Die Hard Dracula

Audience Reviews

View All (18) audience reviews

Audience Member Director and writer Peter Horak may have shot this in Prague and California, but it looks like the kind of movies that Cabellero and VCA put out in 1998 without you know, all the ejaculate. It also has a lead who loses his girl in a rowboat accident, which sends him to Europe, and into the orbit of — you knew it — Dracula (played by three actors, Ernest M. Garcia, Chaba Hrotko and Tom McGowan). Who can battle Dracula? How about Bruce Glover? Yes, Crispin's dad. Horak did stunts on Viva Knievel!, Throw Mama from the Train and more than twenty other films. I have no idea what made him write, produce and direct a comedy Dracula movie that is beyond brutally unfunny. I mean, I have no limit when it comes to evil — I mean bad movies — and this one really pushed me even worse than any other film has. Which means I loved the experience and I'd totally force you to watch it while screaming about why they made the choices they did. But why Die Hard Dracula? Rated 1.5/5 Stars •  Rated 1.5 out of 5 stars 02/06/23 Full Review Audience Member Part nonsensical horror, part flat-faced comedy and part Prague travelogue, Die Hard Dracula is on a whole new level of ineptitude. The film plays like a home video, with abrupt cuts and an ever-tumbling tone, following a weedy teen lost in indecisive vampireland. There's painted cardboard sets, multicoloured car crashes, a Dracula whose hairstyle changes between takes and a supporting character who looks like the living incarnation of Super Mario. Despite how this may sound, it's rarely even unintentionally funny. In fact, it's utterly dreadful on all levels. Rated 1/5 Stars •  Rated 1 out of 5 stars 02/14/23 Full Review Audience Member If Bram Stoker's mind was riddled with the worst case of ADHD known to man, his literary masterpiece would kinda resemble Die Hard Dracula, just slightly more competent, though. The plot makes no sense and having three polar-opposite looking actors play one Dracula makes even less sense. But it's got its own flying coffin, and despite the poor acting, lousy effects and humorless jokes (at least the intentional ones), how many other films can honestly say they have the benefit of featuring one of those? Full review at http://silverscreenfanatic.com/2015/04/06/what-the-hell-were-they-thinking-66/ Rated 0.5/5 Stars •  Rated 0.5 out of 5 stars 01/24/23 Full Review Audience Member I enjoy low-budget, cheezy horror flicks way more than the average joe does, so I thought I'd give this one a try. This one is far and away the cheeziest that I've ever seen. This looks like it could have been done as a Senior class project by an aspiring high-school film maker. I wouldn't say that it's so bad that it's GOOD, but it's certainly so bad that the cheeziness makes it at least more entertaining that your average Uwe Boll film. Rated 1.5/5 Stars •  Rated 1.5 out of 5 stars 02/02/23 Full Review Audience Member Holy shit. I would give this a five, but it can only be watched in small amounts. Rated 2.5/5 Stars •  Rated 2.5 out of 5 stars 01/21/23 Full Review Audience Member Possibly the worst movie ever made. It looked like it was a home video and the acting was horrible. Really nothing positive could be said about this movie. I can't believe this was ever released on DVD. The only thing I can say is that if you love watching bad movies this one is the worst. Rated 0.5/5 Stars •  Rated 0.5 out of 5 stars 02/15/23 Full Review Read all reviews

Die Hard Dracula

My Rating

Read More Read Less POST RATING WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW