Dracula

2007
Dracula
5.2| 1h30m| R| en| More Info
Released: 11 February 2007 Released
Producted By: Granada Productions
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

The Romanian count known as Dracula is summoned to London by Arthur Holmwood, a young Lord who is one the verge of being wed. Unknown to Arthur's future bride Lucy, her future husband is infected with syphilis and therefore cannot consummate their marriage. Arthur has laid his hopes of being cured on the enigmatic count; as it is said that Dracula has extraordinary powers. But these supernatural powers have sinister origins. The Count is a vampire. Soon Arthur realizes his serious mistake as all hell breaks loose and the Count infects others with his ancient curse. But Dracula has not counted on the young Lord acquiring the assistance of the Dutch Vampire expert Prof. Abraham Van Helsing.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Granada Productions

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Claudio Carvalho In 1992, Francis Ford Coppola made the definitive version of Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula", with his stylish "Bram Stoker Dracula". Coppola's work and F.W. Murnau's masterpiece "Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens" are the best adaptation of the foregoing novel. I am a fan of vampire movies and the Hammer productions with the character Dracula performed by Christopher Lee are part of my youth."Dracula" (2006) is a stylish version made for television, with a great cast and magnificent cinematography that are wasted in a poorly written screenplay that introduces awful modifications to the original romance. This version is decent but absolutely unnecessary; entertains, but also disappoints the fans of the romance. My vote is five.Title (Brazil): "Dracula"
hugobolso-1 and also one of the originals ones. Based on Bram Stocker Dracula, this movie center on Arthur Holmwood (Dan Stevens). A powerful English lord who suffer an heritage Syphilys who killed his parents. So he contacts a Secret Society as his last hope to finish his fatal illness, so he can depose the beautiful Lucy Westerna (Sophya Miles). At first looks like another boring BBC TV Movie or Miniseries, but then the crippy and the horror appeared. The thing that I like of the movie is that finally makes justice for a forgotten part of the book. The dead calm of the British coast before the huracaine of blood starts. Also makes justice to Lucy Character, who isn't a slut, just a Virgin girl who try to forget her virginity after several month of marriage. The cast is not the best but Sophia Miles and Dan Stevens shines as the Holmwood, and Tom Burke (as Seward), David Suchet and Marc Warren (as the Roumanian Count) makes also a wood work. The only miscast are Stephanie Leonidas and Rafe Spalle as Mina and Hycker.
Boba_Fett1138 This a professionally and stylish looking BBC made-for-TV adaptation of the famous Dracula story by Bram Stoker, that however differs too much from the original story and adds very little new and interesting in exchange. On top of the that the movie has an extremely poor flow, which makes the movie confusing and dull to watch, with too many- and poorly developed characters.The movie makes too many leaps in time and the overall flow itself also isn't really perfect. It also makes the movie confusing to follow at times, especially if you don't know the Dracula story in advance. It also makes some of the sequences weak and causes to leave an unsatisfying impression such as the introduction of the Dracula character. Boom! He suddenly is there without any build-up. Its entire build-up and flow, or better said the lack of it all, is the reason why the movie just never becomes scary of even tense to watch. It's an extremely poorly told movie, without any introductions or development. It makes this a very disjointed and hard movie to watch.The movie leaves lots of room to put in multiple romantic plot-lines, which makes the movie also drag in points, especially the beginning.The movie was surprisingly good looking. I liked its style. It was a fine combination between the British upper-class kind of atmosphere and the more dark and moody horror atmosphere. The sets and cinematography were simply good.Even though the cast has some good British TV-actors in it, the acting is still one of the weaker spots and irritating part of the movie. It's painfully bad at times and unintentionally funny to watch. Most actors aren't really to be blamed for this but rather the poor script that makes some bad choices and has some poor and formulaic dialogs in it. It also doesn't help that none of the characters are introduced and developed properly. Seriously, who is who in this movie and what is their purpose exactly?Dracula really isn't right looking in this movie. I mean, even in his human form he's looking ugly and like a mad monster. He's supposed to be seductive, charismatic and sophisticated. He's none of those things in the movie and besides the actor portraying him looks too young.A version that you're better off not watching.2/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
disdressed12 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