I started watching this with no idea of what i was going to get. And what i ended up getting left me very unimpressed.<br /><br />It seemed a disjointed mess stuck together with scotch tape and staples. And it was like one of those typical European productions where the storyline would obsess about inconsequentials and make sure lots and lots and lots of screen time was spent on those inconsequentials. And then the actual story would get next to zilch screen time.<br /><br />About the only thing worthwhile to this was the performance of Jason London who gave it his sincerity as a dedicated vampire hunter. He was kind of cartoony, but then vampires aren't exactly the most realistic of movie subjects.<br /><br />The movie had some good points like the terrific landscapes and the romanian baddies kidnapping people for the vampires.<br /><br />Hauer as Dracula? I thought he was spoofing it at first like Nielson in Dracula: Dead and Loving It. Hauer was outstanding in The Hitcher and Blind Fury, but Dracula he ain't.<br /><br />Dracula movies have become such dreck. Hacks get a hold of the idea and then make a big cheesy awful mess of it. Blade 3 had an interesting and rather chilling version of Dracula, but the movie was kind of disappointingly stupidified into shlock. The last "Dracula" movie that i can recall seeing that left me satisfied as being worthy of the genre was Fright Night, and that was made over 20 years ago.<br /><br />Is this actually worth seeing? Well, i have absolutely no intention to ever watch it again. Let that be your guide. And consider that i've watched Fright Night probably at least 10 or 15 times already and will probably do so again another 10 or 15 times. While Fright Night is more than a little tongue-in-cheek (or neck), it had its chilling moments. Oh hell, why waste your time on this turkey... Rent Fright Night instead. Or the original with Bela Lugosi who WAS Dracula like no one else could ever do as well.