Linbeymusol
Wonderful character development!
Harockerce
What a beautiful movie!
CrawlerChunky
In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.
Helllins
It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.
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.
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.)
disdressed12
while i can't say whether this adaption of the Dracula myth is true to Bram Stoker's novel,(since i haven't read it)i still liked it.i liked the look of Dracula as an old man and as the young man.i also really liked the almost unrecognizable David(Poirot)Suchet as Abraham Van Helsing.i don't think i've ever seen an episode of Masterpiece theatre,but i think they did a fine job with the Dracula lore.Marc Warren was good as the count and i could see how the character could be seductive to women. i liked the look of the film.it is certainly beautifully photographed.i think this is the most romanticized version of Dracula i've seen so far.it's just as good as any of the others i have seen.i give this version of "Dracula" 8/10
