User reviews

Bram Stoker's 1897 novel, Dracula, has seen over 350 adaptations for the screen (big and small), with many of them using the original tex to explore some of the socio-political issues of the day. So, for example, Tod Browning's Dracula (1931) turns the count into an elegant aristocrat analogous to the various monarchs in power across Europe at the time; the nine Hammer Horror films from 1958-1974 are at least partially structured around simple Cold War good/bad-west/east dichotomy politics; Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992), which was made at a time when the media were in the habit of making superstars of criminals, very much leans into the idea of the seductive power of evil. And now we have this latest BBC adaptation, created by Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat. Running a hefty 270 minutes (divided into three episodes of 90 minutes each), the series seeks to capture the tone of the original novel, if not necessarily the plot. Extremely funny in places, extremely disturbing in others, this is probably the best small screen adaptation since Philip Saville's superb Count Dracula (1977). There are some problems, and fans of the novel have taken especial (and not entirely unjustified) umbrage with the unexpected narrative shift in the last episode, but all in all, helped in no small part by an immense central performance, I thoroughly enjoyed this version.

Hungry, 1897; Jonathan Harker (John Heffernan), an English lawyer sent to Transylvania some months prior, has become a shell of a man. Physically deformed and mentally fragile, he is now staying at a small convent. Having written an account of his experiences, Harker is being interviewed by the acerbic Sister Agatha (a superb Dolly Wells), who is hoping he can fill in some of the details he left absent from his document. And so he tells how he came to Transylvania to meet the elderly Dracula (an exceptional Claes Bang having the time of his life), and of the subsequent horrors he experienced.

Whereas the novel begins just before Harker arrives at Castle Dracula, the show begins with him already in a nunnery in Hungry, having fled the castle, and the novel's multi-perspective epistolary narrative is replaced with a more basic single-character flashback-style narration. Opening this way is a wise move, as it alerts the audience immediately that this isn't a 1:1 adaptation. Unfortunately, because the show deviates so much from the novel, and because the third episode is so unexpected and unique, discussing much about the overarching narrative design lends itself to spoilers.

Indeed, the same could also be said of the aesthetics, with each episode looking and feeling substantially different from the other two, but in such a way that to go into detail would spoil the nature of the final episode. In any case, the first episode is your basic gothic horror full of deep shadows, huge towers, labyrinthine interiors, and ominous opulence; the second is a ship-based murder-mystery along the lines of Murder on the Orient Express (except, of course, we all know who the killer is from the start); and the third is a gaudy, postmodernist-infused examination of youthful vapidity, corporate greed, decadence for decadence sake, and the all-conquering power of superficiality. Arwel Jones's production design across all three episodes is simply stunning; from the twisting staircases and dead-end tunnels of Castle Dracula to the weather-beaten Demeter (the doomed ship in the second episode) to Dracula's quite stunning residence in the third episode, everything on screen seems completely real and the world feels legitimately lived in. Costume designer Sarah Arthur also deserves praise, especially for her work in the first episode, where Harker's disintegrating mental and physical state is matched by his increasingly shabby clothing.

And there are some really extraordinary visual moments here. A close-up of a fly crawling on an eyeball, for example, which then crawls behind the eyeball is particularly disturbing (indeed flies are a recurring visual motif throughout the show), as is a scene where Dracula quite literally climbs out of a wolf (shot practically on set without any CGI). The exterior shots of Castle Dracula are also amazing, and why wouldn't they be as the show uses the incredible Orava Castle in Slovakia, which was also used for Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror (1922).

The acting is also terrific, particularly Bang and Wells, who both get to have tremendous fun; Bang as the sarcastic Count and Wells as perhaps the most irreverent nun ever committed to screen. Much of the strength of their performances comes in how well they handle the incredibly dry humour, of which there is a surprising amount (although Bang can also be truly terrifying when necessary). So, for example, when the convent is surrounded by hundreds of bats, and Agatha is asked "why would the forces of darkness wish to attack a convent", to which she replies (completely deadpan), "perhaps they're sensitive to criticism." Dracula also gets in on the comedy. Explaining to Harker how he has had artists paint the sun for him, he then says, "And Mozart wrote such a pretty little tune", before mumbling to himself, "I really should have spared him". The nonchalant way Bang delivers the line is hilarious, as if it's only just occurred to him (not to mention that it ties into real-world speculation about what actually killed Mozart). Later on, he points out, "I'm undead - I'm not unreasonable". As the show goes on, Bang gets to show more of his range, bringing out not just Dracula's confidence and sarcasm, but so too his pride, frustration, boredom, and fears, culminating in an exceptional final scene, with Bang doing some truly wonderful silent acting.

Thematically, the show deconstructs much traditional vampire lore, particularly the power of crucifixes. Exactly why Dracula would fear the cross when he doesn't believe in God is a theme that spans all three episodes. Along the same lines, Dracula's immortality is examined in light of the boredom that it must entail and the irony of how a creature of death can't know death itself ("in a world of travelled roads, death is the last unprinted snow"). Similar deconstruction of Dracula's need for blood sees it presented more like an addiction than a necessity. And, of course, as in so many vampire movies, the show examines the idea that evil can be seductive, suggesting that if evil is sexy and alluring, if it's attractive, it can be difficult to resist.

As for problems, many viewers despised the last episode, and I can see why (although I loved it), as it takes things in a wholly new, totally unexpected direction that asks more than a little leap of faith from the audience. Certainly, if the first two episodes form a broadly coherent unit, the third disrupts everything, and is thematically, aesthetically, and tonally divorced from its predecessors. Some of the humour in this episode also pushes things a little too far, with one joke in particular crossing the line into farce. I'm also not sure the show needed to be as long as it is; three 60 minute episodes probably would have sufficed.

That aside though, I loved this adaptation. Purists' disdain for it is understandable, but to my mind, it captures much of the tonal qualities of the original very well. Much like Coppola's version, it deviates wildly from the book but is made by people who are clearly familiar with the source and respectful of its mythology. Featuring a suitably posthumanist Dracula for our jaded times, Gatiss and Moffat may not have pleased traditionalists, but this is a very fine attempt to bring Dracula into the 21st century without ever losing sight of his origins and raison d'être.

Claes Bang is absolutely delicious as Dracula, I really liked him in the part and Dolly Wells just brilliant as Agata Van Helsing.

Episode one had me gripped, episode 2 was brilliant, except had the unwelcome wiff of the BBC fitting it's agendas in, but episode 3, as others have mentioned and I wanted to test, was indeed an absolute train wreck. Not only did it completely fail the first two, it was almost a different programme and the BBC, of course, got their agendas in there. Just awful, with a rotten ending to finish it. Watch the first two, don't ruin it with the third.

10/10 for the first two, 0 for the third.

The third episode was simply terrible. It's a shame because the first two were pretty good. I don't know what they were thinking with the third, it's absurd and very out of place with the other two.

Saw the trailer for the new BBC TV adaptation of Dracula, the Count spouting humorous one liners and the action taking place in both the 19th and 21st Centuries I was not sure if I wanted to devote 4.5 hours of my time to watching this. But I'm a big Dracula fan, plus I like Mark Gatiss so how could I resist? I couldn't. Divided into 3 episodes the first was for me the best. This is the beginning, set in the Old Country at Dracula's foreboding castle. Very impressive, the sets, the stunning location, superb special effects. It is also pretty scary. great acting. The only thing caught me off guard was having Van Helsing as a female, but it kind of worked and it is essential to treat that this as a "Based On" adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel, or in other words a re-imagining. Pretty much the entire length of part 2 takes place on board the boat to England. It is good, thankfully the various characters help make it interesting, but it is a tad too long. Part 3 takes place over 100 years later in modern day England. This one is by far the most reworked part of the story. I like the idea of this but do feel that the writers are trying to be too clever for their own good with this section and the humour detracts from the horror, though it still has plenty of scary moments. I am glad that I watched the series, despite initial reservations. Like I have mentioned this is very much a modern reworking of the novel (none of the film adaptations follow the book exactly), watch it with an open mind. It's not going to please everyone but despite all the negative reviews so far it does have a respectable current average score of 7/10.

Really, really good up until last 10 minutes.

Each episode is great, even the third one which features one of the scariest parts. It was a lot different from the first two episodes, and I can see why a lot of people hate it, but I found it equally entertaining, although I didn't like the ending, and the whole atmosphere and Gothic vibe is lost. Maybe it would work even better as a long movie, with third act changed and shortened? Nonetheless, I think the whole miniseries is a bit underrated.

Episode 1 - Great, sometimes awkward, but really fun! Episode 2 - Great too, with "The Terror: season 1" vibe! Episode 3 - Nice change, not as great as the first two, some notable scenes and bad ending!

First episode maintains a gothic vibe and the second holds up well to that. the third episode is an absolute DOOSEY and does not hold up at all compared to the other two.

I like the vampire genre. This is another stab at the classic Dracula tale but with a lot of liberties. I found those liberties to be quite entertaining, however if you are a huge fan of the novel and hoping for some degree of accuracy or commitment you might be disappointed. This movie attempts to be scary, smart and funny. It succeeds somewhat. I enjoyed the campy special effects, they reminded me of the old classic horrors I grew up watching. All in all I found it to be fun. This is not a heavy duty serious gothic Dracula film, this is more like a mini series and has enough moments of humor to keep it a little lighter. Sets and costumes are beautiful. Camera work is good. Acting was good as well. I can definitely see why some people take issue with the overall storyline and some of the dialogue which can come off as modern. At the end of the day, every movie and show isn't meant for a serious award, sometimes you just spend a few hours being entertained by something new. And that's all. I enjoyed it.

