Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

SeeQuant Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

stwmby 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?

PeterBradford1 I am still struggling with how to process this version. My first impression, about 20 minutes into the film, was that I felt I was watching a movie where all the action had been cut out and all the boring dialogue scenes kept in. On top of that, the film looks like it was edited in a salad spinner. Scenes jump around in no particular order. The continuity of the novel isn't followed at all. The Bloofer Lady subplot and Quincey Morris are both absent. The ending like something out of an Eighties horror film, and this was from 2006. The characterization of Dracula, at least in the early scenes, was more in line with Stoker (and better than Gary Oldman). Check it out. You have been warned.

schf 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 Draculabut I'm sure Bram Stoker is turning in his grave

Jonathan Finlay (codenamecuckoo) There's an expectation of modern horror films (particularly remakes or adaptations of previously adapted material) to be of very poor quality. This British production subverts that expectation rather well. It's by no means a masterpiece, and it doesn't exactly break new ground, but it is good-looking and entertaining.It's true that this film is not the most faithful adaptation of the Stoker novel (that would be the 1977 BBC version), but I feel it is the film which addresses most of the novel's themes. Obviously we have the usual themes of sex and death, but we also have references to religion, science, imperialism and the Victorian fear of occult societies and sexually transmitted disease.The film also reinvents the Count in a far stronger way than the Coppola film. Marc Warren's Dracula perfectly blends the hideous monster of the book with the suave socialite of the 1931 Universal film. He starts off (as he should) old and withered, but later rejuvenates himself to a wild, Byronic appearance. Warren himself is rather good in the role; his accent tends to wander, but he strikes a good balance between seduction and animalistic rage.Far more emphasis is placed in this film on Arthur and Lucy than the traditional "Dracula couple" of Mina and Jonathan. Holmwood is here a secondary villain (this isn't a spoiler as it's clear from the first 10 minutes) rather than a secondary hero, and his unconsummated marriage to Lucy (and her subsequent frustration) provides much of the drama. Sophia Myles is excellent as Lucy - not the promiscuous flirt of Coppola's film nor the childish girl of the 1977 BBC version, but a strong woman with hidden desires. Stephanie Leonidas is also very good as Mina; she's weaker than usually portrayed but this arguably makes her more convincing as a victim of Dracula.The hero of the piece is, unusually, Dr Seward, ably played by Tom Burke. There's an animosity between him and Dan Stevens' Holmwood, originating in their rivalry over Lucy. As the hero, Seward's character is somewhat inconsistent, changing to meet the needs of the story, but he's nevertheless an engaging protagonist.Van Helsing is radically different from normal; it's hard to discuss David Suchet's portrayal without spoilers, but it would be fair to say he takes on some aspects of the omitted Renfield character - he doesn't eat flies, but he does go a bit mad.The film is well made. The music is great, the sets display the British flair for costume drama, and the cinematography is dark and moody. It's overall an excellent piece of Gothic drama; it's not particularly scary, but it captures the sense of morbidity that characterises Gothic fiction.