Wrath of Dracula

I recently watched "The Wrath of Dracula," and it took me a good 40 minutes to realize it was not your typical horror flick but rather at time's a black comedy. The film presents a unique take on the well-trodden Dracula story, blending humor into the narrative. I hope it was intended

The performances were decent, with the cast embracing the film's comedic elements. However, I found myself questioning the necessity of adapting this familiar story into another film. While the twist towards comedy was unexpected, it didn't necessarily enhance the overall viewing experience for me.

Despite my reservations about the film's choice of direction, I appreciate the attempt to bring something new to the Dracula narrative. "The Wrath of Dracula" might not be everyone's cup of tea, but if you're open to a comedic spin on classic horror, it could be an interesting watch.

Overall, the film leaves an impression with its unexpected genre shift, but whether it successfully revitalizes the well-known Dracula story is up for debate.

First off I wasn't expecting much but as I started watching it kept me wanting to see more ad as I sat and watch. It kept better and the story got interesting. Now some of you will say it was not good but I wat to forget about life for a few hours and it did just that.

Hannaj Bang Bendz and Mark Topping kept me very entertained as did the rest of the cast so a very special shot out to all of them, very well done in my opinion and i truly hope we get to see them go after those werewolves in part 2 hopefully!!?

So just enjoy the film, support the actors and don't over think it Again well done cast & crew!!

I was liking this as soon as i saw Hannaj Bang Bendz in the opening credits, i think she really adds to any role.

Ok, this time Mina travels to Castle Dracula to find Jonathan. Upon arrival she runs into Van Helsing and from there, well you know the rest. Most of the acting was good.

The film is very pleasing, the set design, the lighting, it just looks good. The story drags on too slow, as though its an episode of a series.

There is a real PG13 feel of this, a very soft approach, total lack of gore and an odd interjection of camp in one of the few fight scenes. I sort of got the feel they were trying different things during the course of production. To me there was a real lack of consistancy.

Overall its not bad and after watching it, my impression was that it had the look of a pilot movie for a tv series. The ending even supported this. So much that it reminded me of the Dracula tv series from 2013 that was cancelled mid first season.

You dont see much of Dracula in this movie at all. That really leaves me wondering about the title. He is sctually portrayed as a wimp.

Its worth watching, it has entertainment value.

However they had a decent cast and could have made it much more lively.

Jonathan Harker has been a guest of Count Dracula at his Castle in Transylvania, tearing that something isn't quite right, he sends for his wife, who arrives and instantly neets up with Professor van Helsing.

So, the film has a relatively low score, and justifiably so I hear you say, but it's actually not all bad.

So, it looks a little amateur, and feels a little cheap, but late night on Christmas eve, after a few gins, waiting for Santa, I rather enjoyed it. It is very talky, and at times it looks rough around the edges, but there's definitely some creativity behind it.

Considering this was made on a shoestring budget, if actually looks decent at times, some of the sets and costumes are nice, and Castle Dracula looks awesome. There's some interesting mythology surrounding The Count, I liked the ideas about his origins.

It's still better than the third part of Moffatt's BBC series from a few years ago.

Sean Cronin makes for an interesting Count Dracula, he's quite a fishy vampire.

Nonsense, but fun.

6/10.

I don't tend to publicly review, due to being an indie filmmaker myself and having to be careful. But after Sean Cronin proved he has the most fragile ego in the world by harassing me - very unprofessional - via various social media accounts (simply for saying I don't rate his work), I felt like I may as well review.

This is one of the most pointless films I've ever seen. The production values are the highlight. The castle actually looks semi-decent. But everything else is abysmal.

The writing is fundamentally terrible - which is a trend with this writer/director and his straight-to-streaming terrible adaptations. I've watched a couple of his films, and they are equally poor.

The highlights though are Cronin and Snow's awful performances. Cronin in particular, for all his experience, remains unable to act on even a basic level. His Dracula has no presence. He has no charisma. His accent is abysmal and the poor dialogue doesn't help him. Overall, it's one of the very worst Dracula's I've ever seen.

Snow is the highlight of crappiness, though. I don't understand how she keeps getting roles. She's always sold as 'sexy', but she really isn't. She looks like she hasn't eaten a meal in a year. Her accent is hilariously awful, and her dialogue is equally ass.

Prime example of 'desperate actors who'll do anything for five minutes of attention'

Absolutely abysmal, from start to finish. A slog to sit through, despite a short run time.

Bottom-of-the-barrel trash.