Dracula: The Original Living Vampire (2022) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
24 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
2/10
Very, very bad
thomasmccay-2289230 January 2022
Warning: Spoilers
This is a trashy PC rewrite that is just silly, in spite of wanting to be taken seriously.

It is impossible to suspend disbelief long enough to get into this absurdly weak PC retelling of a great story. Van Helsing is a female London detective in the 19th century who is very open about being lesbian and Nina is her girl friend. This one requires some very strong smoke to get any enjoyment out of. It is offensively bad.
12 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
The stakes are high
nogodnomasters30 January 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Vampire (Jake Herbert) is stalking redheads. Detective Amelia Van Helsing (Christine Prouty) is on the case and does not believe in vampires. She works for Capt. Renfield (Stuart Packer) so we know where this is going. Michael Ironside is in it and I bet he wished he wasn't. Dracula has his designs set for Mina (India Lillie Davies), Amelia's lover.

The story line was different. The names are all there. The acting was bad. Christine Prouty was laughably bad and has no business being in films. I will say the same for the director and writer.

Guide: No swearing. Sex and nudity -India Lillie Davies, Ana Ilic (?) Dajana Urumovic (?).
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
No
Stephanie-Hurst11 August 2022
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.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This is bad enough to have a cult following
paulhay97630 January 2022
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.
14 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Dreadful
harallangerballs31 January 2022
Wooden acting, predictable script, dire direction. Why, just why, that's all I was left asking myself. Dracula has such potential, yet to be fully realized.
12 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Toothless Mockbuster, Abysmal Acting
sleep-7105230 January 2022
Warning: Spoilers
To even call it a mockbuster is probably generous. Even the bad special effects we normally expect from The Asylum are absent here. Gone, too, are any parts of the original Stoker novel that require shots on location (save for a standard-issue CGI 'castle'), and our small cast of under a dozen appear to be the only remaining people on Earth. "D:TOLV" manages to make Hallmark movies look positively lavish by comparison.

That tiny budget shows up here in spades, as the movie eagerly dives into all of the dullest (and cheapest to film) parts of the novel- people talking, people reading books, people squinting their eyes and furrowing their brows- while excising just about anything that would require any effort to film. Instead of a mockbuster, we get a low-rent "X-Files" knockoff with Val Helsing (Prouty) as skeptic Scully and Harker (Woodcock) as believer Mulder, skulking about and 'solving' the mystery. For some reason, Van Helsing and Harker's roles are reversed here compared to the novel- Harker is the vampire expert, not Van Helsing- not that it matters much, or makes anyone the slightest bit more interesting. Neither Prouty nor Woodcock have any other IMDB credits, and it shows in every scene they are in.

Meanwhile, Count Dracula- whose job here is to ramp up the tension and terror until the main characters catch up to what the audience already knows- spends most of the movie hanging out at Van Helsing's apartment, chatting up her pretty girlfriend Mina (Davies).

It's hard to express just how poorly this main(!) character is written, or how badly Jake Herbert (another first timer, coming to us from "Glow Up: Britain's Next Make-Up Star") portrays him. He is quite possibly the least menacing, least scary, least interesting Dracula to ever be committed to film, a dull bore who fails to do anything with the few scraps the terrible script assigns to him. His interactions with supposed long-lost love Mina have the chemistry and passion of an insurance agent and her client, chatting in the former's suburban office about deductibles. Aside from an opening scene where he beds Lucy and bites her, he's a nonentity in the horror department.

Speaking of which, poor Lucy (Ana Ilic) gets the short end of the stake here as well. Instead of being the murdered best friend whose death, terrifying resurrection, and tragic end make the menace of Dracula personal to the heroes, she's reduced to a random crime scene victim, whose rebirth as a vampire goes practically unnoticed, and whose quick death is immediately forgotten (side note... these characters apparently inhabit a world in which the human heart is located where the liver should be, as every stake seems to land squarely in the center of a vampire's torso).

In the end, because D:TOLV is dedicated to finding the cheapest and laziest solution to everything, our dollar store Dracula is dispatched after he falls for an obvious ruse by Mina, completely ignoring the stake she's very obviously hiding behind her back until he gets it through the liver- er, heart- and dies. Everyone lives happily ever after until the movie remembers, at the very last moment, that it is supposed to be a Morbius mockbuster; Van Helsing is accordingly transformed into a vampire (after being bitten in the shoulder, vampires apparently being zombies in this world). Like everything else in this movie, it's handled without any effort, emotion, or acting ability; Prouty simply stares into a mirror as her reflection fades away, with nary a shrug. The end. Thankfully.

