Product Details

• Actors: Marc Warren, Sophia Myles, David Suchet
• Directors: Bill Eagles
• Format: Closed-captioned, Color, DVD, NTSC
• Language: English, German
• Region: Region 1 (U.S. and Canada only. Read more about DVD formats.)
  
• Aspect Ratio: 1.78:1
• Number of discs: 1
• Rated: Unrated
• Studio: PBS
• DVD Release Date: March 6, 2007
• Run Time: 90 minutes
• Average Customer Review: 2.4 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (39 customer reviews)
• ASIN: B000MQ4WY2
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #70,585 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)
• For more information about "Dracula - Masterpiece Theatre" visit the Internet Movie Database (IMDb)

Editorial Reviews

DRACULA - DVD Movie

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

27 of 35 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Dracula: The Train Wreck, March 12, 2007

By 

Darrell Heath (Little Rock, AR USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Dracula - Masterpiece Theatre (DVD)

Oh dear, where to begin? First and foremost this waste of celluloid bears little resemblance to Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula". Its not even close. Given a 90 minute running time there is no way it could. But that isn't the real problem here. The real blame for this travesty lies with the writing and the casting of this production. The script is a complete and utter mess. Rather than focus on Dracula and the menace he poses for the characters (and by extension Victorian morality) the writers have chosen to fabricate a silly plotline involving Arthur Holmwood trying to purify his syphilitic bloodline (huh??). Apparently he can only do this by joining up with some secret cult and agreeing to buy Dracula a ticket to England. Poor Arthur can't consumate his marriage to Lucy Westenra until he can cleanse himself of the syphilis he's inherited/contracted from his parents. Of course how he's managed to carry syphilis into adulthood without manifesting any symptoms before hand is nothing short of a miracle. Besides why does Dracula even need Holmwood to buy his passage to England when he has all these devout followers in London to begin with? Can't they fork over a few pounds for his travel expenses? Van Helsing (played by Poirot's David Suchet) rather than being the fearless vampire hunter is now some dishevlled madman being held prisoner by the Dracula cult in London. He's no longer the strong paternal figure we usually assoiciate with him and he only has about 10 minutes screen time altogether; he provides a bit of vampire destruction lore to the heroes but thats about it. Quite frankly he no longer serves any real purpose in this version of the story and I can't see why the writers felt it necessary to keep him on.

With any really good version of "Dracula" you need a really good charismatic actor for the lead role. Preferably someone with a hint of sensuality and capable of being menacing at the same time. Unfortunately Marc Warren is not that actor. Nothing personal in regards to Mr. Warren. He's a fine actor (check out "Band of Brothers") but he isn't right for Dracula and having him look like a reject from the band "The Cure" doesen't help. Dracula, former warlord, King of the Vampires is now reduced to being a wimpy Goth club kid. No thanks, I'll pass.

The production values are OK and the cinematography, locations etc. are all fine but this is can't overcome the inept script and poor casting choices. The pacing is also a probelm and even though this thing clocks in at 90 minutes it felt like 2 1/2 hours to me. Anyway this is a poor production of "Dracula" all around and should be avoided like the plague. There are any number of other versions of the famed blood sucker out there but there is one in particular I would easily recommend over this turkey. Ironically it too is from the BBC and was produced back in the 1970's. Its called "Count Dracula" and starred Louis Jourdan in the title role and Frank Finlay as Van Helsing. Not only is that version far more faithful to Stoker's original concepts and story but it has much more gothic flavor and far more chills than the newest production could ever even begin to hope for. It is now available on DVD and can be easily obtained from Amazon (its cheaper too). So, don't waste your time on this bit of rubbish. It will literally suck the very life out of you.

18 of 23 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars This isn't Dracula, September 13, 2007

By 

Jeffrey Leeper "kem2070" (Seattle, WA USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Dracula - Masterpiece Theatre (DVD)

If you tend to watch the movie to save the time spent reading the book, then don't watch this movie as a substitute. Movie adaptations of this novel are difficult with the number of characters and location. Most of these movie versions get around the difficulty by combining characters or getting rid of them altogether. Other movies simply rewrite the story. This version does a little of both. Given that this was for Masterpiece Theatre, I was a little disappointed.

