Dracula (2007)

Why oh why oh why do scriptwriters, directors, producers, etc insist on taking wonderful books, ripping out the pages, and inserting garbage?How dare the scriptwriter employed on this project believe he can improve on Stokers original?Dracula is one of the finest, most frightening horror stories I have ever read. Why oh why oh why is no one prepared to make a faithful film of it?

In 1977 BBC produced three hours long "Count Dracula", a very faithful and one of the best adaptations of Bram Stoker's classic vampire story. In 2006 BBC excited fans by releasing a new version of the same book, this time directed by Bill Eagles. Sadly, this one doesn't come anywhere near the 1977 versions quality.Set in the 1899 Victorian England, Lord Arthur Holmwood (Dan Stevens) has just proposed the girl of his dreams, Lucy Westenra (Sophia Myles), when he finds out that his father has died of syphilis that he had for number of years. The disease has been passed to Arthur, who decides to keep it a secret and in desperation turns to Alfred Singleton (Donald Sumpter), a leader of a strange cult, who promises that Arthur can be cured, if he finances a strange Romanian noble man Count Dracula (Marc Warren) to England. Arthur arranges Jonathan Harker (Rafe Spall) to travel to Transylvania and make the deal with the Count. Jonathan's fiancée Mina Murray (Stephanie Leonidas) stays with Lucy until his return.Technically this film is typical BBC quality work with beautiful sets, colorful sceneries and music fit to the scenes. However, that alone is not enough to save this mess. What's with the plot? I understand that Stoker's book is not the most easiest thing to film and people want to add new things to the story, but Stoker's book has never had a truly faithful adaptation, so why such huge changes? Not only does the plot have more than enough for one film, the events go with such an incredible speed that it is easy to loose your track here. The entire sequence with Jonathan and Dracula in the Castle, one of the most important parts of the story, is over so fast, that if I had briefly gone to a toilet I would have missed it. Now, there are some parts from Stoker's book, like the shipwreck and Lucy's death, and the film tries to keep the themes from the book, the Victorian era morality, dangers of affairs and Catholicism. However, even those themes seem to get lost in this film.One of the biggest flaws is the way film presents most of its characters. The good natured and kind hearted Arthur has been turned to a desperate, almost menacing man who at times appears as a complete jerk. Lucy becomes so desperate for sex that she would have probably opened her legs to a gardener if Dracula hadn't come. Abraham Van Helsing has been lowered to a minor character who briefly appears towards the end of the movie. If that's not bad enough, he is played by talented David "Poirot" Suchet, who is completely wasted in this film. Dracula has also gone through a terrible change. While still in Castle and under a heavy makeup, Marc Warren actually makes him creepy and interesting. However, when he becomes young and goes to England, he merely appears as a bored playboy, poor man's Frank Langella, who doesn't have any chemistry with neither of the women (which makes Lucy's seduction scene ridiculous). Although I'm not fond of the more romantic version of Dracula in Coppola's film, at least Gary Oldman was interesting. Warren's Dracula doesn't appear neither as a seducer or a monster, he just is there.Dracula appears very little in this film and with all the other plots going around here, the film should not have been called "Dracula". Because all in all, this is a period-costume-drama film that just happens to have a vampire as one of the (minor) characters. If you haven't read the book or didn't like it, then this may be good film for you.

Dracula (2006) * (out of 4) Incredibly bad adaptation from Masterpiece Theatre. Before he gets married, a Lord (Dan Stevens) discovers that he has syphilis. The Lord is told that a man named Count Dracula (Marc Warren)) can get rid of the disease. Um, yeah. I'm really not sure where to start with this film but it's pretty much bad on all levels but it somewhat remains interesting just because of how bad it is. Dracula can stay out in the sunlight and drink wine here so good for him. The performances are all incredibly bad and rival a high school play. The direction is all over the place and it's quite clear the director didn't know how he wanted to tell the story. The film plays so fast it's like you're watching it with the FF button going full blast.

Oh wow! This thing stunk. I too was looking forward to it. I had a hard time getting to sleep after...but not from being scared, rather from being disappointed and in shocked disbelief. I am usually quite entertained and intrigued by the programs on PBS's Masterpiece Theatre...and now to find out it was a BBC production...I am really surprised. Why would this happen to such classic to be respected??? Perhaps they ran out of money for production or whomever was in charge had a bad several months? I was intrigued by the teasers' deviation from the novel's plot...bringing in the syphilis twist. And I was ready to be entertained by the twist, as I have with several other of the MANY versions out there (even the campy ones!). (Not that this or any could replace the original.) I really could've gotten into the altered plot, had it been better written or directed or __?__. Casting wasn't that INappropriate in my opinion. Though the acting seemed mediocre, I think the source of the stink lay elsewhere.And perhaps a longer time allotment would've helped to give more detail and explore subplots further. So much was left unsaid, TOO much.I was almost lost as to Van Helsing's role: how he came to be in this version of the story, what happened to him during it. And he seemed to be filled with paralyzing fear...such a departure from what I've always known him to be.Come to think of it, all the men were wimpy versions of themselves...I'd envisioned Holmwood being his book-borne adventurous,indulgent hunter self...yet in desperation to protect the love of his life resorting to this unorthodox procedure and unscrupulous dealing. This was not the angle that was portrayed. Rather it was a cowardly hiding of the truth, avoiding of his bride, and giving into the Count far too easily (and what was with him sleeping through Lucy's cavort with the Count and his attack of her right beside him in the same bed!?!).Harker gave into the Count without a fight as well... I guess. Maybe that bit was left on the cutting room floor, or never left the writer's head? Seward was the closest to a thinking, investigating, feeling, doing man. But even he fell short of satisfying.Then there's confusion about Dracula's travel agenda as well: Is he going to London to fulfill a "contract" with Holmwood, to get Mina, or Lucy (or was she just a contingency plan once there?)? I could go on, but I'll not. Well, maybe just one more...To finish it a pet peeve: where was Quincy P. Morris?!?