Tl;dr: A terrible movie, cast with people with zero acting experience (Packer is the only cast member with any other roles), directed by a stock Asylum director, filmed somewhere in Eastern Europe on a Trabant budget, covering only the cheapest and dullest parts of Stoker's novel.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Absolutely terrible
osculim5 February 2022
What was Michael Ironside thinking when agreeing to be in this movie.

Absolutely terrible. Horrible special effects. Terrible acting. This should never have been made. This is a insult to not only the Dracula story but also cinema as a whole.

Avoid like the plague.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
really enjoyed this movie!
martin-8133629 January 2022
I found this movie to be highly entertaining, altho I didnt take it seriously in the slightest! Drac is inspired by the Goth in the IT crowd I think :D

Sorry to crimp your night (haters ) - Some great one liners, get some friends round, drink and laugh!

A dark comedy that bites! :D.
9 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Sherlock Holmes meets Radu from Subspecies
gacsogergely22 February 2022
With Asylum I learnt to look for what the actual content is, because their titles are 99:100 deceiving.

So this was titled Dracula, and looked like a costumed flick (long time passed since anyone did such), but I expected a twist.

The twist was, this is not your Dracula-story with Dracula-characters, but a female Sherlock Holmes. I say why not, and once figured out what is going on, I could dive into the experience.

The catsing of "Dracula" was an interresting choice, I mean who'd hire someone who looks like the Laughing Vampire from Twilight, but sure, why not. And in vampire-form he looked like Radu. Radu is funny. It isa reference I like wether intentional or not.

On the mockbuster part, this looks and feels better than Morbius for me to be honest. I'd watch this in cinema sooner than that.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Actually not bad for a movie from The Asylum...
paul_haakonsen29 January 2022
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.
14 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The lighting oh the lighting
MadMovieMax17 February 2022
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.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
No masterpiece, but showing potential and respect for the classic!
pietroschek30 January 2022
Warning: Spoilers
The idea of a Lesbian van Helsing working under her supervisor Renfield, as part of the urban police, is giving a modern edge to dusty, old Bram Stoker canon.

The lighting of the movie is better than dozens I had to watch in recent years & same is true on the audio needing much less filtering, or much less amplifying.

Science in denial & the wishful thinking of occult bookworms lacking practice is ALSO fitting that kinda horror story.

So, while i cannot help it: The attempt to dump this movie faster & deeper than even oldest black & white movies IS wrong! The movie is NOT a masterpiece, but a solid & clearly motivated production.

Actors & actresses are not outstanding, but not one spoiled a scene by being high on drugs, or otherwise misbehaving, at all!

The Lesbian soft-sex scene is fitting adult relationships, and does not drift into cheap porn.

I do not regret watching this movie, though I did watch it at 110% playback speed and only, because a friend had it streamed.

Still: It is not junk, and that team, when funded properly, could produce a sequel worth watching!
9 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I want my hour and a half back.
genekirk25 June 2022
The only thing you will be missing after watching this movie is the last hour and half of your life. Don't waste your time, it is indescribably bad, really bad.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I agree with paulhay976
stevewatson-489604 April 2022
I'm not suprised the 3 young ones haven't worked since this movie, it's terrible. I would like to 1 star it.

Ironside is Ironside, plank like, he must have done this to relieve boredom or for pocket money.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Poor Acting & Poor Direction
mlwilliams-7376231 August 2023
This is a very poor adaptation of a classic story; throwing in "modern" twists such as same sex relationships is a pathetic attempt to bring a different slant on it. A female lead investigator is also not sufficient to add a new slant. The acting is at best wooden, the script lacks depth and the whole thing is almost incongruous.

The direction is non-existent; special effects are OK but even on a budget this film is a let down.

This film is really not worth watching other than to show film students how NOT to make films. I'm unsure what they were thinking when producers gave a green light to this production but clearly ot wasn't logic!!!
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
imdb rating is too low but it is trash.
mrmgarnham8 December 2022
The cast do their best with the terrible contemporary rewriting of the classic tale. The directing isnt much better than the writing but at least the production value and music are decent.

