Great visuals, story delivers no surprises

Best movie of this year hands down!

Amateur movie with Big budget

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

The BBC's Masterpiece Theatre, "Beautiful Creatures" director Bill Eagles, and "Jericho" television scribe Stewart Harcourt have appropriated Bram Stoker's immortal vampire tale "Dracula" and given it more than a few usual twists. Indeed, their adaptation is about as far out as you can imagine. I've seen virtually every version of "Dracula," and this concise but irreverent 90-minute epic takes incredible liberties that not even Bram Stoker might have if he could come back from the grave. Mind you, the producers shed more light on the early part of the story involving Jonathan Harker and his fiancée Mina Murry. Nevertheless, they have tampered considerably with the text (what brought Dracula to London) as well as ushered in some new characters, chiefly Alfred Singleton who leads a religious blood cult. These guys are so afraid of publicity that he kill anybody who they come into contact with. Meaning, they are a small bunch of fiends. One of Stoker's character, Arthur Holmwood takes on new dimensions with a larger part in the narrative. As unusual as "Dracula" remains, Eagles does a good job of shoehorning some the basics in this made-for-television story. Chiefly, Eagles and his hawks have sent Renfield, Quincy Morris, the vampire wenches, and the gypsies packing. Marc Warren is neither like Bela Lugosi or Christopher Lee. The best line that he utters is: "I only go where I am desired and while I am invited in." The scene when Dracula materializes in the bedroom and has sex with Lucy in the same bed that her fully clothed husband is sleeping in a hand's width away is rather risqué. Traditional "Dracula" fans may strongly take issue with this reimagination of the character.

All the action was packed into the last couple of minutes. I was really excited about this when they showed you the trailers on television but was highly disappointed by it. I had never read Dracula before and didn't really understand it, luckily i read the book after. However there were a few good points in the film, for example when Johnathan goes to the castle the count is as i would imagine him in the book. However it leads up to a very disappointing end and doesn't explain why the count is the way his is, the history behind him which is mentioned in the book is missed out. A pretty poor BBC adaption of a well loved and known story

I first saw that this was going to be shown here in the U.S. on PBS on February 11, which happens to be my birthday, and considered it an unexpected treat - and, having watched the show, my opinion hasn't changed.I had never heard of Marc Warren, but I was more than satisfied with his performance in the title role. I thought he made a very menacing (in his aged state) and sexy (in his young state) Count, and found his voice to be one of his most seductive features. The remaining cast - some of whom I had seen before - were also excellent. I especially liked the scene of Drac's seduction of Lucy as she lies in bed beside her unconscious husband - who, due to his fear of infecting her with his own syphilis, has not consummated their marriage although it has been several months. It was very, very sexy in a perverse way but not tasteless or explicit.All in all, a fine effort by all involved.

SPOILERS AT END OF PARAGRAPH! I don't know what is up with some of modern remakes of classical literature. This adaptation was really just a rewrite. Marc Warren as Dracula was good in the very beginning but as the story moved on got worse. His Dracula was a mixture of Klaus Kinski and Gary Oldman. He had the creepiness of Kinski but not the charisma or sexuality of Gary Oldman. I don't want to criticize the man but he was not meant to play Dracula maybe if they did another remake of Nosferatu he might be quite good if he matures in his acting. The sets and costumes were quite good. Too long of a novel to be made for just a 90 minute time slot.My two biggest complaints about this adaptation were the subplots involving a Satan worshiping Nosferatu (undead) cult and Lord Holmwood's so-called hereditary syphilis. The female leads were adequate but not great they both could have performed better. Suchet's Van Helsing stole the show. The Actor playing Holmwood was fine in the role but Bram Stoker's Lord Holmwood was not a pompous ass unlike the portrayal of the character in this adaptation. If a person wants to really see close to the book adaptations of Bram Stoker's Dracula here are my listings of the four must see films.Count Dracula (1977)BBC with Louis Jourdan,Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) with Gary Oldman,Bram Stoker's Count Dracula (1970) with Christopher Lee and Bram Stoker's Dracula (1974) with Jack Palance. Watching any of those films would be better than watching this but if you are a vampire film lover by all means watch the 2006 version of Bram Stoker's (?,He would roll over in his grave and if this had been adapted in 1922 instead of 2006 the widow Stoker would have sued Mr.Harcourt's butt like she did F.W. Murnau for Nosferatu!).