Renfield, Quincy Morris, the vampire sisters, and the gypsies are all gone. Jonathan Harker barely misses this fate. Disease and occult rites make an entry into the story. The end result gives the viewer (especially readers of the novel) the feeling that this was what the screenplay writer would have done if he had written the book.

Does this make it bad? It does if you are a Dracula enthusiast. If you just like a good vampire story, then this is interesting, as long as you don't think of this as Bram Stoker's Dracula.

19 of 26 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars A Strong Reconception of Arthur Holmwood. Otherwise Weak and Convoluted., February 13, 2007

By 

mirasreviews (McLean, VA USA) - See all my reviews
(TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (VINE VOICE)    (COMMUNITY FORUM 04)    (HALL OF FAME REVIEWER)   

This review is from: Dracula - Masterpiece Theatre (DVD)

This 2006 BBC production of Bram Stoker's "Dracula" is mediocre -or perhaps I should say wildly uneven. Where it fails, it fails spectacularly. Like many before him, screenwriter Stewart Harcourt reinterprets and reorganizes the timeless story of Count Dracula, an ancient Transylvanian vampire come to England to conquest the modern world -modern being 1897, when the British Empire placed a quarter of the globe under the reign of Queen Victoria. Harcourt's adaptation seems inspired by two ideas: The Victorian fear of sex and an effort to make Bram Stoker's most bland and underwritten character, Lord Arthur Holmwood, into a catalyst, villain, martyr, and center of the story.

Vivacious young Lucy Westenra (Sophia Miles) has agreed to marry the wealthy and handsome Lord Arthur Holmwood (Dan Stevens), to the slight dismay of their mutual friend Dr. John Seward (Tom Burke), who was a rival for Lucy's affections. When Arthur's father dies, having long suffered from syphilis, the family physician informs Arthur that he was exposed to syphilis himself at birth. Fearing the same fate as his father and knowing that he cannot risk spreading the disease to Lucy, Arthur turns to a mysterious man named Singleton, who claims that his master, a Count Dracula (Marc Warren) in Transylvania, possesses the secret to eternal life. If Arthur would bring the Count to England, his syphilis will be cured. Solicitor Jonathan Harker (Rafe Spall) is dispatched to Transylvania to handle the conveyances. But when he doesn't return or write, Jonathan's fiancee Mina Murray (Stephanie Leornidas), a dear friend of Lucy's, is beside herself with worry.

So Arthur is the cause of all the trouble in this version. It's not a bad idea. Arthur and Lucy are the film's strength. Arthur's desperation and anguish at his inability to have a physical relationship with his wife are palpable. Sophia Miles is a vital and appealing Lucy. The couple's sexual frustration drives them both to wit's end and drives the story. This "Dracula" exploits the very real Victorian fear of syphilis that injected itself into many a marriage. But the other characters are underwritten, and the story is cluttered with a lot of pointless embellishment. The Van Helsing character is superfluous. Singleton's "Brotherhood of the Undead" is needlessly complicated. The staking scenes -most unfortunately Lucy's- fall completely flat. Marc Warren's Dracula is, oddly, a sensualist. His variably seductive and repulsive persona makes no sense and packs no punch. His ability to be two places at once undercuts the suspense.

This movie is only 90 minutes long. Simplifying the story would have gone a long way in improving it. As it is, this "Dracula" is not very good, but I think that Dracula aficionados will find this twist on the Holmwood character interesting. I'm reminded of another television adaptation of "Dracula": The 1973 version that starred, i.e. miscast, Jack Palance as the fanged Count wasn't very good either. But it introduced the lovelorn Dracula theme that found its way into Dracula lore and into Francis Coppola's lavish 1992 theatrical production. I kind of like the idea of Arthur inviting Dracula to England to save himself from madness and death. After all, vampires need to be invited. The endurance of Bram Stoker's novel lies in its ability to inspire each generation to reconceive the story, so we shall see how far this interpretation goes.