Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

GazerRise Fantastic!

GarnettTeenage The film was still a fun one that will make you laugh and have you leaving the theater feeling like you just stole something valuable and got away with it.

Sameer Callahan It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

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.

Robert McElwaine The umpteenth in a long line of screen adaptations of Bram Stoker's iconic literary creation the BBC's 2006 production has the dubious distinction of a unorthodox casting in "Hustle's" Marc Warren as the vampiric Count while diverting more so from Stoker's classic novel than previous versions.This version sees young English estate agent, Jonathan Harker journeying to Transylvania to finalise the sale of a property being bought by the aged Count Dracula. Little does he realise and all of us are more than aware, the Count is a vampire and upon learning this, Jonathan is murdered by Dracula. Meanwhile back in England , Jonathan's fiancé, Mina Murray is celebrating the imminent nuptials of her best friend Lucy Westernra to Lord Arthur Holmwood. However, unknown to Lucy her husband to be has contracted syphilis, a disease that was passed on to him by his father before his birth and is therefore unable to consummate their marriage. In the vain hope of ridding himself of the fatal illness he enlists the services of Dracula who he has been told can rid him of the affliction and aided him to secure the purchase of Carfax Abbey as a residence in London. But the Count has his own agenda and with the help of a cult who worship him, he plots to make London his own personal feeding ground. It is only the sage knowledge of Dutch professor, Abraham Van Helsing that can put a stop to Dracula's plans. The BBC has a distinguished history, particularly when it comes to costume drama's and while it's beautiful to look at and the scenes in Transylvania are brought brilliantly to life, this latest adaptation is incredibly misjudged, hollow and ultimately unfulfilling. The problem primarily is with the unnecessary alterations made to the films source material. The whole angle revolving around Arthur's affliction only serves to add the ridiculous and terribly misconceived notion that Dracula is the figure of worship, a clear attempt by the films writers to do something original and inventive with the story which only manages to be tawdry. The actors struggle to bring any credibility to the sorry affair with Warren chiefly miscast as the titular Count, lacking any commanding presence that former Dracula's (Christopher Lee springs to mind) had in abundance. While impressive in earlier scenes where the Count is elderly, his later scenes are woeful. Warren stares fixedly at his co-stars clearly attempting to provoke chills and merely provokes indifference. Only David Suchet comes out of the whole farrago with any dignity in tact as Van Helsing. More depressing than scary and only running in at an hour and a half in length "Dracula" is a dull inspired mess as is the rest of the acting. It's hard to really care about any of the characters least of all Arthur who is partially responsible for bringing Dracula to London while Warren preying on Sophia Myles Lucy in the bedroom scenes, obviously an attempt to recreate the sexiness of Francis Ford Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" just comes across as flat and unappealing. If you want to see a good adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel then don't bother with this one, the hammy bygone days of the old Hammer Horror films were more enjoyable than this fluff.

bensonmum2 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.

alnapc Oh wow! This thing stunk. I too was looking forward to it. I had a hard time getting to sleep after...but not from being scared, rather from being disappointed and in shocked disbelief. I am usually quite entertained and intrigued by the programs on PBS's Masterpiece Theatre...and now to find out it was a BBC production...I am really surprised. Why would this happen to such classic to be respected??? Perhaps they ran out of money for production or whomever was in charge had a bad several months? I was intrigued by the teasers' deviation from the novel's plot...bringing in the syphilis twist. And I was ready to be entertained by the twist, as I have with several other of the MANY versions out there (even the campy ones!). (Not that this or any could replace the original.) I really could've gotten into the altered plot, had it been better written or directed or __?__. Casting wasn't that INappropriate in my opinion. Though the acting seemed mediocre, I think the source of the stink lay elsewhere.And perhaps a longer time allotment would've helped to give more detail and explore subplots further. So much was left unsaid, TOO much.I was almost lost as to Van Helsing's role: how he came to be in this version of the story, what happened to him during it. And he seemed to be filled with paralyzing fear...such a departure from what I've always known him to be.Come to think of it, all the men were wimpy versions of themselves...I'd envisioned Holmwood being his book-borne adventurous,indulgent hunter self...yet in desperation to protect the love of his life resorting to this unorthodox procedure and unscrupulous dealing. This was not the angle that was portrayed. Rather it was a cowardly hiding of the truth, avoiding of his bride, and giving into the Count far too easily (and what was with him sleeping through Lucy's cavort with the Count and his attack of her right beside him in the same bed!?!).Harker gave into the Count without a fight as well... I guess. Maybe that bit was left on the cutting room floor, or never left the writer's head? Seward was the closest to a thinking, investigating, feeling, doing man. But even he fell short of satisfying.Then there's confusion about Dracula's travel agenda as well: Is he going to London to fulfill a "contract" with Holmwood, to get Mina, or Lucy (or was she just a contingency plan once there?)? I could go on, but I'll not. Well, maybe just one more...To finish it a pet peeve: where was Quincy P. Morris?!?