Way Of The Vampire Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
The battle between good and evil ends tonight.
This cheerfully low-budget riff on the Dracula story from directors Sarah Nean Bruce and Eduardo Durao follows Van Helsing, the immortal vampire hunter, as he battles the evil dead throughout the centuries. Asylum Pictures favorite Rhett Giles stars, alongside Paul Logan, Denise Boutte, Brent Falco, and Anthony Turk.
| Rhett Giles | Dr. Abraham Van Helsing |
| Paul Logan | Dracula |
| Andreas Beckett | Sebastien |
| Denise Boutte | Arianna |
| Brent Falco | Emily |
| Alix Henning | Yvonne |
| Anthony Turk | Father Cefalu |
| Sarah Nean Bruce |
| Eduardo Durao |
1.40 out of 10 (457 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Pretty bad
posted on 17 Aug 2009Unlike David Latt's War of the Worlds, this film by the aforementioned producer, Bram Stokers' Way of the Vampire, is a very sub-par film. At least with War of the Worlds, there were some acceptable performances and superb visual effects. This film had nothing more than an anemic (to use a "blood" term) script, with below-average dialogue. The acting was atrocious on almost every front. The production design budget also seemed to be lacking (unlike War of the Worlds which looked professional at least). Hmm, what else, before I forget what I watched? The sound - I could NOT hear almost half the dialogue been said - because the music (the score which suspiciously sounds a lot like War of the Worlds - surprise) and effects were turned up to completely drown out the inferior dialogue (perhaps this was intentional?) One positive thing I can say is that Mr. Latt knows how to turn out product, and one should keep in mind that this is a low budget film. Therefore, it isn't a bomb, but I can't give it more than 4 out of 10 stars.
Another "Asylum" travesty
posted on 17 Aug 2009Dr. Van Helsing, vampire hunter, is granted immortality by a religious sect that will only let him die after he kills the last vampire. That's the plot of the film right there. I didn't put it in a nutshell for you, dear reader. THAT'S the whole plot. Now what did I think of the film? Well, between the horrid editing, the putrid acting, the 'anti-action', the sound problems, and the WIDE open ending, this is strictly amateur hour. Vampire flicks have made for some simply dreadful films in the past and this, my friends, is one of them. It's a travesty of the current state of B-movie straight to video horror that I don't even consider this one of the worst vampire flick out there.My Grade: D- Where I saw it: Starz on Demand (available till September 15th, 2005)
Awful
posted on 11 Aug 2009Pretty cheesy movie, looks like a very low budget 80's horror flick. The sound was awful we couldn't hear most of what was being said in the movie because the sound effects and music was louder then the peoples voices and to top that off you couldn't even have subtitles to understand what was being said because it doesn't have that option. We were surprised to know that this was a 2005 movie the way it looked they obviously didn't use any of the technology they have around today because all the blood and gore looked very fake. The acting was horrible which would explain why we had never heard of any of the actors in the movie.So movie watchers be ware this movie is Not worth the money to rent, i would wait for them to play it on TV and hope the sound quality is fixed but I think it might even be too awful to be played on TV!
Has potential, but is mostly wasted...
posted on 16 Jun 2009The general premise is decent enough - Van Helsing from the Dracula novels made a deal with God for immortality until all the major vampire lords are destroyed.And presumably, he kills off most of them. The rest sort of go into hibernation, living off of animals and such, not humans. Until the present day. When one of them decides it's sick of hiding and start preying on human's again.The trouble is, most the movie is actually pretty dull. Most of it deals with either Van Helsing or the Vampires getting ready for the final showdown. And when it finally happens, it's not exactly the final scene of Enter the Dragon.It's somewhat cheesy in places, but I've seen worse. Much worse. There is some nudity and gore but very little on both accounts.The supporting actors are pretty bad, but I thought the guy who played Van Helsing did a pretty good job. He looks a bit too much like Methos from Highlander, though. And I enjoyed the vampire's 2nd in command. While she overacted a bit, she was very attractive and has good screen presence.The sound on the DVD I rented was screwed up. The dialog was much, much softer than the sound effects, music. And apparently no subtitles.I probably wouldn't say you should buy it, or even rent it, but if it's ever on cable, it's probably not worth changing the channel to avoid. I would give it a 4 out of 10.
