...well, a *pretty* good movie, anyway. But the movie wrapped around it is so confused and disorganized that it'll never find its way out. Theresa, an artist and art conservator, accepts an assignment in an unnamed Eastern European country (Bulgaria, in a fine performance as Romania) and finds it's located in a gorgeous ancient monastery inhabited by Vlad the Impaler's undead son, Vlad the Monk, and his victim/tormentor, Alec. There follows the 3000th version of the old vampire-meets-the-reincarnation-of-his-sweetheart plot, variant B (vampire heroically resists the temptation to turn her into a tormented *yawn* creature like himself). Add some dodgy historical research (i.e, a witch-burning, which didn't happen in the Orthodox countries; when the Impaler does appear he's wearing a bizarre armored half-mask to hide horrible burn-scarring, which looks as if he swiped it from the Broadway Phantom of the Opera), some hilariously inappropriate 1950s-style love songs, and a jaw-droppingly goofy sequence set in Hell (that's right) where the vampires suddenly acquire magic powers and hurl animated bolts at each other like cartoon wizards, and you'll have some idea what a mess this is. Give it a few points for pretty scenery (both landscape and physical - there's a totally nude underwater love scene) but otherwise, pass.
10 Reviews
Unbearable Angst...........
SinnerByte4 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
If it were an intentional comedy flick, I'd rate it higher. And the best thing about this was the burning at the stake scene, which looks pretty good. I think they spent the entire budget on that, which didn't leave anything left for the rest of the scenes. Draculas dead pan continuous monotone voice is just plain boring. I've heard computer voice programs from the 80's that had more life and character in them! And as someone else posted, it's truly a yawn of a plot, Vampire meeting reincarnated "Lover", and struggling with the (God help us all) Vampir-y ANGST.....(Oh, the unbearable lightness of being Dracula!) of not turning the girl he's waited hundreds of years for into a "horrible" creature like himself..... yeah yeah, blah blah blah, whatever........ Do us all a favor and drive a stake thru your own heart before we all die of Eternal Boredom, will ya, Drac baby? Geeezzz........ And the fireball throwing session in "Hell" or whatever it was supposed to be literally had me rolling on the floor howling at the comic ridiculousness of it....... I say its worth alook with a heavy fast forward thumb, to enjoy the unintentional hilarity of the fireballs, and the pretty cool burning scene. Then pop in something good....... ;-)
Son of Coppola's Dracula
Cineanalyst27 June 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Like director Francis Ford Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula," released just the year prior, "Dracula Rising" features a reincarnation romance and makes Dracula the historical Vlad the Impaler. As others have suggested, this movie was made to piggyback on the success of Coppola's film, and it's highly derivative of it. It also boasts Roger Corman as a producer. But, to be fair, Coppola and company stole the bad idea from the 1974 TV-movie "Bram Stoker's Dracula" made by Dan Curtis. And, even before that, the blaxploitation vampire flick "Blacula" (1972) featured a reincarnation romance. Also since the 1970s, Dracula movies have blown out of proportion the actually-slight connection between Bram Stoker's novel and the historical Vlad the Impaler. The name "Dracula" and a couple sentences of speculation by Van Helsing are the book's only connection to the historical prince. Stoker didn't even bother to research Vlad's actual country, so now we have a bunch of stupid Dracula movies locating the historical Prince of Wallachia in Transylvania.
Fortunately, "Dracula Rising" is somewhat ambiguous with its locations--mostly set somewhere in Eastern Europe. Unfortunately, the filmmakers didn't know their history, either, and mistake the history of Western Europe, of Catholicism and witch burning as seen in the film, with the Orthodoxy of Eastern Europe. Rather than impaling monks, as mentioned in the film, the best-known enemies of the real-life Vlad were the Turks (even Coppola's film got that part right). Vlad the Impaler is a minor character in "Dracula Rising," though; the titular character doesn't show up until over an hour into it and, then, only briefly. He wears a mouth mask akin to Bane from "The Dark Knight Rises" (2012), another movie about a batman rising from the dead. He only removes the mask to incestuously turn his son, also named "Vlad," into a vampire. Most of the film focuses on Dracula's son and his reincarnation romance with Theresa, who somehow is reincarnated hundreds of years later, but looks the same, has the same name, is always an artist and uses the same curling iron in both medieval and modern times.
I thought Dracula was bold in Hammer's 1966 "Dracula: Prince of Darkness," for his attack on a monastery, given vampires' known aversion to Christian iconography, but that's nothing compared to the two young vamps here, who live in one. They even continue to dress like the monks they were in life. In one of the few instances from "Dracula Rising" that recall Stoker's novel, Theresa takes a taxicab to the monastery, but the driver won't take her all the way--just like the horse-carriage ride to Borgo Pass in the book.
