Dracula Reborn (2015) Reviews

• Terrible

  rain6572015-06-26

  This is actually the worst film I have ever seen. 24 mins in, boring, waited till 48 mins still nothing but bad acting and terrible cinematography. Fast forwarded to 1hr 20 no better. Just a really bad impersonation of a vampire dry humping unassuming victims. The read up and cover looked OK so for a few quid thought I try it. I don't think these poor actors will ever work again after this. I don't think the syfy Chanel would even air this nonsense. I have thrown mine in the bin but actually feel like sending back to Attila 'whats his name' (writer and director) for a full refund for clearly lying about the content and the hash job he calls a film..... Utter utter garbage.

• You will not forgive yourself for watching this film!

  crmackay-461872015-10-15

  This is easily the worst vampire film I have ever seen and I have watched some absolute stinkers. It is amateurish in every way, badly shot, lit and acted. The performances are so bad I actually thought it was a parody, apart from the fact that it wasn't even in the "so bad, it's funny" category. I bought the film and was really looking forward to watching it based on the cover blurb. I started watching it, then started watching it on fast forward waiting for something to happen, then realised it was over and that nothing had! The only time I have ever been more disappointed with a film was when I paid good money to see Jaws:The Revenge at the cinema. After watching Dracula Reborn, (an obvious attempt to cash in on Dracula Untold), the DVD was consigned to the local charity shop. Avoid this one like the plague!

• no no no no no no (robble robble)

  biteypete2015-07-06

  I wish I could tell you ANYTHING about the context of the movie. After spending less than ten minutes "watching" this title, all I came away with is that their food catering services added glue to the "Oatmeal Only" menu, and there was no water or toothbrushes on set. And someone stole that poor girl's eyebrows. Also, there may have been marbles in the oatmeal, I am not sure either way. Or perhaps it was dubbed by the Hamburglar. Seeing that the review was considered too short for submission, I will add additional text because I need to do my part in keeping people from renting or even accidentally watching this ....movie. I thought about adding a few lines of "Robble Robble" but am not sure how many people would actually get the Hamburglar reference, let alone know what his speech sounds like. That being said, you now have full understanding of what my viewing experience was like. Robble Robble.

• I watch this garbage so that you don't have to.

  pink_Nigel2015-07-17

  In 1979 Werner Herzog and Klaus Kinski worked together on "Nosferatu the Vampyre", a film characterised by its slow pacing, atmospheric soundtrack, and subdued vocal volume. Given the talent involved, they created what is arguably the best vampire movie ever made. In 2015, some people who have obviously seen Nosferatu the Vampyre had a stab at making a vampire movie (even if the following parallels are not indicative they completely ripped off the vampire's appearance from NtV). Unfortunately, nobody involved in the production had even the smallest fraction of the talent involved in the Kinski/Herzog production. Dracula Reborn, the resultant mess, is so mind-numbingly slow that you won't be sure whether you fell asleep whilst watching. Along with the turgid pace, the score serves only to drown out yet further the mumbled and muted script, and the acting would look bad in a kindergarten play - especially that of Yves Neverbeeninanythingelse as "Corvinus" (wait… "Corvinus"? Ah, so the writer/director has seen "Underworld" as well…). I've only seen the count on Sesame Street come anywhere near the amount of overblown cape-flapping that we see from the central vampire (yeah, this is the bit I hit spoilers for - the central vampire is the aforementioned Corvinus, "Dracula" doesn't even feature that much, mostly he is limited to a few token kills during which he remains hidden under his cloak (perhaps this is why IMDb doesn't have a credit listing for him), only in the welcome-but-lame end sequence does the hood come down). I suspect Danii Filth is celebrating the release of this movie, as it means that "Cradle of Filth" is no longer the second-worst movie ever made. I'm not sure which of Dracula Reborn or Vampire Resurrection (2003, straight-to-video, somehow missing from IMDb) is the worst, it's a pretty close call.

• Ohhh cant believe this

  zoran_kamen2015-09-15

  I give 4 to this only cause horror - slasher , scenes are quite original and gory, so thats about only good thing about this "movie" --yeah bloody parts are well made and you cane see goo suffering of victims, BUT.. all victims are incredibly dumb, they are almost like puppets, giving absolute no fight no resistance to vampire, so now we are at acting part. Actually there is no acting here, even main actors look very bored, there are long dead looking scenes, actors have no fire in them, no enthusiasm --they really look like someone who had sex and partying all night and is now completely depleted of all energy, they move around bore, they talk without any energy and as said there are long dead nonsense scenes..I think you get the picture ! Only good thing about movie is bald vampire who is acting, not well but better than others... and another plus is that he not only kill, but is also playing with his victims and he have this crazy faces and laughter going on, he is somehow only energetic character in movie... I can not even say to this acting, they are just repating words automatically like robots, really horrible acting, the worst I ever seen . There are some good horror scenes and creepy well recorded scenery but thats all, because of that I gave rate 4. All else I would even vote 1.