Worst vampire movie ever
posted on 06 Jun 2009I hit the spoiler option because now I'm going to spoil the entire movie for you ...... Van Helsing gets to live forever and he kills some vampires. Oooh yeah, it really is as easy as that. It has some really weak secondary love story but since the primary thing doesn't work you really won't notice it.I was hoping to get a new great Bram Stoker Dracula experience and I remember thinking that the beginning was so bad that the rest of the movie could only get better but I was wrong. It only turned from bad to worse.Well the story really isn't bad, or maybe it is, but the worst thing about the movie is the acting, directing, camera control and sound which actually doesn't leave much left to be thrilled about. I gave this 1 just because 0 wasn't available. 2.1 really is to much credit for this.
Vampires and Van Helsing
posted on 22 Feb 2009*SPOILER ALERT* *SPOILER ALERT*Van Helsing attacks vampires. Vampires attack Van Helsing. That pretty much summarizes "Way of the Vampire". Van Helsing tracks his prey to Los Angeles. It's always L.A. Vampires love the coast. Van Helsing forms a crew of slayers from various church volunteers. He tells them all about the Way of the Vampire and his long history with them. The main vampire plots to rid himself of his arch foe in between hanging out on a couch with three naked chicks and drinking a lot of blood.There's nothing too shocking or interesting in "Way of the Vampire". It hums along exactly as you would expect it to. It won't cause you pain but it probably won't thrill you much either. Also, the sound quality was terrible. I was blasting the TV to hear the dialog but all I could pick up was the faintest hint of it. The sound effects were loud and clear but the dialog was buried. I doubt I missed much but it would have been nice to hear what people were saying without destroying my eardrums in the process.
Gah!
posted on 20 Feb 2009(I don't think this contains spoilers, but if it does,it wan't intentional, and I'm sorry.)I just rented this movie. Thinking that, ya know..Vampire movie..Bram Stoker..BRING IT! After "Bram Stokers' Dracula" in 1992, I figured "Bram Stokers' Way Of The Vampire" should measure up to the same high standards right? RIGHT?? Uh..no! We started watching it, had to jack the sound WAYYYY up to even HEAR it, and then my roommate tells me that we've rented it before!! HUH? This is a VAMPIRE movie! Something I LIVE for! And I don't remember it? Can I just say..you know it's bad when...! Unfortunately, like most movies you don't initially like, it DIDN'T get better the second time around! The sound was terrible. The acting was either non existent or over blown. (with maybe one or two exceptions) The vampiric dialog? All I could think was who wrote this UTTER rot?! The rest of the dialog was ranging from maybe OK, to weak, to downright SAD! I checked out the actors on the database, (this one, as I've found no other better as of yet) like I do for almost all movies I watch, and found that this movie was either a jumping point for brand new actors, a fill in for trying-but-not-quite-making-it actors, or a last ditch effort for dieing actors from a third rate soap opera! The nudity was OK I guess. There was T&A to be seen. And it was nice, as far as nudity goes. But like EVERY movie not a hard core porn, for some reason it's OK for a woman to go Full Monty, but a man? *gasp* SHOCKING! And simply NOT DONE! And it's not even that I WANT to see some guys dangly bits! That's not the point! (seen one you've seen em all) MY beef is that they won't SHOW them. That it's OK to bare a girl but not a boy. Perhaps I've wandered off the path. Slightly. A bit? OK maybe a LOT! *snickers* I had a point I'm sure! Now where did I put it...*checks pockets* Ah yes..On the whole? This movie was very disappointing. A rather black mark on vampire movies as a whole, and NO credit to Bram Stoker what-so-ever. If it had been slightly worse, it wouldn't have been worth the film it was printed on. I know I've seen worse, but Way Of The Vampire was high up there in the "WHY did I rent this" stakes. In short? And pun intended... It sucked!
