Reviews (70)

So dull it's almost mindnumbing
The original Hellraiser was one of the scariest and finest horror movies ever crafted. Hellbound: Hellraiser 2 and Hellraiser 3 were... well, let's just leave it at that. Anyway, Hellraiser: Bloodline marks the first installemnt of the series under Dimension/Miramax films (a year or two before we'd be introduced to the first Halloween movie under the studio), and by the time you see the words "Directed by Alan Smithee" you know that this horror movie will be anything but horrifying. However, Bloodline does have a few things going for it that saves it from landing in a garbage dump: Doug Bradley returns once again as Pinhead and gives his best performace since the original film, the storyline attempts to trace the secrets of the "box", and most of the special effects are pretty well done. However, Bloodline is not without it's flaws. While the idea of tracing the origins of the box sounds like a good idea, the storyline is convulted and sometimes confusing and there are quite a bit of things never explained, not to mention Bruce Ramsay seems to be a bit over his head in his three different roles. Also, and this is my biggest complaint of the film, is that Pinhead is on screen for far too long. Bradley is entertaining as Pinhead, but he's just not scary anymore. Remember the first time you saw the original Hellraiser? Remember how seeing Pinhead the first time scared the absolute hell out of you? Bloodline just doesn't live up to that because now Pinhead is a comedian (just like Freddy Kruger turned into in the later installments of the Nightmare on Elm Street series) without much menace. All that aside, Hellraiser: Bloodline isn't the worst Hellraiser movie (Hellraiser 3 anyone?), but I strongly suggest watching the original before seeing this or any other Hellraiser film.

Pinhead is so exquisitely empty
When I first watched this movie, I felt the director was quite justified in choosing the Alan Smithee moniker for himself. After a second viewing, I find myself much more favorably inclined toward this fourth film in the Hellraiser series. It's still somewhat disappointing, but it is not unwatchable; if nothing else, Pinhead gets more great lines than ever before. Long before Jason journeyed into space, Pinhead was there. Bloodlines opens in the year 2127; Dr. Merchant, descendant of the man who created the diabolical puzzle box, has hijacked the space station he designed and has just summoned Pinhead and his diabolical minions into his trap when the station is boarded by the military and the doctor taken prisoner. With demons roaming free on the station and time running out for Merchant to complete his plans, he tells the story of his family to a young female soldier named Rimmer in an effort to convince her to let him finish his work.

We are transported back to what I assume to be 18th century France, where a toy maker named L'Merchant has been commissioned to design a puzzle box for famed magician/occultist M. de L'isle. The toy maker watches from outside as de L'isle and an assistant kill and skin a young woman and use her, in conjunction with the powerful box, to summon a demon. Realizing that he is responsible for creating a means of opening the gates of hell, L'Merchant sets about designing a machine to destroy demons such as the beguilingly beautiful enchantress Angelique. He does not live long enough to succeed, but the curse and the memories of what he has done are imbedded in his bloodline. The story then jumps to 1996, where architect John Merchant has designed a huge room intriguingly similar to the puzzle box. Angelique soon arrives and summons Pinhead. The Merchant bloodline is doubly important to the Cenobites-while it holds the danger of building a machine to defeat the demons, it also holds the secret for opening a permanent doorway to hell. Now things start to get interesting, as Pinhead soon tires of Angelique's reliance on temptation; to him human acquiescence is much more easily obtained by terror. The culmination of this part of the history is quite satisfying; declaring that "I am pain," Pinhead goes about proving the deep truth of his assertion. Finally, we return back to the future space station and watch the ultimate culmination of events set in motion hundreds of years earlier, the final showdown between the L'Merchant bloodline and the demons the family unwittingly invoked.

