User Reviews (16)

Add a Review

  • Is there a point where a movie goes beyond campy to just plain dumb? I didn't think so - but Die Hard Dracula is pushing the envelope way into the realm of stupid. It has plenty of camp which I was expecting - the music score was inspired with only 3 songs Ride of the Valkyries, Blue Danube, and some obscure 70's wakka wakka music. And the effects from blue screening the main character over a CNN documentary of Romania, to the magic chest of gold with it's own internal lighting (if you close the top does it shut off like a fridge), to the rubber mouse being pulled across the floor for ambiance, there is plenty to entertain anyone who loves trashing movies.

    But I do not think anybody in the production of the movie took it seriously, they set out to make trash from the beginning. You have to try to be this bad. The dialog drones on like the computer who reads weather warnings, the plot was just thrown together as the movie went along, and the cheesy mother/father dialogue should have been delivered to a child of 8 not 18 going on 43. They couldn't even find a stone building to film the interior scenes in - instead they found some Black and White cow wallpaper and "made do".

    But what I think really turned me off to this movie is that I felt they tried too hard to be "bad in the good way" and ruined the whole fun of ridiculing the movie. It kind of felt like teasing the class clown... you get no pleasure from it and he gets the attention he wants.

    Thanks a lot for ruining my fun guys... This movie had lots of potential for all time camp, but no, you had to try to be this bad.

    There is better movie trash to watch, bail on this one.
  • Evil_dead_ash5 January 2003
    It's hard to even put this in to words. This movie honestly looked like a group of people threw this together in a week using a camcorder. I believe they started off trying to make a serious movie, then tried to make it a comedy when they realized how bad it was, and then failed at making it into a comedy. From what I could gather (Without skipping through) A guys girlfriend drowns, he goes to Europe. Dracula wakes up. People turn into bad acting vampires, and there's a bad ending. European women must be really trusting, because they have no trouble walking up to shrouded, hideously disfigured strangers, completely unarmed. There's all of 2 seconds of female nudity in the film, but believe me, you'd be better off watching "Porky's". God forbid you actually buy this thing like I did. I suppose I should have taken a hint when a new DVD only cost me 5 bucks. This is also one of the only dvd's I've seen that had no menu or scene selection. Even Crummy bootlegs usually give you that much. Please don't think that you can buy this thing just to make fun of it. The bad comedy makes even that joy impossible. Movies like this are the basic reason why independent films are so heavily frowned upon. I'm sure the makers had good intentions, and they probably enjoyed making it. But even Troma films have a certain degree of cheap disgusting charm to them, this one is just soul less.
  • In general, I tend to appreciate low-budget films. Either I admire them for being creative within limited resources, or I laugh at them for utterly failing to accomplish their goals. Thus, I went into this film at least expecting to be mildly amused. Unfortunately, the movie falls into the most unwatchable category of film: the failed comedy. The script isn't much to begin with, and the cast is very weak; combine these two things with inconsistent, hard-to-understand fake accents, and you have an unwatchable mess. Since the whole thing is supposed to be funny, the viewer can't even have the luxury of laughing at it for falling short of its ambitions. Unless you enjoy cringing, I'd recommend looking elsewhere for entertainment.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    And it was worth exactly that and not a penny more. I decided to calculate how many Slurpees I could've bought for the same price (roughly 3) and compare value.

    The opening coffin scene was worth one, because it made Bacardi Breezer come out my friend's nose.

    The bad acting was worth another one, because it was so bad I had a few jaw-drop moments.

    The disgusted look on the faces of the people I forced to watch it with me was only worth a half-Slurpee, because of the likely-permanent damage it did to our friendships.

    The other half Slurpee comes from the standard uses of a useless disc (ie: playing "Tron", coaster, etc).
  • Wow! This is like the opposite of good cinema. The camera-work looks just awful, the acting is some of the worst ever seen on screen, and the script is full of clich├ęd lines, bad puns and characters who don't deserve to be alive. This is quite probably the worst vampire movie ever made!

    The film starts off with a weird history of vampires which felt like a bad History channel special. Then we move to the plot that Steven, a teenage boy, has just lost his girlfriend in a jet ski accident, so he travels to Rome for some odd reason. He ends up meeting up with Dr. Van Helsing to kill Dracula who has been sucking the local girls' blood. This is a very flat movie, but it may seem 4-D because it will suck the life right out of you.

    Dracula is a bizarre character here. He is played by many different actors. He ranges from normal looking, to looking like a lion or something, to being morbidly obese. And he will change scene by scene. Maybe this was explained somewhere in the movie, but I've now watched this a miserable three times, and not caught it once. To go with Dracula's changing appearance, someone other than the actors provide his voice, and he sounds horrible. Dracula sounds like a bad video game character, only much worse recorded.

