Dracula: Reborn (2012)

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.

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.

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.

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. :)