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.

Dracula is a major presence in our house (along with his relatives the Mummy, the Wolf Man, Frankenstein, zombies, ...) I cannot claim to have seen all of the many films which are descendants of Bram Stoker's original work -- the "Dracula" name has been applied to everything from sex farce to psychological allegory, and some of it is pure trash. But we have seen more than our share of not only Dracula movies but also vampire movies in general, as well as any number of play adaptations.

It seems that most Dracula movies are not adaptations of the book, but rather adaptations of previous movies. Admittedly, the book is devilishly hard to stage/film, as it is structured as a series of excerpts from journals, difficult to weave into a consistent narrative flow. But one often gets the impression that the directors (or screenwriters!) of some of the films haven't bothered to read Stoker's novel, contenting themselves with merely screening some previous efforts.

So it is always with some trepidation we watch a new "Dracula" film, bracing ourselves for yet another schlock assault with only passing connection to the original. (Not that we are against schlock per se -- only when it masquerades to deceive.) Frankly, the cover art and copy of "Dracula's Curse" didn't give us much hope of quality.

Thus, we were pleasantly surprised to find that it is a well-appointed, thoughtful, and reasonably faithful version of Bram Stoker's book. Obviously, the production team had not only read the book but understood it, and labored to bring it to the screen as accurately as possible. In this, it stands head and shoulders above most "true to the novel" versions, including Coppola's (don't get me started on *that* one...)

The film does strike several sour notes -- the flying effects are in my opinion quite overused, and in fact unnecessary -- and at several points is at odds with tradition. (Vampiric insensitivity to sunlight will jar most people.) But many of these "traditions" are actually creations of earlier films, as careful reading of the novel will show. The ending is also rather rushed, as though the production was running out of money and could not afford the chase across Europe to save Mina.

The multinational cast does take a bit of getting used to, with as many accents as there are actors. But even this is true to the spirit of Stoker, who inserted an "exotic" American and the European Van Helsing into his story to lend it an international flavor.

Some of the casting plays against movie convention; Dracula (Patrick Bergin) in particular is at odds with what many people expect of the bloodsucking count. He looks far more authentically Romanian than any other Dracula we have seen (like a cross between Robert Goulet, Harvey Keitel, and Lech Walesa). Unfortunately, as the "aged" Dracula he looks distractingly like Scots comic actor Billy Connolly. But he has appropriate menace as well as some regal bearing, and is closer to Stoker's description than most.

The film is set in the present day, but by clever and deft scripting allows whole sections to feel as though they are set during Stoker's time. The locations and settings are sumptuous; the film makes very effective use of Budapest scenery to set the mood. Great care was obviously taken to achieve interesting camera angles.

And more of Stoker's dialogue is present than in perhaps any other version of the story, including the Louis Jourdan mini-series.

For someone who has only seen other "Dracula" movies, this one may seem slow and overstated. But to anyone who has read the book and enjoyed it, this movie is a refreshing attempt to bring Bram Stoker's original vision to the screen. Rather than rely on gratuitous gore and nudity, this production builds on mood and a fluid sensuality. Just as Stoker intended.

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.

I actually bought Dracula's Curse(the U.S. title) on DVD a few months ago, but I never found it on IMDb. That is until I saw that this was actually just the film version of an Italian TV series. So I watched this the first night and I couldn't help but laugh more than a few times, like one of the opening lines "Mina, did you ever think we'd be in a magnificent ballroom in Budapest, Hungry?", it was so cheesy, especially the way the actor said it, along with how the voices are so preppy and outgoing. But you know what's strange? I actually continued to watch this film a couple times, it's so hypnotizing. While it remains faithful to the novel, with the exception that it's updated, it's just too mystery solving. But at the same time I enjoy it's cheesiness, I think we all need that movie in our lives where it's so ridicules that you can't help but enjoy it.

A group of friends in Budapest are about to celebrate their friend's, Jonathan and Mina, engagement. But Jonathan is helping out a client, Vlad Tepech to move out to Budapest. Guess what?! Vlad's a vampire! And he's after Jonathan's friends by tempting them with things that they dream of in the world to build an unstoppable army of vampires. But when he goes after Jonathan's fiancée, he's gone too far and now the gang is on a mission to destroy him once and for all.

The actors are a bit funny. We have the women, who actually are kind of fun in this film, the woman who played Lucy was funny, I loved her delivery of the line "How delicious!" to Mina about her engagement. Then we have the boys, oh, the boys didn't do so hot. Speaking of hot, Dracula wasn't sexy! I know it's a silly complaint, but isn't he supposed to be dashing or something? But then again, Gary Oldman wasn't that much of a sexy Dracula either, but that's besides the point. But for some reason this movie has me addicted, I still don't mind watching it. It's like chocolate cake, you know it's bad, but yet you can't help but enjoy it.

4/10

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