Not bad, but nothing special
posted on 16 Feb 2009"Braw Stoker's Way of the Vampire" is a below decent vampire film.**SPOILERS**A hundred years ago, Dr. Abraham Van Helsing, (Rhett Giles) tracked down a coven of followers of Vampire Count Dracula, (Paul Logan) and nearly destroys the group. In the modern times, his descendant is also hunting the same group, now led by Sebastien, (Andreas Beckett) and Arianna, (Denise Boutte) whop are wanting a return to their glorious past and start a rampage through the city. Gathering a crew to face the vampire, Van Helsing launches an assault on the vampire hideout.The Good News: There wasn't a whole lot to this film that was really stand-out. The gore here is really the best part, and it's quite bloody at times. There's some nice looking ripped throats, the traditional neck bites, and some blood splatter sprayed around on the walls pretty liberally at the end. There's a little more blood in here as well, so it certainly will apply for gore-hounds looking for a little thrill. The action is pretty decent, especially the concluding fight but it never rises above decent. That's the general feel for the whole film, as it really didn't impress me all that much.The Bad News: Overall, this wasn't all that spectacular, even when it did make an impression. The film practically grinds to a halt when the series of Van Helsing training the vampire hunters in montage, which really destroys the momentum gathered up to that point. It's hardly ever a good idea to do such a move in a movie, and this one proves it. But those are the only real factors that strike against this one. It just didn't do anything for me.The Final Verdict: A hard movie to really latch onto, as it didn't do much at all for me, but was decent nonetheless. If you're vampire fans, there's worse ones out there, but if you're not a real hardcore fan of the genre and it's offerings, then exercise with extreme caution with this one.Rated R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language, Nudity and repeatedly coming back to the same sex scene
Not nearly as bad as people are saying.
posted on 16 May 2008RHETT GILES plays VAN HELSING, whom after leaving his lovely wife with an associate whom he thought he could trust in order to kill Dracula & his vampire servants, returns to find her dead, (Yep as it turns out his friend is really a vampire) vowing to avenge her death & destroy all vampire life, Van makes a pact with God to gain immortality & roam earth for centuries killing the vampires one by one while looking for Sebastian, finally Sebastian comes out of hiding & along with his followers, attempts to destroy Van & his band of slayers. Either Van Helsing destroys the minions or he & his followers will wind up as permanent members of the night shift. After reading many reviews on this site, I think it's officially safe to say that no one really liked this movie. Released by THE ASYLUM/KABOOM ENTERTAINMENT, BRAM STOKER'S WAY OF THE VAMPIRE, as the box art states is a sexy, terrifying re-telling of Bram Stokers classic tale! That is misleading, this is yet another cheap vampire movie released by the same people who brought us ALIEN VS. HUNTER/666: THE CHILD (& it's sequel) WHEN A KILLER CALLS/TRANSMORPHERS & any other cheap rip-off/micro budget horror tale, of Hollywood produced horror/action/sci-fi movies. Thankfully contrary to many reviews, the film isn't as bad as many are saying, or nearly as bad as the films mentioned above, instead I found myself mildly entertained by this cheap little gem. The film has good acting & is better directed than most genre films. The story was interesting. However that didn't stop me from seeing the films many flaws, the audio was bad & the lighting left a lot to be desired. The film also has a flat ending as well that leaves the door wide open for a sequel. All in all, as a horror fan & critic, I didn't mind this movie, I mean I understood it was low budget & excepted that fact, I wasn't expecting anything to big & I didn't get anything to big either, therefore I wasn't let down. But is it just me or does it seem like RHETT GILES is in every movie released by KABOOM/THE ASYLUM ENTERTAINMENT?*** stars
...Kind of prequel to DRACULAS CURSE
posted on 10 May 2008Bram Stoker's WAY OF THE VAMPIRE With Rhett Giles, Denise Boutte. Theasylum.cc Lots of atmosphere in this little pic that could, Think its only 3 years before The Next Wave. Rhett Giles took this role and perfected in 'Draculas Curse'. Denise Boutte steals EVERY scene she is in as Vampiress and truly came into her own in 'DEATH VALLEY : Revenge Of Bloody Bill'.Vampire and hero have a connected past and both are immortal, Until modern times reunite them.Soundtrack is by SCORPIONS Ralph Rieckermann, And it sets the tone for a film that tries really hard to give the viewer a feeling of Gothic vibe at choice times.