    The special effects...oh goodness are they special. They include the superimposing of a coffin to a castle overhead shot to appear as the coffin is floating. And in one great scene Dracula throws burning balls at the main characters, which is another spectacular effect. Industrial Lights and Magic should learn something from this masterpiece.

    The acting...AUGH!!! Just because a movie is low budget doesn't mean they have to get bad actors, but this was the worst. It's like the director intentionally picked people who couldn't act. There was not a decent acting job in the entire movie, which is somewhat comedic, but also intolerable after a while.

    This is a horrible movie. The worst vampire flick. Never will a movie be this bad again, unless a sequel is produced, written and directed by Aaron Seltzer and Jason Friedberg.

    My rating: BOMB out of ****. 90 mins. Not rated
  • I don't know what to say, I am completely nonplussed. The description for this film makes it seem like it would, if not good, at least be funny. I was completely unprepared for what it turned out to be.

    Firstly, there is an issue with the quality of the film. The picture is grainy and blurry, the camera-work is shake, there is lots of background noise in the sound and the special effects look like slide transitions in Powerpoint.

    Secondly, the acting is atrocious, so wooden, so stiff, so sub par that you need a submarine to go lower. That they use multiple actors to play Dracula doesn't help either.

    Thirdly, the story itself is really bad, like it was conjured up in a coffee break or something cause it feels really badly put together, bad stereotypes replacing characters, and a lot of failed attempts at witty dialog replacing action.

    When they finally go up against Dracula with an arsenal of weapons, it is rather funny, but the silliness, bad acting, and shoddy quality takes away the fun. Not to mention, far too much time is spent talking about attacking Dracula as opposed to actually doing it.

    Strangely, I did not find this movie as annoying, or as aggravating as I should have given the circumstances.
  • Since I'm an actor/director of features with the same kind of lack of budget and understand how hard it is to even get a production completed, I try to find the good points about them. I can only imagine why this one had 3 different actors play Dracula. That alone is a good reason to see this thing! I have to admit, I wasn't sure if the humor was intentional or not because it seemed to come & go, just like the actor's accents. There were a couple of interesting sight gags that actually got me laughing hard, like a flying coffin! Other then that, it had me thinking "What the h___ is this!". If you're a fan of flicks like "Plan 9......" & "Robot Monster", you'll probably want to see this one.
  • I am honestly surprised at how low a rating this movie has received here. I've seen far worse movies, that have much higher ratings. Don't get me wrong, this is not a good movie, or even a "so bad it's good" movie ( such as "Autumn" (2009) ).

    The thing that strikes me as the biggest single issue, is lack of creativity. Every possible chance the director had to suck the life out of this movie, he went for.

    Here is a list of some of the issues I had with this little train wreck:

    The editing. Many scenes were cut short, most notably the dinner scene. Many more seemed like there was some footage missing. The editing department was not very kind to scene transitions.

    The script had to be written by a 12 year old. No adult could have come up with a storyline like this, unless he was very intoxicated.

    The twist ending .... What?! Why?! How The?!

    The acting. The folks who were in this were trying there best to act, but it is apparent they are not actors.

    Sound was OK for the most part, except for certain scenes like the hayloft were noise obscured dialog.

    All the central "good" characters were always in the same room.

    Character's behavior "out of character" ( to put it mildly ).

    Character interactions were very wrong.

    Dracula - the whole character was wrong.

    Dark blue day-for-night shots.

    Plot points brought up, and dropped.

    What little set design there were, looked more at home at a high school play, than this movie.

    Special effects were so cheap, the movie would have been slightly better without them.

    Of all these bad things I have said about this movie, there is 1 good thing I can say. It had some pretty good footage of the Sedlec Ossuary .
  • boo262023 February 2005
    Bought this movie at a 2nd hand store for a $1, so i wasn't expecting too much. But i have to tell you, it was hilarious!!! Why would you be expecting an Oscar winner with a title like this? Come on don't be so serious! The best part was the villagers with the changing accents. "Let's get torches & pitchforks" & then the father more concerned about his daughter being in bed with the guy than her being carried off by the Dracula. The other part everyone enjoyed was the flying coffin with the song of the Valkyrie's for a theme. "The only way to travel" hahaha!!!We watched it with a group of people and maybe that made it better as we had our own running commentary. Would we watch it again.. oh yeah!
  • tbrass151527 June 2009
    Warning: Spoilers
    It is one of the worst movies in existence. The beginning consists of bits and pieces of the B roll from a history channel documentary, followed by what appears to be a porno with all the sex scenes cut out. You're watching it and thinking, "and this is where they would have sex..." and it skips over to the next scene. They even have the music. That and one scene features a group of random villagers who are clearly wearing the the cheapest costumes that the rack at a Salvation Army had to offer.

