Dracula: The Original Living Vampire

It's been years since I saw acting this bad, the story line is wooden as is the acting. Honestly don't waste your time with this film, I managed 20min before finally giving in.

The acting was terrible. The storyline was just an excuse for showing boobs. Did I mention terrible acting. Don't waste your time. This movie used the names in the original Dracula but had none of the excitement, intelligence or suspense. Garbage.

Ugh, well of course it had to happen. The Asylum breaks out another can of mockbuster, and this time it is the upcoming "Morbius: The Living Vampire" movie that gets the treatment in "Dracula: The Original Living Vampire".

When I saw the movie's poster and read the movie's title, I was immediately aware of this being another The Asylum movie, without a doubt, and yet I opted to sit down and watch this 2022 movie from writer Michael Varrati and director Maximilian Elfeldt. And I will say, actually, that this movie wasn't actually all that bad.

Sure, you are not in for an evening of Shakespearian cinema here, but at least The Asylum upped their game tremendously in terms of budget, production and effects. So it was a pleasant surprise to watch "Dracula: The Original Living Vampire" actually, despite of the insanely lazy writing from Michael Varrati, as it was essentially just the classic Bram Stoker story "Dracula" with slight modifications to the story, and with some not-so-subtle-shoved-into-the-stage Woke mentality as well.

I wasn't familiar with a single performer on the cast list in "Dracula: The Original Living Vampire", aside from Michael Ironside, which is something I actually do enjoy when I watch movies. And I will say that the performances put on by the actors and actresses were actually quite good.

The production in "Dracula: The Original Living Vampire" was great, and actually felt like a proper movie, instead of the usual rubbish low budget attempts of making a movie that The Asylum has been pushing out by the dozens each year. So that was a great accomplishment.

And the visuals too were greatly improved, which impressed me, because The Asylum usually have questionable and dubious special effects, but not in "Dracula: The Original Living Vampire". Thumbs up on that accomplishment.

Ultimately, then I was definitely pleasantly surprised with "Dracula: The Original Living Vampire" and found it to be a watchable movie and entertaining enough for what it was.

My rating of "Dracula: The Original Living Vampire" lands on a five out of ten stars.

I have watched many Dracula movies but this is the worst I have ever seen. You can tell the "stars" are in their first movies. The dialogue is stilted. And poor Michael Ironside was the only good thing in this movie. This is the worst movie I have seen him in and I have watched Highlander 2.

But the worst part of it was the lighting. You couldn't see two thirds of the movie. And they had electric lamps, why was everything lighted by lamps?

Do not see this movie unless you want a terrible movie to riff on. My friend Dok had riffed on it a lot. There was less gratuitous T and A in a piranha movie. Why did we have to see dead tits over and over again.

Wow this hurt.

The story line has nothing new to add to the countless Dracula movies that have been done over the years. From that standpoint there's really no need to watch. There are a couple of aspects that raise it above a one-star movie. First, the set designs were actually good. With a few notable exceptions things seemed pretty consistent with a late 19th century setting it claimed to be. The telephone and electric fan, though old, were not that old. Second, for a cast of mostly no-name actors, the acting wasn't the worst I've seen. No future Oscar winners here, but the acting wasn't bad enough to be a distraction.