PeterBradford1 I am still struggling with how to process this version. My first impression, about 20 minutes into the film, was that I felt I was watching a movie where all the action had been cut out and all the boring dialogue scenes kept in. On top of that, the film looks like it was edited in a salad spinner. Scenes jump around in no particular order. The continuity of the novel isn't followed at all. The Bloofer Lady subplot and Quincey Morris are both absent. The ending like something out of an Eighties horror film, and this was from 2006. The characterization of Dracula, at least in the early scenes, was more in line with Stoker (and better than Gary Oldman). Check it out. You have been warned.

Majestic_Aureole I think it is the best adaptation of Bram Stoker's classic novel so far and is pure drama and much much better than the Gary Oldman's version because in that movie, sex was the main theme and almost everybody was shown morally corrupt and no one seemed sensible or serious which is not in the novel, however acting were good. Where as in this movie, you can expect to see real life style of Victorian era and characters are not wronged. It is pure drama, however some major points are missing as Dracula's role is minimized which i wish was not. when it comes to acting, Marc Warren is too cute to play Dracula but he played it pretty good but he was misused as he could do it mush better and show his great acting abilities if he was given the chance to explore the role completely and if the role was not minimized.I really can't understand why people call him worst Dracula because he was not even given the proper chance to act which he should have been given as he was misused in a way but he still did great. However he is very charming and i have become his huge fan after seeing this movie as it is his first movie that i have ever seen. Others actors were good too and Sophia Myles was very pretty in the movie. I really wish it was more than just 90 minutes.

Robert McElwaine The umpteenth in a long line of screen adaptations of Bram Stoker's iconic literary creation the BBC's 2006 production has the dubious distinction of a unorthodox casting in "Hustle's" Marc Warren as the vampiric Count while diverting more so from Stoker's classic novel than previous versions.This version sees young English estate agent, Jonathan Harker journeying to Transylvania to finalise the sale of a property being bought by the aged Count Dracula. Little does he realise and all of us are more than aware, the Count is a vampire and upon learning this, Jonathan is murdered by Dracula. Meanwhile back in England , Jonathan's fiancé, Mina Murray is celebrating the imminent nuptials of her best friend Lucy Westernra to Lord Arthur Holmwood. However, unknown to Lucy her husband to be has contracted syphilis, a disease that was passed on to him by his father before his birth and is therefore unable to consummate their marriage. In the vain hope of ridding himself of the fatal illness he enlists the services of Dracula who he has been told can rid him of the affliction and aided him to secure the purchase of Carfax Abbey as a residence in London. But the Count has his own agenda and with the help of a cult who worship him, he plots to make London his own personal feeding ground. It is only the sage knowledge of Dutch professor, Abraham Van Helsing that can put a stop to Dracula's plans. The BBC has a distinguished history, particularly when it comes to costume drama's and while it's beautiful to look at and the scenes in Transylvania are brought brilliantly to life, this latest adaptation is incredibly misjudged, hollow and ultimately unfulfilling. The problem primarily is with the unnecessary alterations made to the films source material. The whole angle revolving around Arthur's affliction only serves to add the ridiculous and terribly misconceived notion that Dracula is the figure of worship, a clear attempt by the films writers to do something original and inventive with the story which only manages to be tawdry. The actors struggle to bring any credibility to the sorry affair with Warren chiefly miscast as the titular Count, lacking any commanding presence that former Dracula's (Christopher Lee springs to mind) had in abundance. While impressive in earlier scenes where the Count is elderly, his later scenes are woeful. Warren stares fixedly at his co-stars clearly attempting to provoke chills and merely provokes indifference. Only David Suchet comes out of the whole farrago with any dignity in tact as Van Helsing. More depressing than scary and only running in at an hour and a half in length "Dracula" is a dull inspired mess as is the rest of the acting. It's hard to really care about any of the characters least of all Arthur who is partially responsible for bringing Dracula to London while Warren preying on Sophia Myles Lucy in the bedroom scenes, obviously an attempt to recreate the sexiness of Francis Ford Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" just comes across as flat and unappealing. If you want to see a good adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel then don't bother with this one, the hammy bygone days of the old Hammer Horror films were more enjoyable than this fluff.

dr_foreman There are countless TV and movie adaptations of "Dracula." No single adaptation is perfect, but some of them are quite good. Unfortunately, this one falls under the disappointing category.The storyline deviates a lot from Bram Stoker's book. I guess the changes wouldn't bother me if I thought the "substitute" plot was any good - but it's not. This version of the story focuses on Lord Holmwood's battle with syphilis; in a weird twist, he actually brings Dracula to England in the hopes that the vampire can cure him. Holmwood also deceives Lucy at great length, concealing his condition from her even though they're married (this doesn't make any sense to me, actually; surely he would move heaven and earth to delay the wedding until AFTER Dracula cures him?) As a result of this plot tinkering, the subtexts of Stoker's novel are dragged out into the light in a somewhat tedious fashion; this is no longer a fantasy story, or a commentary on social diseases, it's ABOUT social diseases. Hmm - I don't think I like that. It's too unsubtle for me.I also don't really like this version's intense focus on the Seward / Holmwood / Lucy love triangle. It boils the whole story down to teenage love shenanigans. In fact, the entire production feels so juvenile that the arrival of Van Helsing, an actual adult (played by David Suchet, who can actually act!) comes like a breath of summer wind, or some-such pleasant thing.This version also tries too hard to look "right." Dracula's castle is shot in weird green-o-vision, and the cutting is so fast you'll think the thing has been edited together by monkeys.On the positive side, I enjoy Suchet's performance, and the production values are pretty good overall, my gripes notwithstanding. Marc Warren might have been a decent Dracula, though he doesn't have enough screen time to make an impression. And hey, Sophia Myles looks oh-so-good in those period dresses; her appearance boosted my rating up a star or two.As a whole, though, this is weak stuff. I used to rely on the BBC to produce quality, intelligent TV for a sophisticated audience, but for the past few years it seems to me that they've been pitching low, so to speak. Shame, that.