One thing that can be said confidently is that there has never been any shortage of Dracula themed movies. Even after Hammer Horror were laid to rest we got wall to wall films cashing in on the popularity of the worlds favorite Transylvanian.This is one of those efforts that presents him as almost an anti-hero, forced into the darkness through anger at the loss of his true love.Trouble is this one simply isn't very good, it's a combination of classic mythology and modern nonsense that simply doesn't work.It looks shoddy, it sounds poor and poor Jon Voight looks very out of place.With a blonde dracula, practically no bites/blood/vamperic action and more Christian references than a priest could shake his tallywacker at this is a poor piece of Dracula cinema.The Good:A few decent designs here and thereThe Bad:Far too much of the stupidity that is christianityIncredibly dullThings I Learnt From This Movie:Jon Voight must have lost a bet

"Dracula: The Dark Prince" is a take on the classic Bram Stoker story that perhaps shouldn't necessarily have had seen the light of day - pardon the pun.Why? Well, because it just wasn't a fulfilling movie. There were several things that just weren't fully working out for this particular movie. First of all, lets start with a blonde Dracula. Well, sure, why not, but that just really took away that Romanian / Eastern European appearance that is a natural in the area where the movie was supposed to take place. And also, why would he keep two massive stone crosses - relics of the God that abandoned and cursed him - in his crypt? That just doesn't make sense. Nor did that stone sarcophagus Dracula rested and regenerated in make any sense in terms of how awfully fake it was. It didn't even resemble stone in any possible way.And if Dracula's wife was slain by the hands of Renfield back in the time when Dracula's curse came to be, wouldn't that totally be somewhat of a plot hole, because Renfield was not a native to Romania, and he name just screams non-Eastern European. That was just stupid.Effects-wise, then "Dracula: The Dark Prince" was alright, not super great, mind you, but not really bad either. The effects were to the point and served what they were supposed to do.Acting-wise, well then "Dracula: The Dark Prince" didn't really fully deliver. People weren't really doing much of convincing the audience with their performances. Jon Voight, usually performing well in movies, was really poorly cast for the role of Van Helsing - he just lacked the grace, conviction and ability to come off as a hunter of the undead. And I am not really sure how I feel about Esme and Alina characters, they were really out of place in that movie, they seemed like something out of a Xena episode or low budget Robin Hood movie. Perhaps it was their outfits that worked against them.Speaking of undead, the Scourge - the undead ghouls/zombies/revenants/whatever they were - that served Dracula, while they wore pretty nice armor, what was up with the painfully obvious latex masks that they were wearing? That was just ridiculous to look at.I will say, though, that the wardrobe and props department worked well in favor of the movie, actually. The armors that were used looked very nice, as did the weaponry (well, aside from the Lightbringer), and the costumes were also nicely put together.And the whole idea of the Lightbringer weapon was, well... In theory great, but in execution really poor. That weapon was just the worst constructed weapon in the history of warfare, and how it would be useful in actual mêlée is just beyond my comprehension. The weapon seemed to fragile and ill-constructed. And for some reason it was able to reflect a massive beam of light, apparently, when the group were in the Carpathian mountains looking for Dracula's castle. For such a small blade on the weapon it sure cast a massive reflection of light.The whole experience of watching "Dracula: The Dark Prince" was just a notch below mediocre, and the movie is the type of movie that you watch once and forget about it soon thereafter, never to watch it again.

Is the main actress hot? Does it really matter to the movie watching experience you are about to have? The first question I think most will tend to answer with a yes. The second one though ... well I don't think many will swing to a yes vote for that. The CGI is not really great, but that is to be expected with the budget this movie has. It does look like a million other movies with a C-budget (or is it D?).The fact that they can release this under the Dracula banner is almost an insult I guess. Especially when you think that really good movies had no rights to the name (see Nosferatu amongst others). But if you really have too much time and love those sorts of movies, I won't stop you from watching it. Don't say I didn't warn you (and you waved it away like all those traveling through Transylvania)

