kneiss1 I am a huge fan of vampire movies ever since I have seen Bram Stokers Dracula (directed by Francis Ford Coppola). And this has been around 12 years ago. There are very few vampire movies that come close to the masterpiece of Francis Ford Coppola. And this movie sadly stays far away. It started quite promising, but this movie has a countless amount of flaws.The story: The variation of the original story isn't so bad, if it would just be a bit more „spectacular". The story simplifies the main-theme and adds some new interesting ideas. Some of those ideas are great, others seem too modern or simply don't fit.The action: Probably the worst I have seen in a long time. Every time action actually happened, there was a cut in less than a second. - Probably to hide how cheap it was done? The directing was very bad throughout the whole movie. You have been able to see that the best during the action scenes.Actors and characters: Mostly I found them awful. Characters have been boring, and actors plain bad. There have only been two exceptions. Holmwood (Dan Stevens) and Lucy (Sophia Myles).. those two seemed the only ones that have actually been given a character at all. Atmosphere: Music was decent, but nothing special. The camera showed very "warm" colors. Similar to cheesy women-dramas in the 18th century. I didn't really like it. Everything looked artificial. Overall the atmosphere was decent, but could have been much better.4 points because I had fun watching the movie. (I am not actually sure why.)

Majestic_Aureole I think it is the best adaptation of Bram Stoker's classic novel so far and is pure drama and much much better than the Gary Oldman's version because in that movie, sex was the main theme and almost everybody was shown morally corrupt and no one seemed sensible or serious which is not in the novel, however acting were good. Where as in this movie, you can expect to see real life style of Victorian era and characters are not wronged. It is pure drama, however some major points are missing as Dracula's role is minimized which i wish was not. when it comes to acting, Marc Warren is too cute to play Dracula but he played it pretty good but he was misused as he could do it mush better and show his great acting abilities if he was given the chance to explore the role completely and if the role was not minimized.I really can't understand why people call him worst Dracula because he was not even given the proper chance to act which he should have been given as he was misused in a way but he still did great. However he is very charming and i have become his huge fan after seeing this movie as it is his first movie that i have ever seen. Others actors were good too and Sophia Myles was very pretty in the movie. I really wish it was more than just 90 minutes.

Boba_Fett1138 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.2/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

icfarm I first saw that this was going to be shown here in the U.S. on PBS on February 11, which happens to be my birthday, and considered it an unexpected treat - and, having watched the show, my opinion hasn't changed.I had never heard of Marc Warren, but I was more than satisfied with his performance in the title role. I thought he made a very menacing (in his aged state) and sexy (in his young state) Count, and found his voice to be one of his most seductive features. The remaining cast - some of whom I had seen before - were also excellent. I especially liked the scene of Drac's seduction of Lucy as she lies in bed beside her unconscious husband - who, due to his fear of infecting her with his own syphilis, has not consummated their marriage although it has been several months. It was very, very sexy in a perverse way but not tasteless or explicit.All in all, a fine effort by all involved.