Customer Reviews

Dracula - Masterpiece Theatre

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(12)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(14)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

I love the novel, and have watched just about every screen adaptation there is to watch. My favorites of the screen Draculas - Bela Lugosi, Christopher Lee, and Frank Langella. It's difficult to find a truly faithful adaptation of "Dracula" in the movies, and over the years the story has undergone all sorts of transformations. This latest treatment by the BBC takes a very different approach to the classic vampire tale. Purists will revile it, but I found it watchable. The story here explores the themes of moral corruption, and repressed sexuality as represented in Victorian England. An aristocrat, Lord Holmwood (Dan Stevens who appeared as Edward Ferrars in the 2008 BBC adaptation of Sense and Sensibility) finds himself in torment over the fact that he has inherited syphilis from his parents. He is also engaged to the attractive Lucy Westenra (Sophia Myles) who is clueless about her fiance's condition. When Holmwood finds a secret occult society that is willing to help him cure his blood disease(at a price of course), he dispatches solicitor Jonathan Harker (Rafe Spall) to Transylvania to settle some legalities with a certain Count Dracula. Jonathan also happens to be the fiance of Mina Murray (Stephanie Leonidas), Lucy's best friend.

Well, Dracula (a horribly miscast Marc Warren) eventually makes his way to England, and makes the acquaintance of both Mina and Lucy, much to Holmwood's displeasure and eventual horror. Things start to deteriorate at a rapid pace from here onwards, and it's left to Holmwood, together with Van Helsing and Dr. John Seward (Tom Burke, who is the real hero here) to put an end to Dracula.

The problems with this adaptation are many - the liberties taken with the novel being one. The Dracula in this adaptation is able to walk in daylight, Van Helsing is reduced to a less than dignified raving old man, and the various central characters in the original source are all playing rather different, or diminished roles. The occult society is portrayed as being the group responsible for introducing Dracula to Holmwood, but not much explanation is given as to how this society came to make the acquaintance of Dracula. The relationship between Renfield and Dracula in the original material was much more credibly drawn than this tenuous connection.

Secondly, I felt that the role of Dracula as played by Marc Warren to be horribly miscast. He is the worst Dracula I've ever seen on screen - he's nothing but a predator and bloodsucker here, pure and simple. There is not much depth to his character, and part of that could lie with the length of this production, a mere 90 minutes. Not much time to fully explore the richness of this Gothic horror story. Both the female leads were rather disappointing, though Sophia Myles' Lucy did a good job as the sexually deprived wife, whilst Mina was reduced to playing a melancholic and grieving lover which got stale after a while. The other male leads were also rather ho-hum, and the most disappointing of all was the role of Abraham Van Helsing. David Suchet is a talented actor and he was reduced to the role of an ineffectual old man here, very sad indeed (especially when one considers how the late horror great Peter Cushing played this role - with such dignity and composure).

On the whole, this adaptation of "Dracula" merits a watch if only to draw comparisons with the other adaptations out there, but I would have to say that it was quite an underwhelming and dissatisfying experience.

Apparently seductive vampires, malignant superpowers and evil vs. good aren't sufficiently chilling enough anymore. We need STDs, satanic cults and a loopy hermit.

Because those are only a few of the mutilations made to Bram Stoker's classic "Dracula," which the BBC has raped in just about every way a plot can be. Wretched direction, appalling acting, and a plot with barely a shred of Stoker's original story -- we're left with a third-rate vampire flick that thinks it's first-rate.

Arthur Holmwood (Dan Stevens) is apalled when he finds that his father is dying of syphilis -- and he was infected at birth. To save his life and sanity -- and marry the beautiful Lucy (Sophia Myles) -- he involves himself in a strange cult that promises to cure him. Meanwhile, young solicitor Jonathan Harker (Rafe Spall) is sent to Transylvania to sell a house to the decrepit Count Dracula... only to meet a gruesome fate when he sees Dracula's true nature.

Arthur and Lucy have married, but the wedding is not consummated, so Lucy spends most of her time with her pal Mina (Stephanie Leonidas), who is worrying about her fiancee Jonathan. Then one night a ship crashes on the rocks nearby, and it seems that Arthur and the cult have unleashed Count Dracula on England's shores. The only way to stop him -- and save Mina -- is to trust in a strange man who already knows too much of vampires...

It's pretty difficult to find the shreds of Stoker's original story in this adaptation -- apparently the BBC writers were under the impression that they could do better than the greatest vampire story ever written. So they tack in syphilis, a murder mystery, a satanic cult, a mysterious disappearance, and Van Helsing being a crazy old man locked in a basement.

It might not have been as wretched as it is, had it not been for the woefully bad direction. Lots of seizure-inducing quick cuts and repetitive close-ups of fangs, and plot holes you could drive a truck through, such as Dracula's sporadic immunity to sunlight. Moreover, the first three-fourths of the movie are miserably slow and dull, only to tumble rapidly to an unsatisfying, inconclusive ending.

And the whole "erotic vampire-blood-sex" undertone, which has been around since Victorian times, is handled with hilarious consequences. Whose idea was it to have Dracula orgasm every time he drinks blood?

Ultimately any "Dracula" movie is only as good as its Dracula. Marc Warren is no fiery, sweeping, intense Boyar prince with a deep thirst for women -- he looks like a Neanderthal goth frat boy with too much makeup, and he's apparently too stupid to get to England without someone sending him a ticket. He's no Bela Lugosi or Christopher Lee -- he looks (and acts) more like Jack White with a severe head injury.