Review written as I watch: Okay, so I'm watching Dracula The Dark Prince. No, not the good one from 2000 starring Rudolf Martin or even the Hammer film called Dracula: Prince of Darkness. This shares the name of the Rudolf Martin film but that is a far superior movie.In here we have a blond Fobio-esque Dracula. The opening is a crude reenactment of the opening of the Gary Oldman movie. The problem I have with it is he renounces God after finding out his own men killed his wife. Why? Why renounce God? It makes no sense here. No one said she was damned.It's Leonardo Van Helsing. A Medieval / early Renaissance (though this looks more Dark Ages) Van Helsing... No wonder there are idiots out there who think Van Helsing defeated Dracula in the middle ages instead of the 1890s.Renfield is an intelligent councilor of the kingdom. Dracula ruled a Principality you morons. It's in your Title DARK PRINCE! The 2000 film with Rudolf Martin... Where for art thou, Rudolf?! Your film of the same name was actually good! I got used to Dracula as a blond in Dracula: The Series (90s version) because I figured he had adapted to look Yuppie-esque. There's no reason for him to be a blonde here yet it looks like they actually went out of their way to make him blond, not that it was just the actor's natural color, but that they went out of their way for it.NBC's Dracula is suddenly looking good..."There is word of slayers" seriously? This sounds like a bad role playing game gone wrong.I'm glad he has the mobile shadow but why does it have wings? I guess to show he's "demonic". Oooh! Because, you know, being an immortal blood sucker who can shapeshift and control the weather just isn't enough these days.The Light Bringer is the cane from the Cain and Abel story? "It was used to slay the innocent and so it was transformed into God's weapon." How does that even make sense?! God was angry about Abel's death. Why would he grant the weapon that did it powers? And Dracula is descended from Abel now because you know they had to trump Dracula 2000 deciding he was Judas somehow. What's next? Dracula is Adam? No, he's Satan himself! Seriously, why can't Dracula just be Dracula? Why do they keep having to add religion to the idea of an immortal war lord? Why does the man Leonardo VAN HELSING have an Italian accent? An Italian with a Dutch name in ...fifteen hundreds? His accent... it's inconsistent. It hurts.Why is it every cliché movie and books make the mysterious West wing? Beauty and the Beast, Jane Eyre, Dark Shadows (TV series) and now this.(Confused) Van helsing from Italy has a tricorner hat. WHAT YEAR IS THIS!?? They gave Dracula's wife the name Erzsébet like Elizabeth Bathory or perhaps the name they used for his first wife used in the Gary Oldman movie (her real name was lost to history, only the second wife's name is remembered).So... Our young male hero (not Leonardo Van Helsing) is a thief because he's descended from Cain and all descendents of Cain are doomed to be criminals. How does that even make sense? And Dracula is descended from Abel so they are destined to kill each other. ...Seriously?! Oh, God, isn't this over yet? ...I have an hour left.The Light Bringer (the weapon that killed Abel) and can now only do good can only be used by a descendant of Cain even though they are... predestined to be criminals. This doesn't make sense. And yet again, Dracula is descended from the innocent one, Abel. Shouldn't this be reversed? Well, the three female vampires are trying to seduce Alina (the apparent reincarnation of Dracula's wife even though it looks like we're no more than ten years after her death!)."Slayers do not drink alcohol" yet the Demon Slayer village is heavily stocked with booze and has a tavern, where Leonardo Van Helsing has to take the bottle away from our hero in training...And a wench had to be sent back with another bottle of alcohol...Nosferatu in this means to be only half-turned into a vampire and to suffer. And means "unclean." Nosferatu means unfinished vampire?! No, call that a dhampir or if it must be so bad, then ghoul, don't do that to the word Nosferatu!! Nosferatu in the Dracula novel was used to mean "not dead" which just means VAMPIRE! Period. Dracula called himself a Nosferatu. ...My poor head. Why change what Nosferatu means?!Dracula just bit his wrist and I realize he's supposed to be pouring blood on his wounded man but though I can HEAR it pouring there's no blood. Someone ACTUALLY forgot the computer generated blood in this scene! It just looks like he's holding his wrist and shaking it every so often over this guy as his wounds miraculously heal but it was clear he bit his wrist. They actually forgot to add the blood in post production.Dario Argento's Dracula 3D is better than this.Why does the holy relic / weapon make static noises? The Dracula actor isn't that bad, I can tell he's doing all he can with this mess.What a surprise (sarcasm) that it was Renfield that killed the princess all along. ...Why was a Romanian named Renfield? When Renfield gets stabbed in the neck he tips his head back and screams before it even hits him.Alina's fingerless gloves are obviously modern...I think I am fully prepared for the NBC version now, which I was already dreading...