Was really rather looking forward to this, but was very disappointed by the finished product. It simply was so far removed from Stoker's tale that it could hardly count itself as an adaptation of the book. Not a single line of dialogue from Stoker's text was used; none of the characters were presented as they are on the page (Van Helsing a hermit living in a cellar!), and what book did the Satanist Singleton step out of? It was neither scary, nor sexy. Marc Warren did an interesting Klaus Kinski impersonation when he was old man Drac in the first act, but after his transformation into Robert Smith from The Cure, I lost interest. This is the 2nd time the BBC have filmed Dracula, and this one pales in comparison to their 1977 version starring Louis Jordan.
62 Reviews
Poor
stunospam-ta29 December 2006
Being a huge fan of the book and countless other screen adaptations, especially Hammer's fine back catalogue, I looked forward to this with eager anticipation.
Although I found the twists in the plot to be really exciting and a breath of fresh air, I personally found that the hammy acting spoiled it and thought that Mina and Lucy were just plain awful. Not convincing whatsoever.
The creepy Warren gave me some hope as Dracula, although he didn't have presence of character enough to pull it off. I guess not too many actors do! I can only think of Christopher Lee, Bela Lugosi and Gary Oldman who have pulled it off.
David Suchet played a fantastic van Helsing, however and for me, was the star of an otherwise disappointing adaptation.
Although I found the twists in the plot to be really exciting and a breath of fresh air, I personally found that the hammy acting spoiled it and thought that Mina and Lucy were just plain awful. Not convincing whatsoever.
The creepy Warren gave me some hope as Dracula, although he didn't have presence of character enough to pull it off. I guess not too many actors do! I can only think of Christopher Lee, Bela Lugosi and Gary Oldman who have pulled it off.
David Suchet played a fantastic van Helsing, however and for me, was the star of an otherwise disappointing adaptation.
Messy and disappointing but entertaining.
keysersoze1329 December 2006
The new BBC adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula is flawed but makes for enjoyable viewing. It seemed so promising, with a great cast and the aim to create an exciting new take on the old tale. Also, the BBC rarely produce a bad piece of TV drama.
So where did it all go wrong? I think the sometimes drastic changes from the source material were poorly constructed. The writing was competent but the plot dragged and never really flowed. Characters were underwritten and, despite the efforts of the talented cast, remained unconvincing throughout. The character of Jonathan Harker was reduced to a couple of scenes, then disappeared, leaving Lord Holmwood to become the main character. The changes were supposed to bring freshness to an often told story but paled in comparison to the original story; which, told well, is an exhilarating experience.
The casting was perhaps the production's strongest point, though the script never did justice to the characters. Talented young actors Rafe Spall, Dan Stevens and Sophia Myles were wasted in their roles, but Stevens in particular did well to convincingly portray Holmwood despite the dodgy dialogue he had to contend with. Marc Warren made a decent attempt at the Count but his was the most severely underwritten role, and because of this Dracula is never menacing, just some foreign bloke who likes blood. The standout performance came from David Suchet, as Abraham Van Helsing, who stole the limited screen time he was given.
This telling of Stoker's tale was competent but largely dull, benefiting from some interesting acting and a decent ending.
So where did it all go wrong? I think the sometimes drastic changes from the source material were poorly constructed. The writing was competent but the plot dragged and never really flowed. Characters were underwritten and, despite the efforts of the talented cast, remained unconvincing throughout. The character of Jonathan Harker was reduced to a couple of scenes, then disappeared, leaving Lord Holmwood to become the main character. The changes were supposed to bring freshness to an often told story but paled in comparison to the original story; which, told well, is an exhilarating experience.
The casting was perhaps the production's strongest point, though the script never did justice to the characters. Talented young actors Rafe Spall, Dan Stevens and Sophia Myles were wasted in their roles, but Stevens in particular did well to convincingly portray Holmwood despite the dodgy dialogue he had to contend with. Marc Warren made a decent attempt at the Count but his was the most severely underwritten role, and because of this Dracula is never menacing, just some foreign bloke who likes blood. The standout performance came from David Suchet, as Abraham Van Helsing, who stole the limited screen time he was given.
This telling of Stoker's tale was competent but largely dull, benefiting from some interesting acting and a decent ending.
Why haven't i heard of this version? because it's terrible
dregj30 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
As seems to be an iron clad law with all Dracula adaptations , liberties are taken with the story that result in it being yet another abomination.
The main thrust of the story is Arthur holmwood and his attempts at curing his inherited syphilis, utilising a strange blood cult and tricking Jonathan Harker into going to Transylvania knowing who he will find there??any of this sound familiar? no? because its nothing to do with the book at all. The actor playing Dr Seward in particular is incredibly bad. They don't even bother to hide his cockney accent or even consider how unlikely and unbelievable it would be to have a late Victorian era doctor with a working class London accent. This is all forgotten of course when you realise he cannot act.
A Dracula too young to play the role, and an accent that you cannot understand is the icing on this cake of awfulness. I don't know about Dracula
but I'm sure Bram Stoker is turning in his grave
The main thrust of the story is Arthur holmwood and his attempts at curing his inherited syphilis, utilising a strange blood cult and tricking Jonathan Harker into going to Transylvania knowing who he will find there??any of this sound familiar? no? because its nothing to do with the book at all. The actor playing Dr Seward in particular is incredibly bad. They don't even bother to hide his cockney accent or even consider how unlikely and unbelievable it would be to have a late Victorian era doctor with a working class London accent. This is all forgotten of course when you realise he cannot act.
A Dracula too young to play the role, and an accent that you cannot understand is the icing on this cake of awfulness. I don't know about Dracula
but I'm sure Bram Stoker is turning in his grave
A Decent but Absolutely Unnecessary Version of Bram Stoker's Novel
claudio_carvalho16 September 2011
In 1992, Francis Ford Coppola made the definitive version of Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula", with his stylish "Bram Stoker Dracula". Coppola's work and F.W. Murnau's masterpiece "Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens" are the best adaptation of the foregoing novel. I am a fan of vampire movies and the Hammer productions with the character Dracula performed by Christopher Lee are part of my youth.
"Dracula" (2006) is a stylish version made for television, with a great cast and magnificent cinematography that are wasted in a poorly written screenplay that introduces awful modifications to the original romance. This version is decent but absolutely unnecessary; entertains, but also disappoints the fans of the romance. My vote is five.
Title (Brazil): "Dracula"
"Dracula" (2006) is a stylish version made for television, with a great cast and magnificent cinematography that are wasted in a poorly written screenplay that introduces awful modifications to the original romance. This version is decent but absolutely unnecessary; entertains, but also disappoints the fans of the romance. My vote is five.
Title (Brazil): "Dracula"
All in all, disappointing
mixedupmoroi29 December 2006
My partner and I are avid fans of the vampire genre and had eagerly anticipated the airing of this production. We sat down to watch it hoping for the best and that Auntie Beeb would not let us down and we found ourselves sadly disappointed.