Imdb still trying to force spoiler laden reviews with the new minimum character limit imdb still trying to force spoiler laden reviews with the new minimum character limit imdb still trying to force spoiler laden reviews with the new minimum character limit imdb still trying to force spoiler laden reviews with the new minimum character limit imdb still trying to force spoiler laden reviews with the new minimum character limit.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Nail bitting
goodalan-8219128 January 2022
Brilliant movie totally enjoyed it A classic horror told in the future Hopefully there will be a sequel.

A must see movie.

Great cast and story and very atmospheric.
9 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
'The classic tale as you've never seen.'
parry_na6 April 2023
... the 'original' living vampire, not this pasty-faced newcomer 'Morbius (2022)!' From Asylum films, this 'mockbuster' set in designer-Victorian times, takes its title from the original Marvel Morbius comic strips, always subtitled, 'The living vampire.'

There are some atmospheric recreations of Gothic castles and general Victorian-looking panoramas. I couldn't work out if they were model work, enhanced actual cityscapes or CGI, which is the whole point, I'm sure.

The historical accuracy is loose at best but looks good, and the actors do a fair job of getting their tongues around some very olde-world dialogue - and fangs - and some very interesting things are done with many characters from the original novel - different genders, different sexual preferences and different beliefs. The result is very talky a lot of the time but features occasional effects that are pretty impressive, and ultimately, I enjoyed this.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Actually not the original
kosmasp4 November 2023
Well movie wise speaking of course, so no pun intended. I reckon no one will be fooled by the title and think that this is the first and original movie about Dracula. Not that the movie is technically claiming it - the original refers to the name Dracula and the origin of "Vampirism".

The movie starts off with - well you get to see a bit of action. Action as in violence but also as in nudity. And there will be more of both. This may float your boat or not. Do not expect this to be filled with stuff like that. It does try to tell a story. I say try, because overall it does fail. While I've seen worse, this also is really failing in many respects.

Actors try their best and costumes are ok I reckon (same goes for set design - if you cut it some slack).
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Absolutely atrocious
dreww-3984319 April 2024
Couldn't stomach 15 minutes of this movie. Everything about it is wrong.... casting, direction, lighting, acting, costumes, sets, props.... Impossible to even tell what time period it was set. Obviously very little budget and made by people who have no clue what "production value" means. If you're going to make a movie (can't call this a "film") set in a specific historical period, at least make an attempt to have the characters look as if they're from the period and not just have them walk onto the set in whatever they pulled out of their closet that morning. Not one of the actors was wearing period clothing and don't get me started on the hair styles and makeup. Then there's the acting. I've seen better performances from community theatre groups in church basements.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Wrong Jake Herbert
jaqunderwood-0853322 April 2023
In the list of cast members, Jake Herbert that is shown on the internet is the wrong Jake Herbert. The one on one site shows a wrestler who has no film credits. I'm guessing no one did their research and making sure the correct photo of the correct Jake Herbert was found and used. I'm not sure who I would get in touch to get this correct. If you go onto Google and search the name of the film and click on cast, you will see what I am talking about.

Apart from that the film is ok and worth a watch. I love anything to do with Dracula. It is always good to see some films redone with some changes (like a female Van Helsing).
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Nothing is going well
cethi-One23 February 2024
A particularly shaky film. And this time the lack of budget is clearly not the problem. Nothing is going well, the staging goes back and forth between mediocre and approximate, the historical context is thrown in the trash, the tone is very monotonous, the light burns out the characters at times and the music is never used the right way. And worst of all, we know the whole plot by having read the title and watched the 5 minutes of films.

This part of the criticism is useless, it took 600 letters but I said everything in 500 so I'm supplementing with blabla which is useless, Good day and thank you for reading to the end.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Terrible acting, no direction, rushed
wendyprivate12 May 2023
I love vampire movies but this has to be the biggest pile of tosh I've ever had the misfortune to spend 20 minutes on. It jumps rapidly from one gothic cliché to another, barely barely stopping for more than a split 2nd on any of them except, unsurprisingly, the naked boobs. The acting is appalling and it comes across like there was no direction whatsoever. Vampire movies need to build some kind of atmosphere and horror anticipation but this just lurches from one scene to another without any without any thought for creating any suspense.

Like it was produced by a bunch of college kids as a school project. Do not waste your time.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Yeah I quite enjoyed it
demongaz28 July 2022
A boring Thursday night, put this on in the background and quite enjoyed it. The main characters - who were all newbies - did ok in my opinion. Yeah it's a big cheesy, yeah there were some dodgy moments but I thought it was an ok watch. I've seen a hell of a lot of bad films and this was fine for me.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed