Customer Reviews

Bram Stoker's Dracula's Guest

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Unlike some I actually thought that the production values weren't all that bad.

What is bad about this film is the plot, coupled with direction/editing that sucks any sense of excitement out of the film before it gets to your screen.

Take for instance Dracula is able, using his mind powers to lift a guy off his feet and make him float towards a noose. The film suddenly cuts as apparently we can't see him die, because that would be too exciting and we only see the results. Odd too, given these powers that in the end Dracula chooses to fight it out with a sword.

Dracula's guest in this film is Kelsey McCann who is quite pretty and does her best at an English accent. She is imprisoned by Dracula who puts her in a cave, that's got a cage door across the front to prevent her getting out. Her love finds her and they exchange conversation through the bars. She says something like "He took something that I was saving for you" (meaning her virginity), though we never see that because that too would be too exciting. Thus, it's overly-big then on dialogue. Dracula and guest spend quite some time at it and all this leaves one bored and waiting for something to happen. Then, later, they talk about what did happen, but not that we were allowed to see it.

This has to be one of the most laughable versions of Dracula I have ever seen. Acting, writing, editing, directing, in fact everything about this movie is just awful. Don't waste your money on this trash unless you want a good laugh. The director would have made Ed Wood proud.

"Dracula's Guest" began as one of several short stories published after Stoker's death by his widow, Florence. Some critics believe the she wrote the story herself as the literary style is unlike Stoker's. Be that as it may, the film has no resemblance to the original story or even to a halfway competent B-movie. The plot, direction, writing, sets and production values are ghastly. Filmed entirely in and around Los Angeles, "Dracula's Guest" has the dramatic impact of a 1950's television commercial and all the thrills of watching paint dry. While Wes Ramsey is quite good as Bram Stoker and does not overdo the Irish accent, his love interest, Elizabeth, played by Kelsey McCann, mangles the British accent with nasal American vowels. Some of the supporting players are quite good, other terrible, but even the best performances can't lift this tedious, cheaply made exploitation movie from the mire of its miserable script and equally miserable direction. The movie does have its uses, I must admit. If you suffer from insomnia and are sick of paying through the nose for Lunesta, buy "Dracula's Guest" and play it before going to bed. You'll sleep like -- dare I say it? -- the dead.

They should have gone back to the editing room and picked up the film cuts on the floor and inserted them into the final version. Perhaps, it would have made it a decent film on the subject of Dracula.

As it is, this film is conjoined with gaps in the storyline. Elizabeth's conversational style is so laden with Victorian colloquialism that you feel sorry for her to have to recite this script. Definitely, as Elizabeth softly stated, she was "broken".

Count Dracula was as menacing and sinister as a goldfish. Forget about any European sex appeal. It isn't there. Andrew Bryniarski,the actor, had a few brief moments,but he had little to work with on this script. Probably, the worst Dracula presentation that I have seen in film, and I have seen a great number of Dracula type films in my life.

Michael Feifer wrote and this directed this film. He has an impressive resume, and he did a cameo as Admiral Murray's driver. However, Mr. Feifer's resume could have survived without this inclusion.

A nice touch was to cast Bram Stoker,the author of Dracula,as the lead character and romantic interest for Elizabeth. Unfortunately, Elizabeth Murray was a bit too liberalized for the Victorian era, and the match did not seem to be made in heaven, especially with her bloodline and special destiny which her father aptly reminded her.

The motif of star crossed lovers facing separation and tragedy is a noble concept which the film explored in a very limited fashion. Perhaps, this is where the fault is -the story never undocked from its moorings. If it had, it would have been a better story.

Gawd, what an awful movie. There, that's out of the way. The other reviewers have done a fair job at explaining why this movie is bad (LOW budget effects, didn't follow the original story much at all, etc). But what really puzzles me is why they hired Andrew Bryniarski to play Dracula. Up until now, most of us horror-philes agreed that the chubbiest vampire on record was Lon Chaney Jr's "Son of Dracula" (which I liked in spite of Chaney's being a well fed vamp). Bryniarski has about 100 pounds on Chaney. Tall? Gaunt? Corpselike? No way- this Drac's been to the "all you can eat" buffet. Now I gave it two stars because I did like the period costumes. I mean, I had to find something redeeming in this film, eh? But the others are right- rent it if you must, but if you buy it, you'll be using it as a drink coaster after you watch it.