It wasn't so much the deviation from the plot of the book that did it - pretty much every Dracula production does that to a certain degree and that is half of what makes these things fun to watch. It was more perhaps the casting, weak characterisation and the fact that most of the action seemed to be crammed into the final 15 minutes that did it. Mina Murray was almost offensively miscast in my opinion and Marc Warren, of whom I am normally a fan, didn't have the charisma or presence to pull off the strong character that is Dracula.
On a plus side, the costumes and sets were excellent, as they tend to be in most BBC period productions and there were some interesting themes, such as the blackening of Dracula's fingernails which perhaps hinted at the corruption that lies in the cursed character. Other than that the rewrite was a weak and disappointing production and doesn't even hold a candle to past efforts by Hammer or indeed Francis Ford Coppola.
It wasn't so much the deviation from the plot of the book that did it - pretty much every Dracula production does that to a certain degree and that is half of what makes these things fun to watch. It was more perhaps the casting, weak characterisation and the fact that most of the action seemed to be crammed into the final 15 minutes that did it. Mina Murray was almost offensively miscast in my opinion and Marc Warren, of whom I am normally a fan, didn't have the charisma or presence to pull off the strong character that is Dracula.
On a plus side, the costumes and sets were excellent, as they tend to be in most BBC period productions and there were some interesting themes, such as the blackening of Dracula's fingernails which perhaps hinted at the corruption that lies in the cursed character. Other than that the rewrite was a weak and disappointing production and doesn't even hold a candle to past efforts by Hammer or indeed Francis Ford Coppola.
What were they thinking?
donnasuph27 April 2019
I have been a fan of Bram Stokers novel and it's many film adaptations for years. At 70 years old I have seen nearly all. I can safely say this is quite possibly one of the worst Dracula films I have ever seen. How can so many actors that I have admired and enjoyed in the past be so awful in this? Not just some of them ,ALL of them. I was embarrassed for the lot. Stink,stank stunk!
Well - It's got Dracula in it...
SJ_Jones28 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Apart from that, there's not a lot of similarity to the original book, Bram Stoker's Dracula. In the book Mina never meets Dracula, Harker lives, Dracula is killed back in Transylvania and no one had Syphilis. If you want to watch a film to know the original story - watch the one with Keanu Reeves as Harker - it stays a lot truer! But taking it just as a film - it's quite good.
I prefer Marc Warren in things like Hustle. This is very similar to his recent performance as Teatime in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather, both were a little disappointing. The actress playing Mina was also very weak. The real star of the show is Lucy, although I can't help thinking that they really wanted Kate Winslet.
It feels quite rushed, with an anticlimactic ending, maybe it would have been better as a mini-series. But good filmography, especially the small shots representing Dracula's true nature.
I prefer Marc Warren in things like Hustle. This is very similar to his recent performance as Teatime in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather, both were a little disappointing. The actress playing Mina was also very weak. The real star of the show is Lucy, although I can't help thinking that they really wanted Kate Winslet.
It feels quite rushed, with an anticlimactic ending, maybe it would have been better as a mini-series. But good filmography, especially the small shots representing Dracula's true nature.
Dracula...this isn't!!
j-martin730 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
What on earth was the BBC thinking? This is bad bad bad. Pretentious camera work, poor location shooting (No Transyilvania!) & without exception everyone overacts. Lording it up to the point of parody.
SPOILER ALERT:- Lord Holmwood suffers from syphilis and with the help of a black magic group, instigates Count Dracula's journey to England. To cure the ailing lord with some blood magic, so he can bed his bride,Lucy Westenra. What complete boXXXXks! Of all the adaptations out there, this is easily the worst! I send my heartfelt sympathy to the Bram Stoker estate. Harcourt, you should be ashamed... PART OF HARCOURT'S PRESS RELEASE:- "This is my personal take on the classic Bram Stoker novel. And I hope its scenes of sex, horror and disease will blow the cobwebs off traditional period drama, and provide a classic literary chiller perfect for a dark winter night."
CLASSIC LITERARY CHILLER. Dillusions of Grandeur... A pretentious attempt at re-writing a LEGEND that is BRAM STOKER'S Dracula...No one else comes close, so please stop trying!
SPOILER ALERT:- Lord Holmwood suffers from syphilis and with the help of a black magic group, instigates Count Dracula's journey to England. To cure the ailing lord with some blood magic, so he can bed his bride,Lucy Westenra. What complete boXXXXks! Of all the adaptations out there, this is easily the worst! I send my heartfelt sympathy to the Bram Stoker estate. Harcourt, you should be ashamed... PART OF HARCOURT'S PRESS RELEASE:- "This is my personal take on the classic Bram Stoker novel. And I hope its scenes of sex, horror and disease will blow the cobwebs off traditional period drama, and provide a classic literary chiller perfect for a dark winter night."
CLASSIC LITERARY CHILLER. Dillusions of Grandeur... A pretentious attempt at re-writing a LEGEND that is BRAM STOKER'S Dracula...No one else comes close, so please stop trying!
Refreshing but still respectful version of the classic tale.
misbegotten29 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I really liked this version of 'Dracula'. Okay, so there are changes made from the original novel, but that's something all the various TV and movie adaptations are guilty of (even 1992's 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' - the most faithful version made so far - took liberties with the character of Dracula himself, trying to turn him into a sympathetic, romantic figure).
At least this time, most of the changes served a purpose, as they were perfectly in keeping with what this particular adaptation was trying to achieve. Sex has always been one of the major themes of 'Dracula' and the vampire myth. Vampirism is a blatant metaphor for the sexual act (they're both forms of fluid transaction) and the Count represents pure, animalistic, sexual liberation at odds with the extremely repressed attitudes of Victorian society. Having Holmwood suffering from syphilis and unable to consummate his marriage to Lucy was an extremely clever twist. She grows increasingly frustrated and in doing so, subconsciously and unwittingly invites Dracula into her bed (the scene in which the Count seduces her while her husband lies asleep next to them was surprisingly twisted). A key scene that foreshadows this is when news reaches the Holmwood household that the storm-tossed Demeter is going to run aground on the beach below, and Lucy tells Mina that she wants to "see death". Lucy is so stifled and empty without physical love, that she's even prepared to experience the only thing that might match it's intensity. To her, life without passion is no life at all.
In contrast, Mina is the polar opposite to her friend, even confessing to Lucy that she has no desire to "touch" her fiancé, Jonathan Harker. This is why Dracula actively pursues Mina after casually killing and vampirising Lucy - he represents both the life-affirming and destructive aspects of open sexual behaviour and obsession. He is both liberator and destroyer. Lucy gave herself to him freely, so she is ultimately of no great interest to him - just another casual conquest. But the virginal, closeted and repressed Mina represents a greater challenge - his corruption and degradation of her will be far sweeter than the uncomplicated seduction of Lucy.
The fate of the two friends is intriguing: Lucy pays for her sexual awakening with an early death, but she has experienced the pure, undiluted passion that she so desperately wanted, and without which she regarded her life as worthless. Compare with Mina, who (even though the story concludes with a hint of a possible romance with Seward), will forever be pining after her dead fiancé, and apparently has nothing to look forward to but a long, lonely and passionless life as a spinster.
Regarding the cast, Sophia Miles was the perfect Lucy, and helped make her far more rounded than the usual spoilt, flighty character seen in most other adaptations. Stephanie Leonidas as Mina was often eclipsed next to Miles, and struggled to make much of an impression. Marc Warren skillfully underplayed the Count, suggesting a constant brooding menace just under the surface, threatening to erupt.
This version is not without problems. The pacing works well throughout most of it's running time, but the last twenty minutes is incredibly rushed. As a result, the heroes' confrontations with Lucy and subsequently the Count are just too brief and therefore not very satisfying. Lucy in particular doesn't put up much of a fight, and basically just lies down and allows herself to be staked. And the final twist - revealing Dracula still alive on the streets of London - is underwhelming, because it was so clearly foreshadowed (after the Count is staked, then collapses and begins to dissolve into smoke, an anxious Van Helsing repeatedly asks Seward if he's sure the heart was pierced). It would have been far better to have a glimpse of a still-active Lucy, especially as Holmwood appeared to have botched her staking (the stake seemed to be buried in her midriff instead of her heart).
At least this time, most of the changes served a purpose, as they were perfectly in keeping with what this particular adaptation was trying to achieve. Sex has always been one of the major themes of 'Dracula' and the vampire myth. Vampirism is a blatant metaphor for the sexual act (they're both forms of fluid transaction) and the Count represents pure, animalistic, sexual liberation at odds with the extremely repressed attitudes of Victorian society. Having Holmwood suffering from syphilis and unable to consummate his marriage to Lucy was an extremely clever twist. She grows increasingly frustrated and in doing so, subconsciously and unwittingly invites Dracula into her bed (the scene in which the Count seduces her while her husband lies asleep next to them was surprisingly twisted). A key scene that foreshadows this is when news reaches the Holmwood household that the storm-tossed Demeter is going to run aground on the beach below, and Lucy tells Mina that she wants to "see death". Lucy is so stifled and empty without physical love, that she's even prepared to experience the only thing that might match it's intensity. To her, life without passion is no life at all.
In contrast, Mina is the polar opposite to her friend, even confessing to Lucy that she has no desire to "touch" her fiancé, Jonathan Harker. This is why Dracula actively pursues Mina after casually killing and vampirising Lucy - he represents both the life-affirming and destructive aspects of open sexual behaviour and obsession. He is both liberator and destroyer. Lucy gave herself to him freely, so she is ultimately of no great interest to him - just another casual conquest. But the virginal, closeted and repressed Mina represents a greater challenge - his corruption and degradation of her will be far sweeter than the uncomplicated seduction of Lucy.
The fate of the two friends is intriguing: Lucy pays for her sexual awakening with an early death, but she has experienced the pure, undiluted passion that she so desperately wanted, and without which she regarded her life as worthless. Compare with Mina, who (even though the story concludes with a hint of a possible romance with Seward), will forever be pining after her dead fiancé, and apparently has nothing to look forward to but a long, lonely and passionless life as a spinster.
Regarding the cast, Sophia Miles was the perfect Lucy, and helped make her far more rounded than the usual spoilt, flighty character seen in most other adaptations. Stephanie Leonidas as Mina was often eclipsed next to Miles, and struggled to make much of an impression. Marc Warren skillfully underplayed the Count, suggesting a constant brooding menace just under the surface, threatening to erupt.
This version is not without problems. The pacing works well throughout most of it's running time, but the last twenty minutes is incredibly rushed. As a result, the heroes' confrontations with Lucy and subsequently the Count are just too brief and therefore not very satisfying. Lucy in particular doesn't put up much of a fight, and basically just lies down and allows herself to be staked. And the final twist - revealing Dracula still alive on the streets of London - is underwhelming, because it was so clearly foreshadowed (after the Count is staked, then collapses and begins to dissolve into smoke, an anxious Van Helsing repeatedly asks Seward if he's sure the heart was pierced). It would have been far better to have a glimpse of a still-active Lucy, especially as Holmwood appeared to have botched her staking (the stake seemed to be buried in her midriff instead of her heart).
A weak, unsatisfying, and disappointing affair
bensonmum26 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Based on several aspects of the plot description for this 2006 BBC version of Dracula, it would be understandable to ask what this production has to do with either the Bram Stoker novel or the many film adaptations that came before it. In this version, Lord Holmwood, with the assistance of a Satanic/blood cult, sends for Count Dracula hoping for a cure to the syphilis he inherited from his parents. He saw what the disease did to them and wants to rid his body of the disease before he marries his fiancé, Lucy. Count Dracula arrives in England, but has other plans in mind that do not include Lord Holmwood. Dracula views England as the center of a new empire he wants to control. And his first victim Lucy.
Honestly, though, these changes to the traditional Dracula plot (other than those involving the Van Helsing character) had little effect on my enjoyment or lack thereof of this movie. What really did in the BBC's Dracula for me was the sloppy direction and poor acting. While much of the movie looked good (And don't all period BBC pieces?), it felt so rushed that there was never a chance to get to know the characters or to build atmosphere or do any of those things necessary for effective period horror. The movie jumps from scene to scene to scene without providing either establishing shots or taking the time for a scene to end properly. Quick camera cuts, poor lighting, overusing hand held camera shots, and MTV-style editing are just a few of the sins that I'm laying at the feet of director Bill Eagles. As for the problems I had with the acting, other than David Suchet (who is on camera far too briefly), I cannot name an actor who stood out. They were either just plain old bad (Sophia Myles as Lucy and Stephanie Leonides as Mina) or they were wrong for their part (Tom Burke as Dr. Seward and Marc Warren as Dracula). While a few random set-pieces were quite nice, there are too many problems for me to call this Dracula a good movie.
Overall, the BBC's most recent stab at filming Dracula is a weak, unsatisfying, and disappointing affair. For what it's worth, I'll give it a 4/10.
Honestly, though, these changes to the traditional Dracula plot (other than those involving the Van Helsing character) had little effect on my enjoyment or lack thereof of this movie. What really did in the BBC's Dracula for me was the sloppy direction and poor acting. While much of the movie looked good (And don't all period BBC pieces?), it felt so rushed that there was never a chance to get to know the characters or to build atmosphere or do any of those things necessary for effective period horror. The movie jumps from scene to scene to scene without providing either establishing shots or taking the time for a scene to end properly. Quick camera cuts, poor lighting, overusing hand held camera shots, and MTV-style editing are just a few of the sins that I'm laying at the feet of director Bill Eagles. As for the problems I had with the acting, other than David Suchet (who is on camera far too briefly), I cannot name an actor who stood out. They were either just plain old bad (Sophia Myles as Lucy and Stephanie Leonides as Mina) or they were wrong for their part (Tom Burke as Dr. Seward and Marc Warren as Dracula). While a few random set-pieces were quite nice, there are too many problems for me to call this Dracula a good movie.
Overall, the BBC's most recent stab at filming Dracula is a weak, unsatisfying, and disappointing affair. For what it's worth, I'll give it a 4/10.
