I love this movie so much

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

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?

There's an expectation of modern horror films (particularly remakes or adaptations of previously adapted material) to be of very poor quality. This British production subverts that expectation rather well. It's by no means a masterpiece, and it doesn't exactly break new ground, but it is good-looking and entertaining.It's true that this film is not the most faithful adaptation of the Stoker novel (that would be the 1977 BBC version), but I feel it is the film which addresses most of the novel's themes. Obviously we have the usual themes of sex and death, but we also have references to religion, science, imperialism and the Victorian fear of occult societies and sexually transmitted disease.The film also reinvents the Count in a far stronger way than the Coppola film. Marc Warren's Dracula perfectly blends the hideous monster of the book with the suave socialite of the 1931 Universal film. He starts off (as he should) old and withered, but later rejuvenates himself to a wild, Byronic appearance. Warren himself is rather good in the role; his accent tends to wander, but he strikes a good balance between seduction and animalistic rage.Far more emphasis is placed in this film on Arthur and Lucy than the traditional "Dracula couple" of Mina and Jonathan. Holmwood is here a secondary villain (this isn't a spoiler as it's clear from the first 10 minutes) rather than a secondary hero, and his unconsummated marriage to Lucy (and her subsequent frustration) provides much of the drama. Sophia Myles is excellent as Lucy - not the promiscuous flirt of Coppola's film nor the childish girl of the 1977 BBC version, but a strong woman with hidden desires. Stephanie Leonidas is also very good as Mina; she's weaker than usually portrayed but this arguably makes her more convincing as a victim of Dracula.The hero of the piece is, unusually, Dr Seward, ably played by Tom Burke. There's an animosity between him and Dan Stevens' Holmwood, originating in their rivalry over Lucy. As the hero, Seward's character is somewhat inconsistent, changing to meet the needs of the story, but he's nevertheless an engaging protagonist.Van Helsing is radically different from normal; it's hard to discuss David Suchet's portrayal without spoilers, but it would be fair to say he takes on some aspects of the omitted Renfield character - he doesn't eat flies, but he does go a bit mad.The film is well made. The music is great, the sets display the British flair for costume drama, and the cinematography is dark and moody. It's overall an excellent piece of Gothic drama; it's not particularly scary, but it captures the sense of morbidity that characterises Gothic fiction.

The problem with making a film out of "Dracula" is that the book was pretty good to start with. Cinematically written, with well-measured pace changes, atmospheric description, three-dimensional characters and grand settings and vistas, it should transcribe perfectly to the screen. And, given the BBC's skill with period pieces and adaptations of classics (I mean, look at Pride and Prejudice), it should have transcribed perfectly. As far as I can see, the best explanation for its failure is that the creators didn't actually bother to read the book.Written in large letters on the BBC's "Dracula" website are the words "Returning to the original novel for his inspiration, Stewart Harcourt's script draws both on elements of Bram Stoker's own life and Victorian society to give this version of the vampire classic a new, modern sensibility." Nice sentiment, but complete drivel. Harcourt seems instead to believe that throwing in trivial details from the original text (Dracula's "youthening", the Count's ability to walk in sunlight) grants him licence to ignore the original plot. It doesn't. The film begins decently enough (the first of the many syphilis references notwithstanding - I'll get to those later), but Jonathan Harker's death early on is more than enough to give the lie to the BBC's grand statement on its website.And the syphilis. It seems to be the bounden duty of every pseudo-intellectual Dracula reader to insist that Bram Stoker was himself suffering from the disease when he wrote the book. In this adaptation that little shred of a hypothesis is blown up to cosmic proportions, and, while it's a nice way of saying "look at how educated we are", it doesn't stand up to the inflation, and it just doesn't work to hang an entire plot on it. Besides that, the simple fact of the matter is that Bram Stoker never did contract syphilis*, so the attempt at intellectualism is wasted.It's okay to change plots if you have to. Disney does it to make classic stories more child- friendly. The National Theatre did it to make Northern Lights more adaptable to the stage. But to rip a classic and originally compelling story to shreds, piece it back together in the wrong order like some gross literary Frankenstein's monster, and then claim that the adaptation returns to the material of the original book...well, frankly that's just false advertising.*The claim that Bram Stoker suffered from syphilis is based on the assertion of a single biographer that he died of "locomotor ataxy", a disease which, while occasionally associated with syphilis, has never been conclusively shown to be the same thing. Locomotor ataxy was certainly not recognised as an STD, which renders conclusively useless any theories that Stoker wrote Dracula as a commentary on syphilis and its associations with promiscuity or sexual deviance.

When he learns that his father and mother both died of syphilis and that this fate awaits him, Arthur Holmwood takes desperate measures to try and find a cure so he can marry his Lucy. He arranges for young solicitor Jonathan to go to Transylvania to meet with a Count Dracula, in return for which Arthur will get the help he needs. However Jonathan never returns from his trip (to the fear of fiancé Mina) but Arthur marries Lucy, knowing that the cure is coming in the form of Dracula. The arrival of Dracula in the UK though, brings only danger and none of the solutions Arthur had hoped for.The Christmas television schedules are loaded with one-off specials of normal shows as well as comparatively big-budget television movies such as 2006's Wind in the Willows and this most recent take on this classic horror story. My initial worries were based around the very modern and populist casting of Warren in the title role but I was able to get passed this early on as the film initially trades on sets, costumes and the general professional BBC feel to get by. Although it does significantly vary from the source material, the script does capture the sense of period pretty well and is a solid enough frame even if I understand why fans of the original will be annoyed.The potential for the film is in the themes but it doesn't deliver as well as I would have liked. Instead of running through the material, the ideas are mostly just stuck together and I didn't get a sense of a rich story – just a serviceable one. The cast seem to notice this lack of depth and strength because mostly they just overact and push the emotions to the fore. Warren is miscast as he lacks the predatory sexuality of the character, it is not about looks but about presence. He does have a certain cheeky charm to him in Hustle but that wouldn't fit here and he is exposed somewhat. He resorts at times to a heavy accent and stiffly carrying his body around. Stevens is a bit clunky even if Myles and Leonidas both provide very easy good looks. Suchet hams it up but at least provides a colourful character towards the end.Overall then a very basic film despite looking and feeling very professional and interesting. The material is serviceable even if it does vary from the source, but the themes and ideas are presented rather than weaved into the story. The performances are mostly so-so as mostly they act into their preconceptions of Dracula rather than going into the script – it doesn't help either to have Marc Warren miscast into the title role. A passable but mostly disappointing film from the BBC.