Unbeleivably shallow and idiotic!
posted on 26 Feb 2008Usually I'm lenient towards even bad movies since I respect artists like actors and think that everybody is entitled to a mistake.Sometimes,even a bad movie has some acceptable moments and it even manages to throw the spotlight to a new potentially talented young actor/actress.This ,however,without a doubt is the most superficial and idiotic totally unconvincing horror film I have ever watched and the only horror one gets is out of its abysmally low level.It's a disgrace and a total waste of one's money and time.Companies or artists participating in such crimes against the cinema should be put away.I wonder how on earth these movie companies come out with decisions to produce such garbage.Don't they realise that it will hit them back big time?And the disrespect to the viewer is infuriating!!! The mark of 1 is very flattering ,it should get something like 0,000001.
So Incredibly bad it's beyond description !!!
posted on 30 Dec 2007Saw this on the Sci-Fi channel. There is not one good thing about this movie. Not one! The directing. The Writing. The Lighting. The Editing all stink! The worst thing was the sound. It sounded like they recorded the sound on the built in microphone of a cheap video camera. It s amazing that something this bad could even get made. I could only watch 20 minutes of it. From the first 30 seconds you could how bad it was going to be. I didn't think it could get worse, but it actually does. After 20 minutes I was actually laughing out loud. After 30 minutes my brain was getting numb. I will keep the copy of it do add with Plan 9 and Robot Monster. Horrible. Absolutely horrible. If the Sci-Fi channel ever wants it's audience to grow they better start giving us better movies than this: One of the worst ever made.
It's here!
posted on 15 Oct 2007I never thought I'd see the day, but finally a film has been made to rival such schlock classics as Manos: the Hands of Fate and Dungeon of Harrow. In fact, the first five minutes of this atrocity seem to have been snatched lock, stock, and barrel from the Dungeon of Harrow playbook, as it attempts to create 'period atmosphere' and fails utterly and miserably. The acting is also on a par with the aforementioned films: it's as wooden as the stakes used to bring final rest to these bloodsucking fiends. Lead Rhett Giles, who interprets Van Helsing as if he were addicted to Mogadon, is particularly bad, but everyone else is also dreadful, especially lead vampire bride Denise Boutte. There's a bit of nudity-lead vamp Sebastien is a rather louche nosferatu, and spends a lot of time lounging on the sofa whilst his minions lick him-and a fair amount of very unconvincing gore. The film also features one first: some of the vampires seem to enjoy a bit of capoeira on the side. That's not enough of a positive to elevate this to a '2', however.
So bad I wanted to drive a stake through my own heart
posted on 06 Aug 2007There's not much I can add to all the other reviewers' comments, which were--if anything--too kind. This is the movie Ed Wood would have made if he had a competent cameraman, because the cinematography is actually very good, which is the only--let me emphasize, absolutely the ONLY--good thing about the movie. Otherwise, this is one of the few films I've ever seen where you can't point to at least one aspect of it and say, "Well, at least that wasn't too bad"--because EVERYTHING about this film is bad. Not just bad, but atrociously, horrendously, brain-destroyingly bad. Acting, writing, "action" scenes, etc., have to strain mightily to reach the level of the Christmas play in which you played a candy cane back in third grade--and they don't succeed. Much has already been written about the shoddy-beyond-belief sound, and there's nothing I can add to that except to say that the producers' unwillingness to hire a competent sound man, which resulted in much of the dialog being unintelligible, is one of the few things they did right.All in all, a virtually worthless movie. Although there's a fair amount of female nudity, it's really not worth sitting through this stinker to check it out (jeez, I can't believe I just discouraged guys from ogling naked chicks; if that doesn't give you an idea of how much this flick sucks, then nothing will). If tenth-rate swill churned out by incompetent, talentless slugs is your cup of tea, even you won't like this movie. Avoid it at all costs.
