Dracula

There have been so many versions and updates of this classic horror story that it is impossible not to ponder things like, how does Patrick Bergin's version of the Count compare with that of Christopher Lee, Bela Lugosi or, bless us all, Zandor Vorkov? He's very good, actually, aided by some impressive ageing/anti-ageing make-up and plenty of directorial build-ups.

This two-part television movie takes full advantage of its beautiful Budapest locations by presenting a world that is timeless, in the sense that we have flash cars and mobile phones, but also horse-drawn carriages and candelabras. Rather than the production existing in any kind of vacuum, it instead inhabits an exotic ageless environment which aids the story nicely. There are many moments taken from the book, but fitted into an updated timeline. The various CGI effects are mainly very decent, with a few over-ambitious misfires.

Not everything is great. This is a faithful but bloodless adaption and, while spectacular, it is not remotely frightening - although Director (and co-writer) Roger Young's ambition to create an epic, cinematic version of the famous story is laudable. I felt that the climax was very abrupt (nice twist at the end though).

The acting is terrific throughout, with Giancarlo Giannini is a rather under-used Van Helsing-like Dr. Enrico Valenzi and Muriel Baumeister as Lucy of particular note. My score is 7 out of 10.

this is the worst film I've ever seen... actually. i thought it was duty to warn all the people out there as in the 1 review of it on here the person claims that it was quite good and incomprehendably gives it 8 out of 10. well in case you believed him think twice. i got this film in a vampire films boxset (of which most of the films were awful - my bad) and everything about it is absolutely disgraceful. its like they've purposely taken everyfing good from the novel and tried to make it rubbish or turn it into a joke... bram stoker must be turning in his grave... at the start its quite funny just how awful it really is but after a while it just becomes boring and painful.... avoid at all costs

This is a great film. A romanian vampire moves to England to search for new victims. If you do not get scared of this movie then no movie will scary you. This is a great horror remake. This movie has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. This is best one of the of the best horror books ever. This is one of the best horror movies ever. Patrick Bergin is a great actor. Giancarlo Giannini who was also in Casino Royale is also a great actor. This movie is very intense. This movie scarier then The Exorcist. And that is not easy to do. It is almost has scary as Dracula (1931) It is very scary. One of the best vampire movies ever. This movie is a must see. Hardy Kurger Jr is a great actor.

Van Helsing was a better movie than this. Badly written and terribly acted, this dreck doesn't deserve an IMDB page. The characters are all one dimensional - more so than in the original novel. Patrick Bergin is by far the worse Dracula ever seen. Even worse than Thomas Kretschmann in Dracula 3D. There are plot holes you could drive the Queen Mary through. Avoid at all costs. You'd have a better time watching Zoltan: The Hound Of Dracula than this.

After having searched for "Dracula's Curse" like the above viewer (the title I rented it under), I better post something to make it worth my while. Wow. What can you say about this one? Other than don't worry about watching it, that is. Maybe that's a little unfair. Patrick Bergin does a stand up job as Dracula (even has a nifty Bela Lugosi accent), he's very moody and creepy. And Giancarlo Giannini as the Van Helsing character (what the hell did they call him?) lent some nice talent. Their Renfield was right on but underused. Every now and then, there was nice camera work, but very little. Of course, Stefania Rocca and Muriel Baumeister were great eye candy (especially Stefania as Lucy in the red dress...sigh). But.... Hardy Kruger Jr. as Jonathan Harker made Keanu's turn like like Kenneth Brannagh doing Henry V. It's pretty bad when a guy like Kruger could take acting lessons from Ben Affleck. The story (while obviously familiar) took no turns or interesting takes and just drudged on and on. There was some surprising theological and philosophical discussion intertwined, but I really felt that this movie got made because Bergin was itching to play Dracula. Thank God it was him, or it wouldn't have had a whole lot going for it. For a great version of Dracula, stick with Coppola's film or, better yet, the original Lugosi or "Nosferatu". You'll thank me.