Fantastic sets and nice atmosphere
jebstrong-112 February 2007
There are many negative reviews here but this had some lovely facets to it. The sets and the locations were absolutely first class as was the camera work. The acting was by no means bad and for once the BBC mercifully spared us from their usual modern cheap trick of getting the male leads to prance round in the nude. This is a different version of the classic tale but quite refreshing for all that. I normally like Marc Warren's acting style but in this case its unfortunately true to say he did not suit the role. Sophie Myles is a fine actress so no complaints there except to say they should have expanded her role. Despite this productions' defects, it does have certain sterling merits and is worth watching out for.
Pretty good for a made-for- (British) TV production.
poolandrews29 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Dracula starts at the 'Westenra House, London 1899' where both joy & tragedy strikes the life of Arthur Holmwood (Dan Stevens) as on the one hand he ask's his girlfriend Lucy Westenra (Sophia Myles) to marry him but soon after he learns that he has the fatal degenerative disease syphilis that will slowly eat away at him. Meanwhile Lucy's friend Mina Murray's (Stephanie Leonidas) boyfriend the solicitor Jonathan Harker (Rafe Spall) is told by his boss to travel to Transylvania to concluded business with a Count Dracula (Marc Warren) who wants to relocate to Britian. Once there he discovers Dracula isn't all he seems... Back in England at 'Castle Holmwood, Whitby' & Arthur is up to something sinister, something to do with Count Dracula who has travelled to England on the ship the Demeter, the ship crashes on a beach near Castle Holmwood & when investigated all the crew are either dead or missing...
This one-off English production was directed by Bill Eagles & was produced for this year's festive schedule by the great British institution that is the BBC & I thought it was a pretty decent effort especially when I consider what else has been on over here during Christmas but that's another story. This time the adaptation of the Bran Stoker novel falls to Stewart Harcourt & he takes a fair amount of 'artistic creativity' with the original source material. To be fair I don't know whether this was advertised or intended as a faithful adaptation or not, I just sat down & watched it last night, but haven't we had enough Dracula films already? It's funny because I before the month of December I hadn't seen a Dracula film in literally years & then by some complete coincidence I go & see three in one month, amazing eh? The basic story of Dracula is good, you know the Vampire bits, him coming over to England & sucking the blood of beautiful young women, the Van Helsing character & the late 19th Century setting which this version has but it also changes a few things, it leaves a few things out completely & adds a few things as well. I particularly liked the fact that Dracula was brought over here by someone, he was brought over here for a purpose & I also liked the fact that he had to be invited into the country. I didn't like what they did with the Van Helsing character though, they completely changed him in every way except name. I thought it was a decent & entertaining adaptation that tried a few new things out & generally speaking it all moves along at a nice pace & they worked pretty well.
Director Eagles does OK, I think I'm right in saying it was shot on video so it doesn't quite have that grand look about it but this is TV I suppose. Unsurprisingly the sets & production are excellent for a BBC production, we really do know how to shoot period pieces over here & some of the locations are great too especially the graveyard with snaking vines & roots everywhere & the scenes inside Count Dracula's castle which are all filmed with an emphasis on eerie blue/green lighting. My only complaint is that sometimes it looks & feels like a Merchant Ivory Sense and Sensibility period drama & forgets that it's a horror film. There are a couple of scene with gore but nothing too nasty & a love scene as well.
Technically Dracula is as good a it could have been, the sets, the costumes, the props & the overall period production design is top-notch. For a British TV production this is pretty impressive. The acting was OK with the fine actor David Suchet playing Van Helsing somewhat wasted as he doesn't make an appearance in the film until past the hour mark. I'm not sue about Dracula himself, he looks a bit too young & handsome for me, or is that just jealousy?
Dracula isn't the best adaptation of the source material that's out there but as a stand alone film I liked it & there are certainly worse Dracula's out there. I have no idea whether this will see the light of day on DVD/video but it wouldn't surprise me if it did & if it doesn't it'll get a repeat soon enough & when it does I'd advise you that it's well worth a watch if you missed it this time around.
This one-off English production was directed by Bill Eagles & was produced for this year's festive schedule by the great British institution that is the BBC & I thought it was a pretty decent effort especially when I consider what else has been on over here during Christmas but that's another story. This time the adaptation of the Bran Stoker novel falls to Stewart Harcourt & he takes a fair amount of 'artistic creativity' with the original source material. To be fair I don't know whether this was advertised or intended as a faithful adaptation or not, I just sat down & watched it last night, but haven't we had enough Dracula films already? It's funny because I before the month of December I hadn't seen a Dracula film in literally years & then by some complete coincidence I go & see three in one month, amazing eh? The basic story of Dracula is good, you know the Vampire bits, him coming over to England & sucking the blood of beautiful young women, the Van Helsing character & the late 19th Century setting which this version has but it also changes a few things, it leaves a few things out completely & adds a few things as well. I particularly liked the fact that Dracula was brought over here by someone, he was brought over here for a purpose & I also liked the fact that he had to be invited into the country. I didn't like what they did with the Van Helsing character though, they completely changed him in every way except name. I thought it was a decent & entertaining adaptation that tried a few new things out & generally speaking it all moves along at a nice pace & they worked pretty well.
Director Eagles does OK, I think I'm right in saying it was shot on video so it doesn't quite have that grand look about it but this is TV I suppose. Unsurprisingly the sets & production are excellent for a BBC production, we really do know how to shoot period pieces over here & some of the locations are great too especially the graveyard with snaking vines & roots everywhere & the scenes inside Count Dracula's castle which are all filmed with an emphasis on eerie blue/green lighting. My only complaint is that sometimes it looks & feels like a Merchant Ivory Sense and Sensibility period drama & forgets that it's a horror film. There are a couple of scene with gore but nothing too nasty & a love scene as well.
Technically Dracula is as good a it could have been, the sets, the costumes, the props & the overall period production design is top-notch. For a British TV production this is pretty impressive. The acting was OK with the fine actor David Suchet playing Van Helsing somewhat wasted as he doesn't make an appearance in the film until past the hour mark. I'm not sue about Dracula himself, he looks a bit too young & handsome for me, or is that just jealousy?
Dracula isn't the best adaptation of the source material that's out there but as a stand alone film I liked it & there are certainly worse Dracula's out there. I have no idea whether this will see the light of day on DVD/video but it wouldn't surprise me if it did & if it doesn't it'll get a repeat soon enough & when it does I'd advise you that it's well worth a watch if you missed it this time around.
Good looking- but extremely bad and unsatisfying adaptation.
Boba_Fett113817 September 2007
This a professionally and stylish looking BBC made-for-TV adaptation of the famous Dracula story by Bram Stoker, that however differs too much from the original story and adds very little new and interesting in exchange. On top of the that the movie has an extremely poor flow, which makes the movie confusing and dull to watch, with too many- and poorly developed characters.