Although the story has multiple weak spots, some delectable gore somewhat offsets it. One of the two decapitations here is particularly impressive, as is the blood that flows freely in the home of the mad M. de L'isle. The demon princess Angelique is a captivating counterpart to the familiar Pinhead, although I agree with Pinhead that terror is much more effective (not to mention entertaining) than temptation. Bruce Ramsey plays three members of the Merchant family, but I think the roles would have been better played by three actors. Doug Bradley is, of course, wonderful as Pinhead, and I was quite glad to see him get so many lines this time around. His musings on suffering and pain are music to my horror-attuned ears, none more so than his impassioned reaction to the pitiful pleas for divine mercy of ridiculously cast and incredibly annoying identical twin security guards: "Do I look like someone who cares what God thinks?" One almost feels compelled to applaud when Pinhead states the obvious fact that "I am so exquisitely empty."

This movie is much less carnally gripping than the first two Hellraiser films, but do not dismiss it out of hand. I actually find it more enjoyable than Hellraiser 3. What initially seemed to me to be quite awful has now become a film I appreciate and take delight in. Just don't take this movie too seriously; after all, it is just a game, and it is most definitely time to play.

"I...AM...PAIN"
The Hellraiser franchise holds a special place in my heart. I will never forget the first time I saw the opening chapter in the series of films inspired by Clive Barker's nightmarish visions. Watching the original "Hellraiser" now is a mixed bag-some of those special effects look a bit hokey, but others still come across as chillingly effective. Who can forget the glistening visage of Uncle Frank? The lascivious Julia? Or the first appearance of the ominous and verbose Pinhead? The second installment improved on the first, as the film whisked the viewer away to the abode of Pinhead and the Cenobites. A gruesome, perverse picture, "Hellbound: Hellraiser 2" raised the expectations about future entries to a fever pitch. Up next came "Hellraiser 3," a personal favorite of mine even though legions of fans have subsequently disowned it. The series moved into the latter stages of its career from this point forward, taking bold steps in an attempt to expand far beyond what viewers had come to expect. The series continues today with at least two further sequels in the works. Will they find an audience or will the new arrivals fall flat on their faces? Fans will probably grumble even as they queue up to watch.

"Hellraiser: Bloodline" took the risky step of moving the storyline into space, a cringe inducing idea at first until you actually watch the movie. Who can forget the nightmare that was "Leprechaun 4"? Fortunately, only certain segments take place on a spaceship. The majority of the film heads back to the past to explain the origins of the Lament Configuration, that dreaded box which hundreds of seekers have opened only to find the Cenobites waiting for them. Dr. Paul Merchant (Bruce Ramsey) locked himself away on the spaceship because he wants to destroy this infernal device once and for all. A group of marines arrives on the ship to take the "mad" doctor into custody. During his detainment he tells a dark story about his family's history, about how his ancestor Phillipe Merchant designed the box in the eighteenth century for a decadent French nobleman who wished to plumb the dark depths. The box does its job, horribly so, conjuring up a demon named Angelique (Valentina Vargas) who promptly carves up people left and right. Unfortunately for Merchant, the box somehow curses his bloodline. Every one of his descendants will suffer because of the Lament Configuration.

The movie moves to the modern day-our modern day, not the year 2127 on the spaceship-to focus on John Merchant (again, Bruce Ramsey; he plays all three Merchants), an architect fascinated with the drawings passed down through the family from Phillipe Merchant. Again, Angelique turns up. But this time so does good old Pinhead, and he's bringing along some reinforcements. A huge battle ensues over the Lament Configuration, with the underworld's minions seemingly banished for good. We, having seen the events on that spaceship, laugh at such optimistic thinking. The finale to "Hellraiser: Bloodline" moves us back to the ship for a final showdown between Merchant, the marines, and the Cenobites. More gooey gore shows up to turn the stomach before the film slides quietly into the credits. Even if you end up hating this movie, you have to admit that the gore quotient reaches nauseating new heights.

"Hellraiser: Bloodline" is an uneven film anyway you slice it. Director Kevin Yagher withdrew from the production after his studio heavily interfered in the project. Thus, the film carries the dreaded "Alan Smithee" label, a moniker all too familiar to moviegoers in the know. The result of this turmoil behind the scenes set the movie adrift, so someone decided to just slap the whole thing together and dump the final result in the video stores. That's a real shame as "Bloodlines" has at its center an interesting premise for fans of the series: how the box came about and how it was first used to conjure up evil. The movie boasts a few new Cenobites in the form of a clacking toothed dog and a fused pair of security guards (Watch and see how this comes about. Gross.). Pinhead even turns up to toss off a few new witticisms. I especially enjoyed the line that goes something like "Do I look like someone who cares what God thinks?" You can always rely on Pinhead to say something memorable. Unfortunately, he doesn't show up in this movie nearly as much as we would like, a problem that only gets worse in parts five and six. Still, some Pinhead is better than no Pinhead at all, don't you think?

Give up on the idea of the series ever returning to the original themes so eloquently portrayed in the first and second films. Those days are gone forever as sequel mania long ago destroyed any hope of maintaining Barker's original inspiration. I generally watch new Hellraiser films for the glimpses of Pinhead and the jaw dropping gore effects. I found the "Bloodline" DVD a bit disappointing in the extras department. There aren't any, actually, beyond a trailer for "Children of the Corn 666" (yet another horror series deteriorating into utter banality) and a promo for the "Scream" box set. An Alan Smithee commentary track would have been nice-we could have finally heard from this mysterious man after all these years! Seriously, give "Bloodline" a chance. It's not great cinema, but it sure beats a lot of the dreck floating around out there.

better than the third one
it is alot better than the third one and isnt quite as good as the first one.
This one still has some sillyness in it though.

hellraiser origins
I liked this movie alot! Even though clive barker moved from director to producer he still put the effort forth for the 4th installment of hellraiser. This movie goes into how the box came about, and it's origins. If you are a horror fan, you might like this movie. If you're an initial clive barler fan, you might not like it. It's not his imagination you see, it's Kevin Yagher, and Joe Chappelle's. Rent it, before deciding to buy it. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Either Dean Koontz shouldn't adapt his own bestsellers, or his 1983 novel Phantoms was a pack of horror clichés to begin with, or this movie is 15 years past its due date. What might have seemed fresh at the time of Poltergeist now feels like it was made from a derivative script with pages missing. Plagued by reckless leaps of logic, the movie starts with adequately eerie atmosphere and a perversely twisted performance by Scream 2's Liev Schreiber, but decays into a familiar hash of gross-out effects, resulting from the annihilation of a small Colorado town by an evil force known as "The Ancient Enemy." In a dreary role that insults the twilight of his distinguished career, Peter O'Toole plays a paleobiologist whose crackpot ideas have become tabloid fodder, but he holds the key to conquering the beast. Or does he? Sure enough, an obligatory coda leaves room for anticlimactic doubt. Phantoms has a few genuinely creepy highlights, including a devilish beastie resembling an angry flying scorpion, and horror fans will surely find something to admire, but everyone else is advised to proceed with caution and lowered expectations. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (76)

Better than I had expected
First thing is first, Phantoms is a movie to be taken with a grain of salt. There is nothing overly scary or shocking in this run of the mill B-grade thriller, but it is entertaining nonetheless, and mostly delivers the goods. Joanna Going and Rose McGowen play sisters whose return to Snowfield, Colorado is interrupted by the disappearance of every person in the town. Eventually they meet up with a sheriff (Ben Affleck in yet another movie from Miramax/Dimension Films) and his two deputies played by Liev Schrieber and Nicky Katt. Eventually the military is on the scene and we're joined by accomplished actor Peter O'Toole who plays a crackpot paleobiologist whose tabloid fodder may not be so crackpot. A few scares and shocks are abound, with some rather good special effects, and Schreiber nearly steals the entire show with his whacko performance. But, Phantoms is rather predictable and sometimes laughable with huge leaps of logic and a few plot holes here and there, but Phantoms remains a fun ride nonetheless. All in all, Phantoms is a pretty good B-grade horror film that horror or sci-fi fans will get a kick out of.

scary, terrifying thriller
Phantoms is a very entertaining and scary science fiction horror film. Only a few other films such as Event Horizon and Candyman are as intense as Phantoms. The first half of the movie is probably the scariest and creepiest in horror film history. The movie begins quickly and gets right to the action. Two sisters, played by Joanna Going and Rose Mcgowan, return to the town of Snowfield, Colorado to find most of the inhabitants missing and several gory looking dead bodies. They enter a bakery and meet an out of town sheriff, Bryce Hammond, played well by Ben Affleck, and his deputies Shannon and Wargle, played by Nicky Katt and Liev Schrieber. Liev Schrieber definitely goes all the way with an excellent performance as crazy weirdo Deputy Stu Wargle.

Some chilling scenes in the movie include a giant moth that sucks brain, screams coming from everywhere, strange sounds coming from the town's plumbing system, and dead people that disappear then reappear alive. The scene where the giant moth attacks the survivors in the police station is one of the best in any movie. In the second half, the movie has some more chilling scenes with a high body count, but I was a bit disappointed that the movie ended so quickly. It's 100 minute running time didn't feel like it was long enough to fit all the events that occured in the movie. Dean Koontz also made the mistake of not exploring the thematic elements of the movie more deeply like he did in his novel.

The special effects in the movie were very good. The giant moth looked real and so did the other creatures that appeared. The film isn't as gory as it's reputed to be. Sci-fi horror films like Alien Resurrection and Event Horizon are much bloodier. (Although Event Horizon uses the goriness effectively). Overall, Phantoms is a creepy horror film that holds the viewer at the edge of their seat, especially in the final confrontation between Hammond and a boy.

Familiar but Well Made Sci-Fi/Horror Thriller.
Two Sisters (Joanna Going & Rose McGowan) arrived in a small town in the state of Colorado. The Town appears empty and they find a couple of dead bodies in this seemingly peaceful town. The Sisters find themselves protected from by a Sheriff (Oscar-Winner:Ben Affleck) and His two deputies (Liev Schreiber & Nicky Katt). Together, They find themselves fighting a Ferocious Force of Evil lying below the Earth for Centuries. Now they have surfaced with the Power to Destory every Human on the Planet. But to Save Themselves, They need the Help of a Noted Tabloid Journalist (Peter O'Toole), Who understand the Curse of Evil.

Directed by Joe Chappelle (Halloween:The Curse of Micheal Myers) made a Entertaining, Sometimes Scary Sci-Fi Thriller. Good Performances does help alot from the Cast, especially the Amusing Perverted Role of Schreiber is Funny. This was a Box Office Disapointment in the Winter of 1998, the film is Quickly Forgetten now. But the film is better than expected with echoes from The Body Snatchers, Event Horizon and John Carpenter's The Thing and the film is fairly suspenseful. DVD has an sharp non-anamorphic Widescreen (1.85:1) transfer and an terrific-Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD Offers No Extras, which is too bad but the film speaks for itself. Based on a Novel by Dean Koontz (The Funhouse, Odd Thomas, Watchers). Koontz did wrote the Adapation from His Novel and He's one of the Executive Producers of the Film. Grade:A-.

so very bad
The only scary thing about this movie is Ben Affleck's pompadour. It grows ever bigger as the movie progresses!

Basically, two sisters arrive in a small Colorado town to find everyone except the three sheriffs dead. That alone should tell you not to trust the sheriffs. They obviously 1) killed everyone themselves or 2) do their job so poorly that no one in the town remains alive.

It just gets worse and worse from there. This movie hinges mainly on its special effects of gross bodies and killings, but this was during the wave of slasher flicks like the Scream franchise so it can be excused for that. After all, that stuff made a lot of bank in the 1990s. But that is still not an excuse for not really trying.

Pathetic
I won't get into how amazing the novel was or how shocked I was at the theater upon seeing this wreck of a movie (or how I highly recommend the novel.)