I give this movie one star for Wes Ramsey (Bram Stoker) who I kept wishing, as he was running across Europe, would run into a better movie. He was the one bright spot in the whole thing. There was only one segment out of Stoker's short story, and that was Bram being chased by the dog (a Rottweiler) which should have been a wolf(couldn't they even get a German Shepherd to be a fake wolf?) and then rescued. Andrew Bryniarski was one of the most unappealing Draculas I've ever seen. To the writer's credit, they did try to insert a bit from Stoker's book for Dracula to say, his speech where he's talking about himself: "we have a right to be proud...the Ugric tribe bore down from Iceland, etc.", but it was so garbled you could hardly understand what he was saying. He practically threw that speech away, he rushed through it so quickly. And to be a bit picky-when was this movie set? Costumes were from the 1850s-90s. Women's hair was all wrong, they NEVER wore it loose during these years. And the French people in the cabin talked about the Bastille and the Revolution. Just how old were these people if it was even set in 1850? I agree with another reviewer about the Count's castle being a mausoleum?? uh-huh. Also, Dracula scorned Stoker's use of mortal weapons but later didn't seem to mind picking up a sword to fight Admiral Murray. And for the record, Bram Stoker's wife's name was Florence. If you don't know anything about Stoker or Dracula, the book or short story and just want to watch a vampire flick, you might not mind it. However, if you do, this movie is just irritating because it could have been SO much better, so just skip it.

"GREETINGS & SALUTATIONS!" The book titled: Bram Stoker's Dracula's Guest was really made into a film almost to the letter. It would also be a good idea to read the book because so much action takes place, it will make it easier to comprehend some of the scenes like the "rat people" living in the garbage-dumps of the outskirts of 18th and 19th century France. The scene of the "Rat People," is not unlike Sweeney Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street and Mrs. Lovett who used the human flesh of Todd's victims in her meat pies. We are not told directly that they intended to not only rob the young man, Bram Stoker's character, they planned to eat him as they also cannibals. The charcater of Dracula was bigger and stronger than others who played that role as he had centuries of experience as a survivor. This motion picture is definately a cut about other "Vampyre" movies and equal to "Nosferatu" of 1921, and "Dracula" of 1931. Bela Lugosi and Max Schreck would be proud of Andrew Bryniarski who played Dracula in "Bram Stoker's Dracula's Guest." Sarge Booker of Tujunga (Tujunga is near Transylvania, by the way!)

This is without a doubt the most boring version of the Dracula legend I've ever seen Andrew Bryniarski is the worst actor to date to play the legendary blood sucker his on screen persona makes Dracula look more like a supernatural date rapist than the prince of darkness the whole story tells parts of the original tale completely out of sequence and adds parts that clearly don't belong. The pace of the movie is horrible I found myself falling asleep and having to back up to the last part I had seen on at least three occasions the director did a terrible job the movie looks like it was filmed with video equiptment and looks bad oddly some of the sets looked good but I seriously doubt that Dracula lived in a mausoleum every film I've seen has clearly shown the castle to be in ruins for the most part as you would expect since it's owner was dead and had not been lived in let alone kept all spiffy clean.
The phoney accents used by the actors are annoying and the over use of voice overs would make Morgan Freeman run out screeming in the night.
And whats up with those people in the cabin and the freaks looking in the window all in all this movie makes no sence.
It makes you wonder who would release such a piece of junk untill you remember seeing the Lions Gate logo at the beginning of the flick, Lions Gate just doesn't care what they release they're killing the genre one movie at a time sure every now and then they release a good one but they release more garbage than a chinese resteraunt.
Don't buy it, Don't rent it if you have to see it wait for it to be showed on the Sci-Fi channel although it might be too crappy even for them.

"Dracula's Guest" is a prelude to "Dracula," it is a shame that they didn't follow the original story line becuase this would have been a great movie.