The movie makes too many leaps in time and the overall flow itself also isn't really perfect. It also makes the movie confusing to follow at times, especially if you don't know the Dracula story in advance. It also makes some of the sequences weak and causes to leave an unsatisfying impression such as the introduction of the Dracula character. Boom! He suddenly is there without any build-up. Its entire build-up and flow, or better said the lack of it all, is the reason why the movie just never becomes scary of even tense to watch. It's an extremely poorly told movie, without any introductions or development. It makes this a very disjointed and hard movie to watch.
The movie leaves lots of room to put in multiple romantic plot-lines, which makes the movie also drag in points, especially the beginning.
The movie was surprisingly good looking. I liked its style. It was a fine combination between the British upper-class kind of atmosphere and the more dark and moody horror atmosphere. The sets and cinematography were simply good.
Even though the cast has some good British TV-actors in it, the acting is still one of the weaker spots and irritating part of the movie. It's painfully bad at times and unintentionally funny to watch. Most actors aren't really to be blamed for this but rather the poor script that makes some bad choices and has some poor and formulaic dialogs in it. It also doesn't help that none of the characters are introduced and developed properly. Seriously, who is who in this movie and what is their purpose exactly?
Dracula really isn't right looking in this movie. I mean, even in his human form he's looking ugly and like a mad monster. He's supposed to be seductive, charismatic and sophisticated. He's none of those things in the movie and besides the actor portraying him looks too young.
A version that you're better off not watching.
2/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
The movie makes too many leaps in time and the overall flow itself also isn't really perfect. It also makes the movie confusing to follow at times, especially if you don't know the Dracula story in advance. It also makes some of the sequences weak and causes to leave an unsatisfying impression such as the introduction of the Dracula character. Boom! He suddenly is there without any build-up. Its entire build-up and flow, or better said the lack of it all, is the reason why the movie just never becomes scary of even tense to watch. It's an extremely poorly told movie, without any introductions or development. It makes this a very disjointed and hard movie to watch.
The movie leaves lots of room to put in multiple romantic plot-lines, which makes the movie also drag in points, especially the beginning.
The movie was surprisingly good looking. I liked its style. It was a fine combination between the British upper-class kind of atmosphere and the more dark and moody horror atmosphere. The sets and cinematography were simply good.
Even though the cast has some good British TV-actors in it, the acting is still one of the weaker spots and irritating part of the movie. It's painfully bad at times and unintentionally funny to watch. Most actors aren't really to be blamed for this but rather the poor script that makes some bad choices and has some poor and formulaic dialogs in it. It also doesn't help that none of the characters are introduced and developed properly. Seriously, who is who in this movie and what is their purpose exactly?
Dracula really isn't right looking in this movie. I mean, even in his human form he's looking ugly and like a mad monster. He's supposed to be seductive, charismatic and sophisticated. He's none of those things in the movie and besides the actor portraying him looks too young.
A version that you're better off not watching.
2/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
A British costume drama with too big plot and too little Dracula.
kriitikko25 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
In 1977 BBC produced three hours long "Count Dracula", a very faithful and one of the best adaptations of Bram Stoker's classic vampire story. In 2006 BBC excited fans by releasing a new version of the same book, this time directed by Bill Eagles. Sadly, this one doesn't come anywhere near the 1977 versions quality.
Set in the 1899 Victorian England, Lord Arthur Holmwood (Dan Stevens) has just proposed the girl of his dreams, Lucy Westenra (Sophia Myles), when he finds out that his father has died of syphilis that he had for number of years. The disease has been passed to Arthur, who decides to keep it a secret and in desperation turns to Alfred Singleton (Donald Sumpter), a leader of a strange cult, who promises that Arthur can be cured, if he finances a strange Romanian noble man Count Dracula (Marc Warren) to England. Arthur arranges Jonathan Harker (Rafe Spall) to travel to Transylvania and make the deal with the Count. Jonathan's fiancée Mina Murray (Stephanie Leonidas) stays with Lucy until his return.
Technically this film is typical BBC quality work with beautiful sets, colorful sceneries and music fit to the scenes. However, that alone is not enough to save this mess. What's with the plot? I understand that Stoker's book is not the most easiest thing to film and people want to add new things to the story, but Stoker's book has never had a truly faithful adaptation, so why such huge changes? Not only does the plot have more than enough for one film, the events go with such an incredible speed that it is easy to loose your track here. The entire sequence with Jonathan and Dracula in the Castle, one of the most important parts of the story, is over so fast, that if I had briefly gone to a toilet I would have missed it. Now, there are some parts from Stoker's book, like the shipwreck and Lucy's death, and the film tries to keep the themes from the book, the Victorian era morality, dangers of affairs and Catholicism. However, even those themes seem to get lost in this film.
One of the biggest flaws is the way film presents most of its characters. The good natured and kind hearted Arthur has been turned to a desperate, almost menacing man who at times appears as a complete jerk. Lucy becomes so desperate for sex that she would have probably opened her legs to a gardener if Dracula hadn't come. Abraham Van Helsing has been lowered to a minor character who briefly appears towards the end of the movie. If that's not bad enough, he is played by talented David "Poirot" Suchet, who is completely wasted in this film. Dracula has also gone through a terrible change. While still in Castle and under a heavy makeup, Marc Warren actually makes him creepy and interesting. However, when he becomes young and goes to England, he merely appears as a bored playboy, poor man's Frank Langella, who doesn't have any chemistry with neither of the women (which makes Lucy's seduction scene ridiculous). Although I'm not fond of the more romantic version of Dracula in Coppola's film, at least Gary Oldman was interesting. Warren's Dracula doesn't appear neither as a seducer or a monster, he just is there.
Dracula appears very little in this film and with all the other plots going around here, the film should not have been called "Dracula". Because all in all, this is a period-costume-drama film that just happens to have a vampire as one of the (minor) characters. If you haven't read the book or didn't like it, then this may be good film for you.
Set in the 1899 Victorian England, Lord Arthur Holmwood (Dan Stevens) has just proposed the girl of his dreams, Lucy Westenra (Sophia Myles), when he finds out that his father has died of syphilis that he had for number of years. The disease has been passed to Arthur, who decides to keep it a secret and in desperation turns to Alfred Singleton (Donald Sumpter), a leader of a strange cult, who promises that Arthur can be cured, if he finances a strange Romanian noble man Count Dracula (Marc Warren) to England. Arthur arranges Jonathan Harker (Rafe Spall) to travel to Transylvania and make the deal with the Count. Jonathan's fiancée Mina Murray (Stephanie Leonidas) stays with Lucy until his return.
Technically this film is typical BBC quality work with beautiful sets, colorful sceneries and music fit to the scenes. However, that alone is not enough to save this mess. What's with the plot? I understand that Stoker's book is not the most easiest thing to film and people want to add new things to the story, but Stoker's book has never had a truly faithful adaptation, so why such huge changes? Not only does the plot have more than enough for one film, the events go with such an incredible speed that it is easy to loose your track here. The entire sequence with Jonathan and Dracula in the Castle, one of the most important parts of the story, is over so fast, that if I had briefly gone to a toilet I would have missed it. Now, there are some parts from Stoker's book, like the shipwreck and Lucy's death, and the film tries to keep the themes from the book, the Victorian era morality, dangers of affairs and Catholicism. However, even those themes seem to get lost in this film.
