and stench of the undead. Just turns you on doesn't it?But back to the movie. Dracula has always been overtly sexual ever since Bram Stoker penned the character. Maybe only Nosferatu is the only non-sexual vampire. This one is as tortured as any of the enormous cadre of cohorts. He is a poor troubled soul who has lost his true love and must compensate by having sex with a bevy semi-attractive women. I guess the budget, after paying for Voight, must have been dramatically reduced so the bevy was of the bargain basement variety. .Voight is a good actor. He has given some superior performances and some real scenery chewers. This role, as Van Helsing, could have been a powerful one but his dialog was so hackneyed and his direction so over the top that one yearns for the character he created in "Anaconda." But here is something about this actor: He can create a character and bring that character to life. This puts him so far above the rest of the cast craft wise that's it's almost painful to watch them mouth lines that must have sent him wrenching to whatever substituted for a trailer or dressing room. I hope he cashed his check right after he got it. Here there was potential to take the movie to a new look at this well known Dracula character but both the writers and the director totally failed to realize any kind of concept and as much as Lugosi set the mold for the character, his depiction soars in comparison. Hell, even Brandon Lee's characterization was superior and that was a total disaster. The producers should have brought "The Bringer of Light" and had him illuminate the script because it just doesn't work. One of the things a director can do with a movie like this is add a concept or subtext that is metaphorically presented through the movie. But I fear only Voight understands how such a thing can be done and he wasn't directing the movie. Hell, he was barely acting in it and his performance was the best the movie had to offer.The movie reminds me of people who put on plays and opera in small towns. They advertise that they are going to have a fantastic production with all kinds of ideas brought out in the dramaturgy. But they end up being stock versions with period costumes and they fall as flat as some of the scenery. If this was a play, it would have been as dark as the dark prince after opening night.