Look, I typically don't like to write negative articles. As a writer/filmmaker myself, I know how hard it is to make a movie and, as such, I don't like to put others down for their efforts. But this is an exceptional situation and I think the filmmaker brought it onto himself by labeling this movie a "Dracula" movie at all.
Why did I rent this movie?
I rented Dracula Reborn at a local Redbox, mistaking it for Dracula Untold (2014). There are tons of movies every year that use similar titles to high-budget productions in the hopes of tricking people into renting them and, this time, they got me. They got me good.
What was so bad about it?
Everything. The story was very vague and poorly told. In the beginning of the film, we see our main protagonist watching a news report about Dracula - a news report! Okay, so they know Dracula exists in this universe. Makes sense. Then, moments later, we see "Dracula" sitting in a park, cape and all, not even pretending to try to hide who he is and nothing comes of it.
Beyond that, the effects were excruciatingly bad. When a vampire bit someone's throat, you could clearly see the teeth resting above the skin (despite all the "blood" - which looked more like fruit punch) and when the vampire pulled off of his victim, there was no damage to the victim's throat - no puncture wounds, no tears, no damage at all!
Were there any redeeming qualities to it at all?
No. No. Just no. And I sat through the whole thing like an asshole (I have a hard time not seeing movies through - even the bad ones) just to make sure. It is NOT one of those "so bad it's good" kind of movies either. I would rather be trapped in one of Jigsaw's "games" than watch this shit-show travesty ever again.