One of the biggest flaws is the way film presents most of its characters. The good natured and kind hearted Arthur has been turned to a desperate, almost menacing man who at times appears as a complete jerk. Lucy becomes so desperate for sex that she would have probably opened her legs to a gardener if Dracula hadn't come. Abraham Van Helsing has been lowered to a minor character who briefly appears towards the end of the movie. If that's not bad enough, he is played by talented David "Poirot" Suchet, who is completely wasted in this film. Dracula has also gone through a terrible change. While still in Castle and under a heavy makeup, Marc Warren actually makes him creepy and interesting. However, when he becomes young and goes to England, he merely appears as a bored playboy, poor man's Frank Langella, who doesn't have any chemistry with neither of the women (which makes Lucy's seduction scene ridiculous). Although I'm not fond of the more romantic version of Dracula in Coppola's film, at least Gary Oldman was interesting. Warren's Dracula doesn't appear neither as a seducer or a monster, he just is there.
Dracula appears very little in this film and with all the other plots going around here, the film should not have been called "Dracula". Because all in all, this is a period-costume-drama film that just happens to have a vampire as one of the (minor) characters. If you haven't read the book or didn't like it, then this may be good film for you.
On the lower end of the adaptation scale
dr_foreman6 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
There are countless TV and movie adaptations of "Dracula." No single adaptation is perfect, but some of them are quite good. Unfortunately, this one falls under the disappointing category.
The storyline deviates a lot from Bram Stoker's book. I guess the changes wouldn't bother me if I thought the "substitute" plot was any good - but it's not. This version of the story focuses on Lord Holmwood's battle with syphilis; in a weird twist, he actually brings Dracula to England in the hopes that the vampire can cure him. Holmwood also deceives Lucy at great length, concealing his condition from her even though they're married (this doesn't make any sense to me, actually; surely he would move heaven and earth to delay the wedding until AFTER Dracula cures him?)
As a result of this plot tinkering, the subtexts of Stoker's novel are dragged out into the light in a somewhat tedious fashion; this is no longer a fantasy story, or a commentary on social diseases, it's ABOUT social diseases. Hmm - I don't think I like that. It's too unsubtle for me.
I also don't really like this version's intense focus on the Seward / Holmwood / Lucy love triangle. It boils the whole story down to teenage love shenanigans. In fact, the entire production feels so juvenile that the arrival of Van Helsing, an actual adult (played by David Suchet, who can actually act!) comes like a breath of summer wind, or some-such pleasant thing.
This version also tries too hard to look "right." Dracula's castle is shot in weird green-o-vision, and the cutting is so fast you'll think the thing has been edited together by monkeys.
On the positive side, I enjoy Suchet's performance, and the production values are pretty good overall, my gripes notwithstanding. Marc Warren might have been a decent Dracula, though he doesn't have enough screen time to make an impression. And hey, Sophia Myles looks oh-so-good in those period dresses; her appearance boosted my rating up a star or two.
As a whole, though, this is weak stuff. I used to rely on the BBC to produce quality, intelligent TV for a sophisticated audience, but for the past few years it seems to me that they've been pitching low, so to speak. Shame, that.
The storyline deviates a lot from Bram Stoker's book. I guess the changes wouldn't bother me if I thought the "substitute" plot was any good - but it's not. This version of the story focuses on Lord Holmwood's battle with syphilis; in a weird twist, he actually brings Dracula to England in the hopes that the vampire can cure him. Holmwood also deceives Lucy at great length, concealing his condition from her even though they're married (this doesn't make any sense to me, actually; surely he would move heaven and earth to delay the wedding until AFTER Dracula cures him?)
As a result of this plot tinkering, the subtexts of Stoker's novel are dragged out into the light in a somewhat tedious fashion; this is no longer a fantasy story, or a commentary on social diseases, it's ABOUT social diseases. Hmm - I don't think I like that. It's too unsubtle for me.
I also don't really like this version's intense focus on the Seward / Holmwood / Lucy love triangle. It boils the whole story down to teenage love shenanigans. In fact, the entire production feels so juvenile that the arrival of Van Helsing, an actual adult (played by David Suchet, who can actually act!) comes like a breath of summer wind, or some-such pleasant thing.
This version also tries too hard to look "right." Dracula's castle is shot in weird green-o-vision, and the cutting is so fast you'll think the thing has been edited together by monkeys.
On the positive side, I enjoy Suchet's performance, and the production values are pretty good overall, my gripes notwithstanding. Marc Warren might have been a decent Dracula, though he doesn't have enough screen time to make an impression. And hey, Sophia Myles looks oh-so-good in those period dresses; her appearance boosted my rating up a star or two.
As a whole, though, this is weak stuff. I used to rely on the BBC to produce quality, intelligent TV for a sophisticated audience, but for the past few years it seems to me that they've been pitching low, so to speak. Shame, that.
Nice photography ... shame about the cast
gfnwmn1 January 2007
Apart from the streaks of lightning across obvious mock-ups, the moody photography of this film was brilliant, and in keeping with this Gothic masterpiece. But I wonder how many more treatments we're going to get of Bram Stiker's Dracula.
The casting, I thought, was abysmal. Marc Warren looked to me like a petulant teenager who didn't want to be in this film, and who was thoroughly bored with it. He exuded none of the sexuality that people like Lee, Langela and Jourdan did in previous incarnations of the mesmerising blood-sucking fiend.
Stephanie Leonidas and Sophia Myles were a couple of the weakest players of Mina and Lucy I have ever seen in a Dracula adaptation even compared with the early Hammer version.
Rafe Spall didn't have much of a chance to play a role - Harker was a kind of mechanism to get Dracula to England and to give the audience some link to the appearance of Mina in the film. If the whole Harker bit of the script was deleted it wouldn't have made much difference. Holmwoods determination to be cured of syphilis by bringing Dracula to England should have sufficed.
The person who had any real presence was David Suchet as Van Helsing, but sadly his part was only too small and badly written. I think he would have been a great Van Helsing if only he was given the opportunity. Instead he had a bit-part which didn't give him enough time for his character to develop.
I'm really very disappointed in this production apart from the photography. It has some really good ideas about how the Bram Stoker story can be further developed but it missed out because of a weak script, weak acting, and bad casting. Not a film I'd be rushing to see again.
The casting, I thought, was abysmal. Marc Warren looked to me like a petulant teenager who didn't want to be in this film, and who was thoroughly bored with it. He exuded none of the sexuality that people like Lee, Langela and Jourdan did in previous incarnations of the mesmerising blood-sucking fiend.
Stephanie Leonidas and Sophia Myles were a couple of the weakest players of Mina and Lucy I have ever seen in a Dracula adaptation even compared with the early Hammer version.
Rafe Spall didn't have much of a chance to play a role - Harker was a kind of mechanism to get Dracula to England and to give the audience some link to the appearance of Mina in the film. If the whole Harker bit of the script was deleted it wouldn't have made much difference. Holmwoods determination to be cured of syphilis by bringing Dracula to England should have sufficed.
