Dracula (2007)

Just what I expected

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

This is a very scary movie. It is very underrated. It is a lot better then a 5.2. This is one of the scariest movies ever. It has a great story line. It has great acting. It has great special effects. It not has good has Dracula (1931). But it is almost as good. This movie is very intense. A Romanin vampire movie to England to find new victims. If this movie dose not scary you then no movie will. Mac Warren is great has Dracula. David Suschet is a great actor. This movie is a must see. It no 5.2. It is a 10. This is one of the best horror movies ever. Tom Burke is a great actor. This is one of the best horror movie remakes of all time.

The BBC's Masterpiece Theatre, "Beautiful Creatures" director Bill Eagles, and "Jericho" television scribe Stewart Harcourt have appropriated Bram Stoker's immortal vampire tale "Dracula" and given it more than a few usual twists. Indeed, their adaptation is about as far out as you can imagine. I've seen virtually every version of "Dracula," and this concise but irreverent 90-minute epic takes incredible liberties that not even Bram Stoker might have if he could come back from the grave. Mind you, the producers shed more light on the early part of the story involving Jonathan Harker and his fiancée Mina Murry. Nevertheless, they have tampered considerably with the text (what brought Dracula to London) as well as ushered in some new characters, chiefly Alfred Singleton who leads a religious blood cult. These guys are so afraid of publicity that he kill anybody who they come into contact with. Meaning, they are a small bunch of fiends. One of Stoker's character, Arthur Holmwood takes on new dimensions with a larger part in the narrative. As unusual as "Dracula" remains, Eagles does a good job of shoehorning some the basics in this made-for-television story. Chiefly, Eagles and his hawks have sent Renfield, Quincy Morris, the vampire wenches, and the gypsies packing. Marc Warren is neither like Bela Lugosi or Christopher Lee. The best line that he utters is: "I only go where I am desired and while I am invited in." The scene when Dracula materializes in the bedroom and has sex with Lucy in the same bed that her fully clothed husband is sleeping in a hand's width away is rather risqué. Traditional "Dracula" fans may strongly take issue with this reimagination of the character.

Based on several aspects of the plot description for this 2006 BBC version of Dracula, it would be understandable to ask what this production has to do with either the Bram Stoker novel or the many film adaptations that came before it. In this version, Lord Holmwood, with the assistance of a Satanic/blood cult, sends for Count Dracula hoping for a cure to the syphilis he inherited from his parents. He saw what the disease did to them and wants to rid his body of the disease before he marries his fiancé, Lucy. Count Dracula arrives in England, but has other plans in mind that do not include Lord Holmwood. Dracula views England as the center of a new empire he wants to control. And his first victim – Lucy.Honestly, though, these changes to the traditional Dracula plot (other than those involving the Van Helsing character) had little effect on my enjoyment or lack thereof of this movie. What really did in the BBC's Dracula for me was the sloppy direction and poor acting. While much of the movie looked good (And don't all period BBC pieces?), it felt so rushed that there was never a chance to get to know the characters or to build atmosphere or do any of those things necessary for effective period horror. The movie jumps from scene to scene to scene without providing either establishing shots or taking the time for a scene to end properly. Quick camera cuts, poor lighting, overusing hand held camera shots, and MTV-style editing are just a few of the sins that I'm laying at the feet of director Bill Eagles. As for the problems I had with the acting, other than David Suchet (who is on camera far too briefly), I cannot name an actor who stood out. They were either just plain old bad (Sophia Myles as Lucy and Stephanie Leonides as Mina) or they were wrong for their part (Tom Burke as Dr. Seward and Marc Warren as Dracula). While a few random set-pieces were quite nice, there are too many problems for me to call this Dracula a good movie.Overall, the BBC's most recent stab at filming Dracula is a weak, unsatisfying, and disappointing affair. For what it's worth, I'll give it a 4/10.

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