Dracula

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.

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/

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.

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.

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.