"Dracula Rising" is a B-picture, and it shows. The musical score and sound recordings are overblown, including, as fellow reviewer Perception_de_Ambiguity mentioned, the whooshing of fans, which inexplicably form a motif early in the film and, then, are abandoned. Bat-mimicking helicopter shots likewise appear only in the beginning. Negative shots serve as transitions to flashbacks. This effect, for other purposes, has been used in other Dracula movies, including the 1922 "Nosferatu" and the 1977 TV-movie "Count Dracula," but never as obnoxiously, nor accompanied by storm-like sound effects, as here. And, boy, are there a lot of flashbacks; it's like a cheap vampiric "The English Patient" (1996). There are also two clichéd make-out sessions that put even Universal's 1979 dime-romance-novel "Dracula" to shame: one on a bed surrounded by white drapery and another beside a waterfall. Best of all, however, is the ending, which is ludicrous in every way, from its low-budget animation effects, to a script calling for a vampire fight in Hell, fireball throwing included. Had the rest of "Dracula Rising" been so unintentionally hilarious, it would've been so-bad-it's-good, instead of just mostly bad.
(Mirror Note: No mirror shots, but a snapshot does reveal that vampires' images can't be captured in a photograph. "The Return of Dracula" (1958), "Scream Blacula Scream" (1973) and "The Satanic Rites of Dracula" (1973), among others, used this idea before.)
Fortunately, "Dracula Rising" is somewhat ambiguous with its locations--mostly set somewhere in Eastern Europe. Unfortunately, the filmmakers didn't know their history, either, and mistake the history of Western Europe, of Catholicism and witch burning as seen in the film, with the Orthodoxy of Eastern Europe. Rather than impaling monks, as mentioned in the film, the best-known enemies of the real-life Vlad were the Turks (even Coppola's film got that part right). Vlad the Impaler is a minor character in "Dracula Rising," though; the titular character doesn't show up until over an hour into it and, then, only briefly. He wears a mouth mask akin to Bane from "The Dark Knight Rises" (2012), another movie about a batman rising from the dead. He only removes the mask to incestuously turn his son, also named "Vlad," into a vampire. Most of the film focuses on Dracula's son and his reincarnation romance with Theresa, who somehow is reincarnated hundreds of years later, but looks the same, has the same name, is always an artist and uses the same curling iron in both medieval and modern times.
I thought Dracula was bold in Hammer's 1966 "Dracula: Prince of Darkness," for his attack on a monastery, given vampires' known aversion to Christian iconography, but that's nothing compared to the two young vamps here, who live in one. They even continue to dress like the monks they were in life. In one of the few instances from "Dracula Rising" that recall Stoker's novel, Theresa takes a taxicab to the monastery, but the driver won't take her all the way--just like the horse-carriage ride to Borgo Pass in the book.
"Dracula Rising" is a B-picture, and it shows. The musical score and sound recordings are overblown, including, as fellow reviewer Perception_de_Ambiguity mentioned, the whooshing of fans, which inexplicably form a motif early in the film and, then, are abandoned. Bat-mimicking helicopter shots likewise appear only in the beginning. Negative shots serve as transitions to flashbacks. This effect, for other purposes, has been used in other Dracula movies, including the 1922 "Nosferatu" and the 1977 TV-movie "Count Dracula," but never as obnoxiously, nor accompanied by storm-like sound effects, as here. And, boy, are there a lot of flashbacks; it's like a cheap vampiric "The English Patient" (1996). There are also two clichéd make-out sessions that put even Universal's 1979 dime-romance-novel "Dracula" to shame: one on a bed surrounded by white drapery and another beside a waterfall. Best of all, however, is the ending, which is ludicrous in every way, from its low-budget animation effects, to a script calling for a vampire fight in Hell, fireball throwing included. Had the rest of "Dracula Rising" been so unintentionally hilarious, it would've been so-bad-it's-good, instead of just mostly bad.
(Mirror Note: No mirror shots, but a snapshot does reveal that vampires' images can't be captured in a photograph. "The Return of Dracula" (1958), "Scream Blacula Scream" (1973) and "The Satanic Rites of Dracula" (1973), among others, used this idea before.)
BURIED, BUT NOT DEAD.
nogodnomasters24 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Vampire Vlad (Christopher Atkins) is a merry old soul in love with Theresa (Stacey Travis) another old soul who restores paintings. She travels to the monastery of Vlad the Impaler (Zahari Vatahov) to restore a painting, fight off vampires, and reminiscence about old times. And by old times I mean 500 years ago.
The film was slow and boring. Much of the film is about the past lives of our characters. Apparently the Middle Ages were more exciting than today. Christopher Atkins is perhaps the worst Dracula/vampire I have ever seen. I can imagine Gilbert Godfrey, Carrot Top, and Pauly shore could do a worse job...okay maybe not Pauly Shore, but the list is short.
Stacey Travis supplies us with some distant or blurred nude scenes. Vampire teeth appear bloody and through a ridiculous red lens filter. Vampire fans can skip this one and not feel they missed something.
The film was slow and boring. Much of the film is about the past lives of our characters. Apparently the Middle Ages were more exciting than today. Christopher Atkins is perhaps the worst Dracula/vampire I have ever seen. I can imagine Gilbert Godfrey, Carrot Top, and Pauly shore could do a worse job...okay maybe not Pauly Shore, but the list is short.