Instead, consider Ben Affleck. If he's starring as the sheriff in a serious horror movie, you know something's... wrong. I did enjoy the first half of the movie, which builds on ambience and scares you through the unknown horror around every corner.

Then the movie barrel-rolls and plummets head-first into the rocks. It rips shreds from "John Carpenter's The Thing" to "Alien" and everything in between. The ending is overly simplified and lacks any of the terror from the novel (and in addition is far less epic.)

A warning to anyone who's read the book and yet to see this adaptation; don't waste your time.

For everyone else, again I recommend the excellent novel, or if you're still in the mood for a good horror movie, try one of the thousands of better ones out there. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The series premise continues to stretch so thin it could dissipate. This time, Michael Myers chases his unfortunate niece around, then goes after a family who happen to be living in his former home. This is slasher-ism at its most cynical, and a thoroughly unpleasant, unimaginative, and unredeeming movie. Donald Pleasence, the one holdover from the original film, looks like he'd rather be anywhere than in this thing. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (263)

Well, at least his mask looked pretty cool
Ah yes, the sixth installment in the Halloween series. I watched this over and over and over and still have mixed feelings about this. The plot from this movie differs a bit from 4 and 5, and that's what this series needed, a change. But the change the movie took shoudn't have happened like this. Don't get me wrong, I liked this movie just like every other Halloween but I mean come on, thorn? I remember the good old days when Michael was just a psychopath who escaped from a sanitarium. That was simple. When you introduce the thorn aspect it "totally" takes away the simplicity that made the original so great. Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasance) returns for his last film before he past away. And as always, he gave a great performance. This movie is explicitly violent, and gory. The soundtrack was just annoying. And the fact that they killed Jamie was a real dissapointment to me. Hey, at least the plot was interesting and fresh. And as always, the ending made us wonder which is always a plus. In conclusion, I think die hard Halloween fans will enjoy, while other movie buffs will not be impressed. You have anything to say about what I said about this movie? E-mail me at: omicron_30@yahoo.com

Scary and atmospheric sequel that will deliver the goods!
They haven't made a bad HALLOWEEN movie yet. Each new sequel manages to be a stand-out above all other horror sequels, showing that effort is being made by the film makers. HALLOWEEN 6: THE CURSE OF MICHEAL MYERS is one of the finest and scariest HALLOWEEN movies in the series. Director Joe Chappelle creates moments of intense suspense and drenches the movie with haunting atmosphere. The script also introduces some very intresting and fun characters such as Tommy Doyle, Kara Strode, and of course the return of Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence in his final role). Viewers who are not familiar with HALLOWEEN 4 and 5 may find this movie a little confusing, so I do suggest watching the previous sequels first. H6 has a few plot holes, but nothing that can't be forgiven. If you get a chance, try and find the Producer's Cut bootleg which explains a lot more. But I do recommend this movie to people looking for good scares and a quality sequel.
Side Note: Avoid the DVD becuase it doesn't have ANY extras. Save a few bucks and go with the VHS for now.

The Makings of a Great Sequel, what a shame...
Let's get started by saying that I personally liked the "thorn"-related Halloween movies (4 and 5 to be specific), but this was very disappointing.

Halloween 4 was a solid movie. H5 was somewhat weaker, but was still OK, as it presented the mysterious "man in black".

Why was this movie so terrible? This is a long story but, first of all, it was somewhat doomed from the start. Mid-way through production, director Joe Chappelle viewed the currently shot footage and found it to be horrible. He went to Dimension Films and asked to reshoot the ending as well as various additional scenes, all of which Dimension greenlighted. At the same time, Halloween 6 had its budget slashed by two million dollars, which is something it definitely did not need. Chappelle reshot the scenes, but this "alternate" version of the film was not what was eventually sent to theaters. Instead, was a film that many found confusing. And, it truly was. Many of the connecting plot lines had been cut out. The film ended up being a box-office failure. One can blame it on many things, but I point it to a loosely-connected plot, poor script, and poor use of Donald Pleasance. And yet, he was the best thing about the movie. His performance is solid, as it always is. Pleasance, who was ill during filming, died before the film's release. Coincidentally, his last film would be a sequel to the one that made him famous.