The rest of the cast is about as impressive. The talented Suchet does as well as he can with a loopy, fearful Van Helsing, and Myles does a solid job as Dracula's first girl. But the other actors are mediocre at best -- Leonidas is particularly awful when she's feigning hysterics, and Stevens is an embarrassment as a bad parody of Arthur.

The latest adaptation of "Dracula" falls below the worst of Hammer Horror and lame TV movies -- a bastardized disaster of syphilitic writing, miserable direction and a Dracula who's as intimidating as a wet sponge.

The WORST Dracula I have seen in a very long time. I would rather watch the 1970's Frankenstine vs Dracula then this garbage! If you really want the best movie find the masterpiece theatre Dracula by the BBC in 1979(?)Please don't waste your time with this stink bomb!!!!!

"Masterpiece Theater" has long been a benchmark in bringing quality British TV to American viewers. With a prestigious history, some legendary programs--including "Upstairs, Downstairs" and "I, Claudius"--have found acclaim, awards, and international audiences. Of late, "Masterpiece Theater" has been showcasing some ambitious literary adaptations with mixed results. Last season's high point, and a must for any lover of film, was the flawless adaptation of Charles Dickens' "Bleak House." A triumph in every regard, and featuring Emmy nominated turns by Charles Dance and Gillian Anderson, this program should be essential viewing for those that value literate, classy and wildly entertaining TV. This season's offerings have included "To The Ends Of The Earth" (an adaptation of William Golding's seafaring trilogy--'Rites Of Passage,' 'Close Quarters' and 'Fire Down Below'), a robust new version of Charlotte Bronte's "Jane Eyre," a reimagining of Bram Stoker's "Dracula," and the swan song of Helen Mirren's Jane Tennison in "Prime Suspect 7."

"Dracula" is one of those books, one of those topics, that has literally been done to death (pun intended) through the years. I know with literary adaptations, you have those who staunchly defend the notion that every interpretation must be a literal translation of the source material. However, denying a film the artistic license to reinterpret the work is doing an injustice to the viewer--and to film, in general, as an artistic medium. I, for one, would be exhausted by yet another faithful "Dracula." It's been done, and redone, so many times--I welcome any chance someone approaches this material in an innovative way. That said, I admired the intent behind the new "Masterpiece Theater" version of this classic tale--even as the result was somewhat muddled.

The story itself is intriguing, and it veers away from the original concept of Dracula just enough to offend those looking for a by-the-book adaptation. Arthur Holmwood, a minor player in Stoker's vision, is promoted to the lead character. Having discovered Syphilis runs in his family, he is desperate to find a cure before he consummates his engagement with Lucy Westenra (Sophia Myles). Contacted by a local cult, he is informed of a mysterious stranger named Dracula who may be able to cure him of his blood ailment. Using all the classic characters--Jonathan Harker, Mina, Dr. John Seward, and Van Helsing--this tale employs them in new ways, but still follows the basic structure of the novel. Bringing Dracula to town, however, will lead to unexpected consequences--as Dracula doesn't intend to be at anyone's beck and call and has an agenda of his own.

The story benefits from charismatic performances by Myles and especially Dan Stevens as Holmwood. Marc Warren, always an interesting actor, is appealing as Dracula--but is somewhat underutilized (as is the great David Suchet as Van Helsing). For the problem with this "Dracula" is not the story--it is the rushed pace. Clocking in at 90 minutes, this film simply has too many plot strands to cover in its limited running time. Consequently, the story clips along briskly which limits the amount of emotional involvement that you can feel. So all plot--but little drama! That's the death of this "Dracula." Still an interesting attempt--with more time to develop its themes and concepts, it might have been a winner. As is, it's a brief diversion. KGHarris, 02/07.

What the hell was the BBC thinking when they made this? The BBC produced a fantastic version of Dracula back in 1977 -- Count Dracula starring Louis Jourdan. Don't waste your money on this, instead get the 1977 BBC version instead. You'll be glad you did.

After all the negative reviews here and elsewhere I avoided this until recently when I found it on the shelf at the local library. What a pleasant surprise. If you are a Dracula purist this version is probably not for you, but if you enjoy all the variations we have had throughout cinema history, this is certainly one of the more unique. I for one thought this Dracula (the character / the actor) is one of the "hotter" ones. He is very much a modern day Goth type, and yes a lot like Guppy in Bleak House, but also like Jack White...it's in the hair. I liked how just about every male character was a total CREEP and Lucy was annoying (but not in the usual way). The Mina character was the one limp fish in the pot, maybe it was the actress, I dunno? Another selling point for me was the Black Magic / Occult element, which was hinted at in some of the Hammer films (as early as Brides of Dracula with its talk of "the cult of the undead" - here it isn't just mentioned in dialogue, it is shown in rather explicit detail). Again, if you're a purist, you probably won't go for this, but if you are adventuresome and enjoy new perspectives on old classics, give this a shot, you might be pleasantly surprised as well.

This was just plain awful! Mina is a very strong female character in the novel, not the wimp portrayed in this production. There is a perfectly good plot in Bram Stoker's book. No need to rewrite the story, especially in such a bad way. Shame on you, Masterpiece Theatre! I was already mad at you for the fiasco which was the latest production of Jane Eyre.