Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

rustybarkeeper This is an interesting angle on the mythology however the actor chosen to play Dracula is so square jawed he is not easy to watch. I've always thought Dracula should be entrancing and alluring.... The cult aspect is clever..... But even with the costumes and the sets this is a stinker.

zardoz-13 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.

claire-snoad 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

dani-colman 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.