After hearing about why this film ended up being one of the poorer Halloween sequels, you may now want to know what it was about. H6 is the most intensely thorn plot-centered movie of them all, and starts off with an adult Jamie giving birth to a baby. Jamie and the baby escape, but Michael quickly shows up and murders Jamie. Tommy Doyl, whom you may remember from the original Halloween, is now an adult, an is devoted to tracking down Michael Myers. He and Dr. Loomis team up in an effort to protect the baby from Michael.

My advice would be to avoid this movie. If you are one of those people who are interested in seeing "what could have been", track down the famous "Producer's Cut" DVD, which is available on many online auction sites and containes 43 minutes of alternate footage.

i hate moustapha akkad
DO NOT see this. it sucks. it is wretched. it has no suspense, all the characters suck, and the thorn thing, what the F@$#! it was scarier when michael just killed his family for no apparent reason. just skip this trash along with 4,5,6 and ressurection. stick with the first two and you can't go wrong. H2O wasn't bad either. and season of the witch is good, just don't expect myers to be in it. watch it as if it was NOT part of the halloween series and you will have fun.

Lacking in suspense, thick with cliche
This is the worst film in the long running "Halloween" series. By trying the desperate attempts of bring in a new story line about a bizzare paganistic cult is more funny than frightening, the use of gore in this film is shocking, belting it out to hideous and camp levels with no style or originality.

The only elements that are worth credit are the revamped score and the fact the mask in this movie is closer to that of Carpenter's orginal. ... Read more

Reviews (11)

Pathetic Copy of the first movie
I really enjoyed The Skulls but was sorely dissapointed by the sequel. The movie is jumpy, there is no characterization, the plot developtment isn't there, and there is in general no suspense whatsover. Watch the original and forget the sequel.

Low Budget copy of the original
The "Skulls" premise, based on well-established rumors and reports about Yale University's Skull & Bones Order, is a useful basis for a suspense movie. The 1st film was solid and featured quality actors and direction. This sequel has none of the same cast and was straight to video. It basically repeats the same plot theme of the 1st movie. This movie tries to be more racy than the first yet has weaker drama and dialogue. It was disappointing - perhaps someone will make a film about the real "Skulls" which would be MUCH more dark and suspenseful than the fictional "Skulls."

Fantastic Idea, but Poor Plot
I don't know how Universal hurt a movie that had such a great idea, but couldn't produce it correctly. It is hard to screw up this story. You have a story about a secret society, one of the most powerful in the world, and instead of developing that plot, it looked as though this was a skit on Saturday Night Live making fun of the story itself. The acting was particularly poor and it was hard to have a strong level of empathy with any of the characters. Not one stands out. All the characters appear shady, dark, depressing, and yet, it is quite clear that not all of the characters deserved this trait. We didn't really learn that much about the secret society (other than it likes to keep secrets) and the school the students were attending. Where is it? Yale, I presume; but there is little discussion on what the students are like who aren't in the secret society. I think this movie could have been done much better.

Even worse than the first...
...and that's saying alot.

The movie goes nowhere fast. With a plot as transparent as cellophane and a solidly second-string cast (couldn't they afford ANYONE we have heard of), the movie wastes our time with some serious implausibilities spliced together with laughable dialogue and a downright silly ending.

Did the producers really think that this film covered any new territory that the first missed? It seems that both are based on the same book. Now, I don't plan on reading said book anytime soon, but it seems to me that when you make a sequel, you might want to have a few original ideas to make the vehicle interesting. Just a suggestion...