What was that you said?
posted on 27 Jul 2007Way of the Vampire begins around the turn of the 20th Century in England. Abraham Van Helsing (Rhett Giles), who is immortal here, has assembled a "gang" of vampire slayers (no, they're not a Scooby gang like Buffy's). In the first few minutes, the gang is slaughtered, but Van Helsing decapitates Dracula. Dracula's "gang" is left in temporary chaos. The "Prince" who will replace him, Sebastien (Andreas Beckett), was mistaken by Van Helsing for an eligible member of his gang. Unfortunately, he left Sebastien with his wife, who Sebastien turned into a vampire while Van Helsing was out earning the bacon.The opening credits roll, and we are propelled into "The Present". Van Helsing has moved to Los Angeles (to try to jumpstart a film career?) and naturally so has Sebastien and his current gang. We can all guess the kind of chaos that will ensue.First off, whoever did the sound mix for this film--for the DVD in general, for that matter--should to be looking for another job, pronto. Even if the raw sound was bad and no ADR was done (which seems like it might have been the case), it can be easily cleaned up by a competent sound engineer. Turn the music down, get rid of the horrendous echo in the scenes filmed in a large concrete room, compensate for the actors who are whispering and mumbling, and so on. The surround sound mix was horrible. The stereo mix was horrible, and even the commentary track sounds like it was recorded in a large, empty bathroom.That took at least one solid point off of the film. If I have to screw with my equalizer and crank up my system loud enough to threaten blowing my speakers (or having the cops called on me) so I can just make out at least 75% of the dialogue, something is wrong.But that's not the only problem with Way of the Vampire. Most of the performances are questionable, and directors Sarah Nean Bruce and Eduardo Durao must have never met a melodrama they didn't like, because they tend to instruct their cast to over-emote without a shred of humor or self-awareness. There is a lot of very strained agonizing in the film, such as vampires saying, "Oh, but what about Van Helsing" like a junior high drama student doing Hamlet on an audition tape.And there's more--or is that less? Bruce and Durao do not know how to film or edit action sequences. They tend cut them way too fast, with far too many close-ups and non sequitur insert shots. There's no sense of suspense in the fight scenes, because the audience just can't tell what's going on.Additionally, some viewers might be perturbed that this is "yet another Dracula film" with very few surprises. Yes, Dracula is dispatched in the first few minutes, but focusing on Van Helsing or vampire slayers in the Bram Stoker universe isn't exactly novel, and neither is putting vampires in the modern world, especially Los Angeles. Most vampire film fans could write a rough parallel to this script in their sleep. On the other hand, I don't personally subtract points for predictability or derivativeness, but just in case you do, you should know about it.So why the hell did I give this film a 7? Well, I gave it a low 7, and a 7 in my book is a "C". That means this is almost a "D", and almost doesn't pass--at a university level, you don't usually earn credits for a D. But there are enough positive points that Way of the Vampire certainly isn't an F, and it's not quite bad enough to lose its credits.Bruce and Durao may be too fond of melodrama and not know how to do action scenes or check the work of sound engineers, but they're pretty good at directing cinematographers. There are plenty of attractive shots throughout the film. There is an interesting use of the recent trend towards monochromaticism. Here, monochromatic blue scenes represent flashbacks to the turn of the century. Most of the present day stuff is shot in an attractive array of colors. And towards the end, the film slyly shifts towards monochromatic "golds"--browns, oranges, etc.The score, by Ralph Rieckermann, is pretty good. It's not his fault that the sound mix sucks. For that matter, it's not most of the cast or crew's fault that the sound mix sucks. I have a feeling I would have enjoyed the film quite a bit more if I wouldn't have had to struggle to hear the dialogue.There are a lot of beautiful women in the film. There is a fair amount of nudity. And there is even more sensuality. Especially in a vampire film, that stuff doesn't come across as just gratuitous. Bruce and Durao don't do sensuality as good as Ron Oliver did in Thralls (aka Blood Angels, 2004), but they're not far behind. It adds quite a bit to the atmosphere, and the atmosphere overall is pretty good here.The story kinda worked for me. Sure it wasn't unprecedented, but as a potboiler vampire flick, this rose to a nice boil. More could have been done with it--I would have liked to delve into Van Helsing as a doctor more, the new slayer gang would have been fun to get to know, and so on. But the story wasn't bad. Maybe Bruce and Durao should make their next film a bit longer. Also, not all of the performances were horrible. I actually kinda liked Giles, and that's important, since the film is centered on him.Finally, there was some halfway decent blood and gore here. The scene with Van Helsing getting rid of the new blonde vamp was primo. If this would have been a film filled of stuff like that, it could have been a nine, even with crappy sound.
Could have been worse
posted on 03 Jun 2007Although I'm not sure how. I think the copy I got from the store was burned incorrectly since the sound was all screwed up. Not that it mattered, since the dialog was pretty bad and generally the delivery of those lines was worse. The vampires, when they could be heard, had horrible lisps. You'd think that after an eternity as a creature of the night they'd learn how to speak properly through those big teeth of theirs. Not that this movie didn't have its accidentally funny moments. At one point Van Helsing reassures his lady love that nothing can happen to him since he is surrounded by giants and then the shot cuts right to what looks to be the sorriest looking bunch of "giants" ever to grace the screen. They all look either hung over, half asleep, or just plain annoyed that they have to go around slaying the children of the night in a potato sack. It does have nudity however! But not enough to make up for the fact that the vampires all look like two dollar hookers, the sound sucks, and the overall look is just plain cheap. Did I mention that the sound sucks?
Another gem in the long line of the Way Of series
posted on 08 Apr 2007While no "Way of the Teamsters" (the better prequel in this trillogy) this film offers a cinematic expose into the dark and gloomy world the undead.I wont spoil the many plot twists, many of which were hard to follow, especially since I saw the movie dubbed in Turkish while recovering from lasic eye surgery. However, you won't be disappointed with cliché contemporary romantasisms of secret populations of super powered beings living side by side of modern civillization locked in a perpetual war of which the mundane humans are mostly unaware except for some secret fraternal organization dedicated to eradication of the supernatural.I recommend this movie for any serious VHS collection.
The Worst Vampire Movie Ever
posted on 29 Nov 2006This is without doubt the Worst Vampire Movie I have ever seen. It was recently on AMC. After 30 minutes, we stopped watching. The dialog was inane, as was the directing and acting. If this was the last movie on earth, I would watch a cartoon. What else could I possible add to this review other than to say, it gives Vampires a bad name.This is without doubt the Worst Vampire Movie I have ever seen. It was recently on AMC. After 30 minutes, we stopped watching. The dialog was inane, as was the directing and acting. If this was the last movie on earth, I would watch a cartoon. What else could I possible add to this review other than to say, it gives Vampires a bad name.
Why isn't there a zero on the voting chart?
posted on 17 Nov 2006I admire the reviewers of this abominable film who actually watched it all the way through.Thirty minutes was too much for me. It is, without any shadow of a doubt, the most puerile and baseless horror movie of all time. It makes 'Killer Tomatoes' look like Oscar material. The acting is unbelievably bad, the editing pathetic and the storyline must have been written by a seven-year-old. One can only wonder at how movies like this get made. A total waste of money, effort and intellectual rigour by everyone involved.In short, this film has no redeeming features whatsoever.
- 1
- 2
Laughably Pretentious Treacle Masquerading as a Movie
posted on 27 Aug 2009There are a few good things about this movie, but the negatives are so overwhelming that I could only give it a 1 on the ole 1 to 10 scale. The cinematography is very pretty and the miniature set models are excellent. At least I think they're models. Everything about this movie is so bogus that they may actually be real locations which the directors (yes, it took two directors to cook this turkey) somehow managed to make look like models.With two directors you'd think that it might only be half-bad. Instead it's doubly pretentious. The lovely Denise Boutte may well be the hammiest actor on planet Earth. Rhett Giles as Van Helsing looks like a reject from the Pet Shop Boys, and his acting is nearly as overblown and stuffy as Ms. Boutte's. Every line by just about every "actor" is recited in emo overdrive.There were also at least two writers involved. The version I saw had three listed, unless I was hallucinating, but IMDb says two. The third one may have requested anonymity. Or hacked the webpage and erased his or her name. In any case, the dialog is so cheesy you'd think it was written by the teen Gothtards from Saturday Night Live.If I see one more pseudo-Goth vampire movie with semi-clad model-pretty airheads melting into the arms of Ralph Lauren pretty men in ersatz under-populated nightclubs I'll puke up a kidney. Anne Rice has apparently spawned a sub-race of cretinous filmmakers.This is the first film I've seen which challenges Uwe Boll's "House of the Dead" as the WORST horror film ever made.