This unvarying Vampire vividly revisits our movie vernacular revitalized by verifiable viewership reinvigorating attentiveness from the visionary reinvented versions to the unforgivable misadventures.

Wrath Of Dracula is yet another take on the timeless classic. Over 60 film versions of Dracula exist. Some are considered classics while some of them suck (Pun intended.) Regardless, whenever there’s a new Dracula film I’m eager to see if I can sink my teeth into it. Will this make you thirst for more or should we drive a stake into it?

Written and directed by Steve Lawson, Mina Harker is the main focus while Johnathan is away in Transylvania. She travels there in search of him where she meets Professor Van Helsing. He takes her under his wing to train her how to kill Vampires. This is when the film partly becomes Buffy the Vampire Slayer but it’s an homage so it feels familiar but not derivative. Eventually, the pair are propositioned by the local innkeeper to find his missing daughter Maria while also looking for Johnathan. The film’s narration is done through the journals of Van Helsing and Mina which puts the viewer in the mindset of the characters along with pushing the narrative forward. I like the inclusion of the Wolf Man in one of Van Helsing’s inner monologues. It’s a small detail but it made me smile. The unexpected irreverent humour is a great addition. When you can laugh with characters it creates a personal connection with them. Some horror movies take themselves too seriously, needing the levity to make the scary scenes more impactful. The exceptional costumes and set designs give it a high production value too.

Now it’s time for the elephant in the room. Strangely, the titular monster is noticeably absent. He doesn’t ever feel like a looming threat because he’s hardly a presence in the film. When he’s on screen he’s cast in shadows up until the conclusion. When his big reveal happened it was underwhelming. Why was his identity hidden? He was never in contact with the protagonists until the finale. What purpose did this serve?

Sean Cronin plays Dracula. Unlike the greats such as Bela Lugosi, Max Schreck, Christopher Lee, or Gary Oldman he never loses himself in the character. Instead, he comes off more like Dominic Purcell from Blade Trinity. I couldn’t help but wonder “This is supposed to be Dracula?” His performance isn’t menacing because he’s not convincing. He’s barely there to leave any impact at all.

The acting for the rest of the cast is consistently good. This includes Hannaj Bang Bendz as Mina Harker, Mark Topping as Professor Van Helsing, Ayvianna Snow as Maria, Marta Svetek as Frida, Jasmine Sumner as Ilsa, and Dean Marshall as Johnathan Harker. They bring the characters to life by reinventing them innovatively.

The brides of Dracula do have this odd ADR effect to add an echo when they talk. It’s more distracting than anything.

I love the epic film score too. It adds atmosphere and a grandiose sense of scale yet feels timeless.

Overall, the film is interesting because it includes several traditional characters but uses them in creative new ways. Characters with small roles originally have bigger roles now. It’s a very clever twist to a timeless classic. It makes the old story feel new and different. Some minor complaints I have are the pacing and story structure. The end of Act 2 felt like the climax of the film but it kept continuing so I checked and it still had 20 minutes to go. And was the sequel baiting at the final shot necessary? Despite these minor discrepancies, the refreshing, fun light-hearted story left me thirsting for more. Its for fans of the Fanged Wonder and newcomers alike because it is a stand-alone story. I highly recommend it. And remember, this flick has some bite to it.

Grade 9/10