The person who had any real presence was David Suchet as Van Helsing, but sadly his part was only too small and badly written. I think he would have been a great Van Helsing if only he was given the opportunity. Instead he had a bit-part which didn't give him enough time for his character to develop.
I'm really very disappointed in this production apart from the photography. It has some really good ideas about how the Bram Stoker story can be further developed but it missed out because of a weak script, weak acting, and bad casting. Not a film I'd be rushing to see again.
One of the Worst
Michael_Elliott26 February 2008
Dracula (2006)
* (out of 4)
Incredibly bad adaptation from Masterpiece Theatre. Before he gets married, a Lord (Dan Stevens) discovers that he has syphilis. The Lord is told that a man named Count Dracula (Marc Warren)) can get rid of the disease. Um, yeah. I'm really not sure where to start with this film but it's pretty much bad on all levels but it somewhat remains interesting just because of how bad it is. Dracula can stay out in the sunlight and drink wine here so good for him. The performances are all incredibly bad and rival a high school play. The direction is all over the place and it's quite clear the director didn't know how he wanted to tell the story. The film plays so fast it's like you're watching it with the FF button going full blast.
* (out of 4)
Incredibly bad adaptation from Masterpiece Theatre. Before he gets married, a Lord (Dan Stevens) discovers that he has syphilis. The Lord is told that a man named Count Dracula (Marc Warren)) can get rid of the disease. Um, yeah. I'm really not sure where to start with this film but it's pretty much bad on all levels but it somewhat remains interesting just because of how bad it is. Dracula can stay out in the sunlight and drink wine here so good for him. The performances are all incredibly bad and rival a high school play. The direction is all over the place and it's quite clear the director didn't know how he wanted to tell the story. The film plays so fast it's like you're watching it with the FF button going full blast.
Good Looking, But Can't Rival The Original Dracula
tabuno25 March 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Great atmospherics, good creepy set designs, yet the divergence of this Dracula storyline makes for a rather jarring, disorienting experience that requires some resilience to get used to. The photography and cinematography are at times fabulous and then at times descend into amateurism. There is the Dracula present in the sunlight, a violation of an important authentic characteristic of which this Dracula movie version tries to impart. Some of the primary characters, even the supposedly good ones are also somewhat repulsive and or disreputable even though they may have had good intentions. With blurring of good and evil, this Dracula version seems to reek more of darkness than light, more ominous portents than hope. Even an important character such as Van Helsing is puzzling because a huge but certainly odd question is why is he even alive, albeit necessary, by the time he reappears in this movie version?
Instead of entertainment, this movie dispenses a depressive sense of dread than enlightened compelling enjoyment of a movie. The attempts at justifiable character motivations come close to succeeding though the time limits of a movie unlike a television series makes for too much of a rapid descent into a promising plot that deserved more depth and extended plot and character development. Even the powerful seductive, mesmerizing elements of Dracula and progeny are given understandably short shrift due to time constraints. In a rather sordid way, it is the original Bram Stoker Dracula story that makes this movie's version be consumed and deprived of its potential even as its different horror elements seek to burst through and come into fruition. The mood and the tone of the movie have their own unique fascinating elements, yet the brilliance of the original source material and multitude of subsequent adaptations raises the bar so high that Dracula (2006) is outshone in having to compare it to them. Consider the memorable Louis Jourdan's 1977 Public Broadcasting System television series in "Count Dracula" that captures the Dracula story so well and with near perfection.
Yet another wasted opportunity
stwmby11 July 2018
Why oh why oh why do scriptwriters, directors, producers, etc insist on taking wonderful books, ripping out the pages, and inserting garbage?
How dare the scriptwriter employed on this project believe he can improve on Stokers original?
Dracula is one of the finest, most frightening horror stories I have ever read. Why oh why oh why is no one prepared to make a faithful film of it?
How dare the scriptwriter employed on this project believe he can improve on Stokers original?
Dracula is one of the finest, most frightening horror stories I have ever read. Why oh why oh why is no one prepared to make a faithful film of it?
Glossy But Lacking Punch
partyboytjw29 December 2006
First off, this BBC version of Dracula is much glossier than other adaptations of the novel. However it doesn't follow the same exact plot of Bram Stoker's novel and as such there are many scenes from the novel that are cut from the screen version. This proves to be a major stumbling block as the version often feels like its under pressure to cram everything into a 90 minute production and as a result feels rushed and doesn't allow for a sense of darkness, foreboding or menace to develop, instead it is just there waiting for us when the story opens. What it could have done with was more time dedicated to Dracula before he arrived in England.
The TV version lacks punch because it doesn't allow for an adequate build up of terror and suspense, as the novel does. There is very little shown of Jonathan Harker and the count in Transylvania, and moments such as Dracula scrabbling vertically down a wall like a lizard are left out, there was also very little reference to the 3 brides of Dracula, which I found disappointing. These moments are strategically placed in Stoker's novel to build up the audience's fear and develop the being of Dracula, without them Dracula is simply presented as an evil creature, with no explanation why or how he has come to exist.
However, the scenes in Engalnd are, for much of the time, very good. Sophia Myles gives a very good performance as Lucy. The additional theme of syphillis works well in the story, and the tension between newly weds is also intriguing. But at the climax of the version there is a lack of total emotional and plot catharsis. I think that the main problem for this version of Dracula is that it isn't involving enough, it doesn't grip the viewer enough, I found myself at times reaching for the remote, which is something I rarely do.
Acting wise, Marc Warren is spectacularly miscast as Dracula, and while it is evident that he is doing the best he can, he comes off more like a public schoolboy gone off the rails, rather than an seductive ancient evil force (save for once deliciously evil decapitation near the end). However Sophia Myles is very good as Lucy, conveying a troubled woman torn between lust and love, she is also brilliantly seductive and evil when in Vampiric form.
All in all, I was mildly entertained by Dracula, but I felt it was an opportunity missed, with a longer running time, more scenes in Transylvania, a sharper dialogue, closer reference to the original novel and with a more menacing Count, this could have been something a bit special, unfortunately it left me feeling a tad flat.
The TV version lacks punch because it doesn't allow for an adequate build up of terror and suspense, as the novel does. There is very little shown of Jonathan Harker and the count in Transylvania, and moments such as Dracula scrabbling vertically down a wall like a lizard are left out, there was also very little reference to the 3 brides of Dracula, which I found disappointing. These moments are strategically placed in Stoker's novel to build up the audience's fear and develop the being of Dracula, without them Dracula is simply presented as an evil creature, with no explanation why or how he has come to exist.
However, the scenes in Engalnd are, for much of the time, very good. Sophia Myles gives a very good performance as Lucy. The additional theme of syphillis works well in the story, and the tension between newly weds is also intriguing. But at the climax of the version there is a lack of total emotional and plot catharsis. I think that the main problem for this version of Dracula is that it isn't involving enough, it doesn't grip the viewer enough, I found myself at times reaching for the remote, which is something I rarely do.