    However a great film to MST3K with friends over pizza and a couple of beers, even though most of the film will leave you asking, "huh?"
  • if i could i would have rated this epic and alluring movie a twelve. it's intense story line compliments the brilliant acting. I thought the set design could have been more intricate but i forgot about it when the dialog was happening. This was sheer brilliance and i highly recommend it. People take these low indie horror film for advantage. The first hint that this movie was going to be a life changing experience was the inspiring title. it intrigued me. When i saw it sitting on the block buster shelf all by it's lonesome i had to grab before anyone else did. I was confused though when i brought to the register and the cashier looked at me funny and began to giggle. i wondered was it because of my purchase or perhaps I'm just funny looking? i figured it was my appearance once i saw he movie. Whoever thought of this was pure genius and i would encourage hen to make a sequel! Please go out and get this movie you won't be disappointed.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Whoa...what is THIS?!!? As the film starts, you'll immediately notice that this film was made by some knuckleheads using a VHS camera, stock footage, amateur actors (other than Bruce Glover) and simple freeware editing software circa 1998. Seen only 12 years later, the entire production just looks like crap--really, really bad crap. Really, really CHEAP bad crap. In fact, most local TV commercials have MUCH better production values! And, for that matter, many of the videos posted on YouTube as well--seriously! A few semi-talented teenagers with their grandparents' Betamax camera could do at least as professional a job--probably better. Fake mustaches that look like they came from a joke shop, silly digital effects and bad music all conspire to make all this tough to watch.

    The film begins with some cheap prologue about Dracula and the like. I really don't remember it all--I was just so in shock from the crappy look of the film that I tended to focus too much on that instead of the plot. In fact, much of the time, I was just laughing. Having Gary Coleman play Dracula couldn't have made me laugh more! The film then jumps to the present day and some teenage girl dies but then miraculously comes to life. Her first impulse--head to Europe and the land of vampires. We are then treated to someone's vacation videos of Prague some other city. It really looks a lot like a lost episode of Rick Steves' "Travels in Europe" instead of a movie--especially since there isn't much plot here--just lots of footage of a guy doing some sightseeing. Actually, I'd like to know more about where this was filmed--it looks nice--and a lot more interesting than the film.

    Finally, a vampire arrives who looks a lot like a living pile of blue cheese morphed with Black Spy from "Mad Magazine" and I assume something cool will happen. Unfortunately, the scene then abruptly switches to some yahoos sitting around trying out various attempted accents that have nothing to do with each other. Some sound American, some sound vaguely European and many just sound like idiots. Fortunately, before they get too annoying, the scene abruptly goes back to the vampire...and then back to the idiots with the fake accents! The way the film jumps back and forth is confusing AND is done in place of real special effects! Sadly, Bruce Glover soon arrives on the scene. You may not recognize him, but he's Crispin Glover's dad and a real honest-to-goodness actor. You may recognize him as one of the gay assassins from "Diamonds Are Forever" or a thug from "Chinatown" or from any one of over 100 screen credits. How he got to this sad point in his life that he'd appear in THIS is anyone's guess, but I sure felt sorry for him. He plays Dr. Van Helsing....poor guy.

    Van Helsing then meets a vampire who overacts WORSE than any vampire in film history. He makes George Hamilton from "Love At First Bite" look downright subtle. He and Van Helsing trade bad puns for a bit...and none of it is interesting.

    A bit later, it looks like the film has turned into a sex video--with saxaphone music and all the trappings of a home made sex film...except for the nudity! This is all interrupted by another blue cheese/Black Spy vampire who then flies off in a way LESS convincing than Terry Gilliam's old animations for "Monty Python's Flying Circus".

    This then switches to a set that looks like it was used by a 1960s horror movie host--complete with public domain music (Beethoven) and painted stone walls. And then,...oh heck...I'm not gotta describe any more--it's just so stupid and tedious I'll wrap things up now.