Stacey Travis supplies us with some distant or blurred nude scenes. Vampire teeth appear bloody and through a ridiculous red lens filter. Vampire fans can skip this one and not feel they missed something.
A Very Poor Low-Budget Film
Uriah4325 June 2019
This film essentially begins with an artist by the name of "Teresa Jennings" (Stacey Travis) showing off some of her recent work at a gallery when she meets a young man by the name of "Vlad" (Christopher Atkins) who she seems to have an immediate connection with. Not long afterward she receives an invitation from a mysterious man named "Alec" (Doug Wert) to travel to Europe to help restore an extremely old painting from the renaissance. Eager for such an opportunity she accepts immediately and upon traveling to the monastery where the painting is kept she not only meets Alec-but Vlad as well. Yet even though she is happy to reuinite with Vlad she gets the feeling that something is not quite right-and then the horrors begin. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this was a very poor low-budget vampire movie which suffered from bad acting and an even worse script. In addition to that I thought that Christopher Atkins was terribly miscast for his particular role as well. That being said, I have few positive things to say about this film and for that reason I have rated it accordingly.
APRECIATE THIS ONE FOR ITS ARTISTRY
gideon-496391 April 2022
This one works outside the box. Time travel, reincarnation, eternal love and a blonde Dracula. Highly erotic and clever 50s doo wop love songs, Eastern European medieval settings, fabulous scenery. One of Roger Corman's best! Appreciate this one for pushing the envelope in creative ways.
A product of its limitations but more importantly also a product of its time (which in my case is a good thing)
Perception_de_Ambiguity21 July 2011
The initiative for this movie to be made probably came from cashing in on Coppola's 'Dracula' aka 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' (the love story plot is similar, the subplots are omitted) and this movie is also known as 'Corman's Dracula' (Roger Corman produced it).
'Dracula Rising' is very atmospheric nothingness with all the good early/mid-90's B-movie stuff like rhythm and atmosphere over content; vivid colors and use of colored lighting (mostly red and orange here); wafts of mist; low-key lighting with deep blacks; skewed camera angles; a lot of concern for picture composition; sporadic use of unusual image processing (has some shots of negative images); over-accentuated sound design (every step a character takes is like a drum beat and a fan that does half a rotation per second goes "WOOOSH", "WOOOSH"); practical effects and effects done with animation; relatively little action and the action it has is shot in medium or wide shots with a static camera and with not too rapid editing; theatricality crossing over into surrealism in production design, staging and acting; a super-basic but outlandish premise; shot in an old European country (Bulgaria); Gothic elements; female protagonist (the woman has at least as much screen time as the title character); lots of eroticism & at least one sex scene; this chiller doesn't miss much.
'Dracula Rising' is very atmospheric nothingness with all the good early/mid-90's B-movie stuff like rhythm and atmosphere over content; vivid colors and use of colored lighting (mostly red and orange here); wafts of mist; low-key lighting with deep blacks; skewed camera angles; a lot of concern for picture composition; sporadic use of unusual image processing (has some shots of negative images); over-accentuated sound design (every step a character takes is like a drum beat and a fan that does half a rotation per second goes "WOOOSH", "WOOOSH"); practical effects and effects done with animation; relatively little action and the action it has is shot in medium or wide shots with a static camera and with not too rapid editing; theatricality crossing over into surrealism in production design, staging and acting; a super-basic but outlandish premise; shot in an old European country (Bulgaria); Gothic elements; female protagonist (the woman has at least as much screen time as the title character); lots of eroticism & at least one sex scene; this chiller doesn't miss much.
one of those movies full of romance and deep feelings
ahmed_rahmy1 September 2003
Warning: Spoilers
one of those movies full of romance and feelings although it is an horror movie, the theme song is great and the lyrics are describing the movie, it is so sad that he had to die at the end, i just wish that he could have turned her to a vampire and live happily forever with each other.
Has the story, but doesn't know how to deliver just right
Smells_Like_Cheese5 February 2005
I actually saw this movie a couple of years ago, but I just thought about it now. Not sure why. Hmm, I'll put it on my list of questions that need answering. Hee hee. Just kidding! "Dracula Rising" isn't a bad movie, but it's not great. It has a great story with a lot of romance and horror. I'm also a fan of Christopher Atkins, that partly helped too. This was a movie at the time I rented it, couldn't get out of my head. I would recommend it for vampire or Dracula lovers. And I mean movies! Ahem. Overall, a good movie that just needed more direction. That's all, but there is something in this film you just have to enjoy. How in the heck otherwise would I have thought about it in a couple of years? 7/10
A great horror film
jacobjohntaylor130 August 2016
3 is underrating this movie. I give 10 out of 10. It has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. If it does not scary you no movie will. Dracula (1992) is better. Dracula (March 1931) is also. But still this great film. It is very scary. It more about Dracula's son then Dracula. It is still very scary. Nosferatu (1922) is better. This is a lot better then Nosferatu (1979). That is one awful Dracula movie. This is a Dracula sequel. There are a lot of Dracula sequels. And most of then a great film. This is one that is great. This is a very scary move. I need more lines and I am running out of things to say.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