Acting wise, Marc Warren is spectacularly miscast as Dracula, and while it is evident that he is doing the best he can, he comes off more like a public schoolboy gone off the rails, rather than an seductive ancient evil force (save for once deliciously evil decapitation near the end). However Sophia Myles is very good as Lucy, conveying a troubled woman torn between lust and love, she is also brilliantly seductive and evil when in Vampiric form.
All in all, I was mildly entertained by Dracula, but I felt it was an opportunity missed, with a longer running time, more scenes in Transylvania, a sharper dialogue, closer reference to the original novel and with a more menacing Count, this could have been something a bit special, unfortunately it left me feeling a tad flat.
The problem is, some people had hoped to see Dracula
galensaysyes11 February 2007
...as I can attest, being one of them; and this isn't it. It's more like a Hammer Films sequel, except that here we don't get tall, haughty Christopher Lee; we don't even get the short, gloating blond guy from Brides of Dracula. Instead we get a pasty, wormy little creep--Guppy from Bleak House--and when he pops up, I'm thinking, Maybe this is Renfield, not crazy yet? And then he introduces himself, and I'm like, "Dracula? Dracula??????" He of the uncanny power over women, the great Boyar, the incarnation of ultimate evil??? Gary Oldman was better than this. Francis Lederer was better than this. The guy with the cape hiding his face in Plan Nine from Outer Space was better than this. Then a little later, up pops a nutty old man--Ben Gunn from Treasure Island? No, this one is Dr. Van Helsing!!! And Arthur Holmwood wants Dracula to cure his syphilis, so he bankrolls Uncle Creepy's vampire church to import him.... What???
I can't imagine that I could ever have liked this story much, no matter what they'd done with it, but I didn't like it at all here, with the scattershot editing, the unsympathetic characters, the fake make-up, Mina looking like a goof...and worst of all was them passing it off as a Masterpiece Theatre "classic" when so little of the book was left. Why couldn't they have changed the character names and called it something else? Huge disappointment.
I can't imagine that I could ever have liked this story much, no matter what they'd done with it, but I didn't like it at all here, with the scattershot editing, the unsympathetic characters, the fake make-up, Mina looking like a goof...and worst of all was them passing it off as a Masterpiece Theatre "classic" when so little of the book was left. Why couldn't they have changed the character names and called it something else? Huge disappointment.
Loved it!
madaboutscones30 December 2006
Dracula is one of the most filmed novels ever, and with every other book to film adaption, one question always crops up; Will it be faithful? Here in lies the first problem- the actual novel is quite dull. It has a fantastic opening of course, full of tension and horror, but after that it does fall rather flat. Because of this rather annoying fact, when you sit down and watch the films you can spot a pattern. Either the film makers will have subtly edited out the boring bits, which usually result in some rather glaring plot holes while the point of the story has been missed completely, or they will ditch the original story altogether, keep the more interesting characters and utter that most dreaded line, "In the spirit of the original". The first example will usually have ridiculous back story in tow (I'm looking at you Mr Coppola), while the second will inject as much sex as possible (you too, Mr Badham) or, God Forbid, move the story to modern day America (for shame, Mr Lussier, for shame).
This is why I loved this adaption of Dracula so much. While it has, for the most part, abandoned the original story, it hasn't forgotten the themes of Victorian morality, the dangers of illicit sex and the importance of faith- I thought the subtle hint of Catholicism was a nice touch. The story that was presented, Holmwood's desperate pursuit to find a cure for Syphillis and live a full life with Lucy, perfectly highlights the fear surrounding the disease at the time, as does the tragic outcome and realisation that in his quest to rid himself of one sexually transmitted disease, he has lost his wife to another.
The scene where Dracula seduces Lucy was beautifully done- sexy but not gratuitous, which is rare for a Dracula adaption, and is further evidence that the film makers have understood that, despite vampirism being Stoker's ultimate and timeless representation of STDs, Dracula is neither an erotic nor a romantic story. At it's core, it is a story about fear.
Many people scoffed when Marc Waren was announced as the one play the famous Count, but just like Daniel Craig's performance of James Bond, I believe his casting has become a case of 'just wait and see'. He was suitably seductive and sinister, and quite frankly I thought he was brilliant in the role, as was the rest of the cast. I was particularly impressed by Tom Burke and Stephanie Leonidas as Seward and Mina respectively.
I sincerely urge you to watch this, it's entertaining but clever, sexy but restrained, scary but without cheap shocks.
Bloody Brilliant.
This is why I loved this adaption of Dracula so much. While it has, for the most part, abandoned the original story, it hasn't forgotten the themes of Victorian morality, the dangers of illicit sex and the importance of faith- I thought the subtle hint of Catholicism was a nice touch. The story that was presented, Holmwood's desperate pursuit to find a cure for Syphillis and live a full life with Lucy, perfectly highlights the fear surrounding the disease at the time, as does the tragic outcome and realisation that in his quest to rid himself of one sexually transmitted disease, he has lost his wife to another.
The scene where Dracula seduces Lucy was beautifully done- sexy but not gratuitous, which is rare for a Dracula adaption, and is further evidence that the film makers have understood that, despite vampirism being Stoker's ultimate and timeless representation of STDs, Dracula is neither an erotic nor a romantic story. At it's core, it is a story about fear.
Many people scoffed when Marc Waren was announced as the one play the famous Count, but just like Daniel Craig's performance of James Bond, I believe his casting has become a case of 'just wait and see'. He was suitably seductive and sinister, and quite frankly I thought he was brilliant in the role, as was the rest of the cast. I was particularly impressed by Tom Burke and Stephanie Leonidas as Seward and Mina respectively.
I sincerely urge you to watch this, it's entertaining but clever, sexy but restrained, scary but without cheap shocks.
Bloody Brilliant.
It's Not Easy to Mess Up Dracula
BeRightBack30 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Such a great story! But this pretty TV movie from several years back comes close to ruining it.
Why did the showrunners need to add a syphilis subplot? Old Dracula's terrible makeup echoed Arthur's dad's terrible makeup. Maybe this was intetional.
Not the best version of the story, yet I watched. Waste of a mostly great cast.
Why did the showrunners need to add a syphilis subplot? Old Dracula's terrible makeup echoed Arthur's dad's terrible makeup. Maybe this was intetional.
Not the best version of the story, yet I watched. Waste of a mostly great cast.
Dreadful!!!!!! BBC - WHAT were you thinking????
hesketh273 January 2007
This BBC TV version of the novel was absolutely dire. A strange departure from their usual faithful, world class productions of classic novels. The original plot was butchered in favour of ludicrous changes including having Arthur Holmewood as a victim of syphilis and trying to get Dracula's 'cult' followers to cure him. Most of the most memorable episodes from the book had gone. It was hampered by some terrible overacting - in particular David Suchet (What on earth were you thinking of being in this drivel Mr. Suchet?) Marc Warren has the sex appeal of a dead goat. His long obviously dyed black hair, girly face and scrawny body just made him look camp! (Sorry Mr. W. but you ain't got the looks the presence or the talent to carry the role of Dracula off!!) Next time BBC - PLEASE don't tinker with classic tales and then we can avoid having to be subjected to another festive turkey like this one!!!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
