Can someone tell me why exactly this movie was made? I love Dracula lore as much as the next person, but I swear, you’d have to be a complete—and I mean 100% complete—Dracula-loving geek to be able to even remotely, somehow, some way, like this movie, even for just an ounce. What was Titus Welliver thinking other than an easy payday? So the movie is based on a short story by Joe Hill that looks to have been written back in 2005? I’m hoping it read better than this movie because this was such a snoozer. I think the biggest problem is that all the interesting lore of Abraham Van Helsing, vampire hunter, is completely missing in the movie. In fact, the most interesting part is literally the beginning intro, where it shows a couple lines of script from his journal regarding the disease of vampirism. That’s it. The rest of the movie basically has him just telling his two sons to just trust him regarding this. Like, you know, trust me, bro, I know what I’m doing.

The movie had like maybe a good idea or two, but the directors decided it was better to show the viewers shots of barren landscape around the Van Helsing house instead. The best shot was probably when it showed a vampire (Dracula?) standing ominously behind Abraham’s wife in a dream. That was the best 10 seconds or so of the film. Maybe I’m guessing because it actually had to do with an actual vampire? I’m sure there are various adaptations of Van Helsing throughout the lore of Dracula, but here, he’s portrayed as a tyrant to his sons who don’t follow his every instruction. Titus did an okay job considering the script he has to work with, which is not that good to begin with.

Anyways, there’s not much else to say about this abomination of a movie. I’m glad Shudder got to work with Titus, though. I had pretty high hopes for the movie going in.