Skulls II
I loved the movie. It is a solid rental ... Read more

Reviews (32)

The Romanian Braveheart
The Bram Stoker artifact and historical truth are at serious odds with each other in Dracula: The Dark Prince. As a result, this movie may disappoint many a Dracula fan. That said, though, the biographical details seem somewhat forced to conform to the Dracula legend; therefore, it may disappoint viewers who appreciate good dramatic history too! In fact, its lower-budget melodramatic gothic penchant for romance, marital hysteria, dramatic dialogues, and over-usage of dark, closed-in, night scenes may disappoint many a movie-goer, at first viewing at least.
The rather interesting closing screen comments, however, are what most help the viewer to assess whether or not the movie was a success or failure. For example, "In 1931, explorers dug up the tomb of Vlad Dracula, the Impaler; and they found only animal bones. In Romania, Vlad Dracula is still remembered as a savior to his country. Many pray for his return!" In my opinion, it merits judging as a success, but, perhaps not successful enough! After all, here is a man believed to be a new messiah (not only an antichrist), yet the movie does little to define the messianic fervor of his life-long fight against the Turkish Sultan Mohammed! Here is a man who was loved (and is still loved today, more than 600 years after his death) by the subjects and citizens of his land, yet the movie again fails to illuminate this aspect of his reign! Etc.
In brief, the biographical facts suggest that a very different movie could/should have been made. It should not have been a movie that pays respectful homage to coffin odors and Bram Stokers' gothic imagination but a movie that lets the viewers breath the same exhilaratingly fresh air as that breathed by a person whose true passion is for freedom and victory against incredible, overwhelming odds! That said, this Romanian Prince merits a movie similar to Braveheart; he was the Romanian Braveheart!

The best Dracula film I've seen
Except for one small movie made under communist rule in Romania years ago, I've found nothing in the entire Dracula movie franchise that really addresses the truth behind the typical vampire folklore. I saw this movie when it premiered on TV three years ago and from the beginning, I was hooked. I confess I didn't know too much about the real Vlad the Impaler before, so naturally this perspective fascinated me. More than getting into the historical facts behind the popular Dracula (even if some are distorted for the sake of drama), this is rather authentic movie in the way it is shot, on location in Romania. (Note: Look closely and you can actually see the house where Vlad Tepes was born in one scene). Even more so, the acting was surprisingly superb for a TV movie. Rudolf Martin (besides being the sexiest guy I've ever seen) takes on the role with an appropriate balance of humanity and ruthless brutality. His portrayal manages to elicit some understanding of a man who once impaled an entire army on a hillside. Other than this movie, I've seen him only in smaller supporting roles, but it's not hard to see that he is an extremely talented actor. As Vlad's fragile young wife, Jane March is convincing, but it's hard to figure out at first what her feeling for Vlad are. Once she starts losing her mind, that becomes quite obvious though. Overall, I can easily say that this is a fascinating, beautifully shot and acted movie that is, shall I say (in regard to Rudolf Martin) aesthetically pleasing. This is the kind of Dracula movie people should see. Capes and fangs have nothing on this guy.

The real story of Dracula...
Or so they would have us believe. This film is strongly influenced by the Bram Stoker novel in mood and menace, but it is still highly entertaining and quite well done. Meant to be a historical drama about the real life of Vlad the Impaler, Dracula: The Dark Prince takes us to Romania in the 1400's, to see what made the man the legend he is today. The story is told from Vlad's point of view, as he recounts the story of his life before an Orthodox Ecclesiastical Court in defense of his crown. We first see Vlad as a child, training for battle with his father and younger brother, Radu. But soon after, Vlad's father is killed by the noblemen of his own country, who are constantly looking after their own interests above anything else. His brother kidnapped and brainwashed by a perverted Turkish Sultan, and himself believed to be long dead, Vlad eventually raises an army to help him take back the throne that rightfully belongs to him from the noblemen and their hand picked NEW prince. Once back in power, Vlad and his beautiful, new, young wife commence to having a son. Simultaneously, Vlad takes his revenge on the noblemen of his country who were responsible for the death of his father and so many others. With that matter taken care of, Vlad focuses on his main interest, dealing with the accursed Turks that have plagued him all his life. This brings up the problem of his younger brother, who is now one of them, and matters are not helped by the failing mental state of Vlad's wife, who is disturbed more and more as she discovers the brutality of her husband's style of government.
While the film does mention and even depict Vlad's more legendary and gruesome exploits, those that were less likely to be true were presented only as rumors amongst the people and noblemen of Romania that the Prince himself always denied. The film doesn't really take much of a fantasy angle, it simply drops hints here and there to remind you that this is the man known as Dracula. True, in the end the possibility that Vlad did become one of the undead is left open, but even the act that many have claimed ruined the reality of the film could easily be interpreted as the hallucination of a dying man. Overall, this is a pretty good film for what it is, and I recommend it to all fans of Dracula, real or imaginary.

The Real Story of Dracula..
I saw this movie about 4 years back on HBO, at first, looking at its title, it seems like a typical Dracula movie but when I started, I explored that it's much more than that or can say less than that. This is the actual story of Vlad Impaler - the Prince of Romania who ruled Romania in the 14th century. I was totally mesmerised by its aura and its picturesque locations, originally of Romania. The actor, Rudolf martin plays the Vlad like no one before. this was 4 years back but its memories still haunts me and then I saw this DVD on Amazon and I immediately ordered it to India, the DVD came in 2 weeks and the Quality of the DVD is truly remarkable. Overally, an execellent movie with excellent transfer.

Bad DVD cover, Great Film.
I hate that DVD cover, it makes it look like this film is some sort of cheesy B movie. But it isn't, this movie is well filmed, well acted, a complex well written script, beautiful scenery (shot totally in Romania, you can even see the castle where the real Vlad was born, in the background), great music, and just a great film period. I personally feel that this film should have been given a bigger budget and released in the theatres. It most certainly would have done a great job at the box office. Everything was prefect, all it would have needed was extra funds for larger and bloodier battle scenes and that's it. Even though I liked the music, with a bigger budget they maybe could have hired someone like Elliot Goldenthal (interview with the Vampire)Or Danny Elfman (Sleepy Hollow)to give it a darker sound. But oh well, even with the low budget the movie is still very good and although it may not be completely historically accurate it's much better than most of the Dracula films out there that is based soley on the Bram Stoker created character and not Vlad himself. And to be honest the guy who plays Vlad in this movie is creepy as *** and he isn't even a vampire!

When I first saw this movie on the USA network, I didn't know the name of it cause I only saw it near the end but I thought it was pretty good and couldn't wait for them to air it again, but that didn't happen and I figured I missed my chance. Then when I went to the video store I saw that DVD cover and was in the mood for a campy Vampire flick (misleading cover) and figured why not, esp. since I love vampire movies anyway. I was shocked when I started to watch and discovered that it was the movie I saw a long time ago and thought I would never see again. (unless USA network decided to ever show it again)

Bottom line this movie is completely different than I expected it be. Rudolf Martin was perfect for this role. He's the best Dracula I've ever seen on film. He also appeared in a Buffy the Vampire slayer episode as Dracula but they didn't do him justice. Rudolf Martin oozes dark sex appeal as Vlad the Impaler, a ruthless tyrant to some but a national hero to most, who tries desperately to free his country from Turk oppression. Even though it's a made for TV movie it certainly pulls no punches with Vlad's brutal acts. Rudolf Martin adds a level of complexity to the character that is easy to just play evil. In one scene you see him brutally murdering people and impaling their bodies and in the next you see a man who is a loving husband and father to his wife and son.

Jane March even shows that she can act in a movie AND keep her clothes on *gasp*! I loved watching her slowly go mad as she sees the acts her husband has committed. I know some people who saw this movie got thrown off by the Bram Stoker like ending, but I say it adds to the film,I see it as a small tribute to all the Dracula films we know and love and the man that actually inspired it all...Vlad Tepes himself.

And compared to the other films who only want to show the capes and fangs while chasing after some big breasted teenager this is near perfect, showing the life and times of Vlad Dracula.

Just rent the movie and see for yourself. ... Read more