    The bottom line is that there is NOTHING--not one solitary thing going for this so-called movie. It is every bit as bad as the worst films ever made--and ranks up there with "Manos Hands of Fate", "The Beast of Yucca Flats" and "The Aztec Mummy Versus the Human Robot" in quality.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    There are no words under the sun that can do this film justice. the special effects for flying and 'star wars' style electric jazz hands, were second to none ;) Further more the swelling and deflating of count D c-c-captivated me. It was very easy to lose track of character names, so i suggest writing them down along with some notable features of the character. But seriously, where did he get that grenade???? The majestic rolling hills of the notorious (and vastly over used) town of 'Dubova' were the perfect backdrop to this charming tale of love, war, Boobs and fangs. Of course i recognize that the rating of 1 is insinuating that this film is 'awful' but we feel that it is also awfully good and potentially worthy of number 1 in the bottom 100.

    Cheers'en peeps
  • WELL WHAT CAN I SAY?... AWE INSPIRING A TRUE CHICK FLICK, DAVE CLINTON IS A HUNK OF A GUY AND I'm A HETEROSEXUAL ape As well. ANYWAY HES NOT IN THE FILM, THE FILM HOWEVER LEFT ME MENTAL, PHYSICALLY AND EMOTIONALLY SCARRED FOR 5 MONTHS, THEN I WAS CURED BUt i am now suffering from insomnia and diahrea only in the morning between 4 and 6.15. the best part of the film was when the credits were rolling at the end it had me on a natural high for at least what i can consider to be about 5 8ths of a donkeys lifespan. but then you have to say, NO this is my life and you cant tell me what to do, I'm a chuck Norris fan, i own you, your but a mere toucan to me, a mere one! but no seriously this film is not funny and in my opinion it should be classed as a video nasty and banned. after viewing the film with my optical sensors and listening with my audio devices that are located on the side of my face i have depicted the true meaning about black pudding. it's just a excuse to put all of the rubbish thats left of a hog into on measly portion of indepence. pooch, shelves, trashcan, elves and mantoes are all a current feature in this movie and i have to say that were a completed waste of time and they have been used far to to many time in these chauvinistic capitalist films about the grime raper. yes thats right the grim raper not grim reaper.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    this cultural clash, if not outright mishmash, of conventional literature and eurocentric mythology (Dracula) and post-post-modernist, dyonisan styled Bruce Willis in a vest genre cross-overs (Die Hard, Harder, With A Vengeance, ad nauseum) was not doubt a very good idea to someone. someone with, no matter how limited the budget was, far too much money for their own good.

    the mind boggles how any of the cast and crew stayed on long enough to finish the film - i assume, and i would be willing to wager notes as opposed to coins on this, that the numerous actors used as Dracula did not leave or be replaced because the script dictated it. i mean, as an artistic statement, it stands above that lad in england who passes of slightly soiled toilet paper as a work of art, and as a humorous escapade it can be said to be the equal of the latter Police Academy films.

    basically, in a plot which now that i think about it Hostel borrowed from slightly, the film concerns some lad who fancies this lass, gets led to some Eastern European hotel or public house, and wouldn't you know it, that's where Dracula hangs out. so he decides to kill him.

    "repetition works, David" said Robert Downey jnr in Natural Born Killers, and indeed it does for the plot here. obviously this lad does not kill Dracula, but each attempt to kill Dracula somehow involves the Prince of Darkness conveniently being stood at the same window all the time, each attempt being something damaging and hostile being sent in that direction. other than that, the film seems to consist of any one of the several actors playing Dracula fannying about with what could be sunscreen across their faces, but in fact looks like the most unpleasant cottage cheese you are ever likely to bear witness to.

    the ending is, well.......no, i shall not say anymore on the subject. if you get as far as the ending, you deserve to find out yourself. is it worth the stress and strain of getting to the end? in short, no. in long, not really not really not really no. i paid the equivalent of US$ 6.00 to see this film. i am not sure how much that is worth in the scheme of things, but i am sure i could have spent it on something considerably more interesting.

    it's either a sublime masterpiece that i have completely misunderstood. my learned and considered opinion, however, would be that it most certainly is not a sublime masterpiece and i have truly watched a really awful private joke that probably was not that funny for the intended recipients in the first place.
  • Leofwine_draca14 April 2017
    Warning: Spoilers
    From the nonsensical title to the oh-so-lame staging, Die HArd Dracula is a real dog's dinner of a movie and an embarrassing waste of time from beginning to end. It's an attempt to bring the Dracula story into the modern day but the whole thing looks like someone shot it on their video camera. I never thought I'd say this, but watching the film made me long for the experience of seeing one of Full Moon's SUBSPECIES movies again.

    The only saving grace this film has is the casting of Bruce Glover, the memorable hit-man from DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, as Van Helsing. Glover is enjoyable kooky, but I wish I could say the same for the rest of the cast. Add in some ultra cheesy 'electric' special effects, some semi-decent Gothic trappings, and a really hammy performance from Dracula, and you have a generally poor viewing experience.