Unlike previous adaptations (however loose) that have either focused wholly on scares or laughs, this latest version appears to try to combine the two. Unfortunately it fails to deliver much of either. The writers have taken liberties with the story, which is frankly no bad thing (who wants to see exactly the same thing that we've seen so many times all over again?), but it feels incoherent and loose compared to the original. There's some good writing here, mostly the part of Sister Agatha (Dolly Wells), who is the real star of this show. The real problem is that this Dracula is more parody than scary, and there's no real tension in the four and a half hours of the series. The sets and settings are good, the effects and makeup are fine, and there are references and nods to other shows and films that are kind of fun to spot, but ultimately it isn't enough to take this beyond mildly entertaining.

Claes Bang is a marvelous Dracula. Enigmatic, sexy, and scary in one terrific vampire. I did not know what to expect going in to yet another Dracula story, but I was riveted from the start. The gothic atmosphere took hold and I watched the entire series in one sitting. I was leery of having a female Van Helsing, but the actress made me a believer. The jump to the 21st century in episode 3 took me by surprise, but I went with it. I'd have preferred the story to stay in 1897, but I got caught up in the modern day story. I'm hoping for another season with these two actors reprising their roles.

Was really into this for the first 2 episodes, then the third one came along and, well, was rubbish. Loved the Dracula character and the Van Helsing character, but the third episode should just not have been made. 6 for the first two episodes only, 0 for the third.

Started with so much promise and the first episode is really good. The second episode begins to take too many liberties with the source material and by the third is unrecognizable as even part of the same series. I can't remember a series which nosedived so rapidly.

I really don't care about ownership, orthodoxy or faithfulness to classics. Dracula is essentially an archetype and any creative person is free do use that archetype, diverge from typical telling or in fact invert everything about it.

But that can't be the only thrust of an adaption: "Hey look we did a different take on Dracula!... isn't that refreshing and cutting edge of us?" when in fact no real talent went into do it. in fact BBC "2020 Dracula" is the opposite of cutting edge it is just applying newer tropes. On top of that the scripting and dialogue is childish, indeed moronic. Skip it

Where do I begin, without giving too much away?

I believe a good place would be to say that never did I think a show would pin me to the screen without ever wanting to move during the entirety of each of the first two episodes the way Dracula does. Breaking Bad is the only series to have done the same, and consistently.

I am amazed so far by Dracula. (And I almost hate saying that as I don't want to over hype it).

For a while now, the ratings on IMDB make me shake my head. Dracula is no different. The fact that it only has a 7.1 is unbelievable to me. This should be THE new show to watch. It almost leaves me at a loss for words with how good it is - for those who enjoy a highly intelligent script; extremely witty dialogue; great twists; a fast, forwardly-moving story (despite its slow-to-steady, almost delicious pacing, you'll understand what I mean if you watch it); fantastic acting; charismatic and sometimes quirky characters; and so much more! The only thing I can imagine is that perhaps people rated it based only on the first 20-30 minutes or so, which indeed are a little slow, in which case I would suggest they watch more and come back and re-rate; OR that some people have a problem with the subject matter. Well, that should tell you something. See, it is, simply, Dracula redone ... but REDONE SO WELL that it is raising hackles and disturbing those that don't understand this magnificent, bloody, especially clever piece of art.

Well done, creators! Bravo!

WATCH IT.

Edit: Lowered score due to the ending. The first 2/3 (two-thirds) were MAGNIFICENT. The rest felt uneven.

All in all it comes off as a good series however...if the obvious postmodern ideologies weren't so prevalent in the narrative it would've been amazing. This won't age well.

Well I wasn't expecting that I have to say, it was brilliant, but given those behind it I shouldn't really be surprised. It was actually scary, again I wasn't expecting scary.

It looked wonderful, gloriously dark and gothic, despite being slick and modern I couldn't help thinking it had a vintage feel to it, more than a nod to the Christopher Lee films.

It started off in a dark and gothic tone and continued in the same manner, Parts one and two are amazing, such a shame Part three was such a let down, the early episodes were still enough to make it a wow.

Claes Bang, a name people in years to come will be making as their favourite actor in the role, he was superb and looked the part.

Horror to start 2020! Yes please! 9/10

1 & 2 are placed in a different time period with intriguing takes from Bram Strokers Dracula I found it entertaining and creepy. 3 did feel like it jumped the theme. Placed in a different time period that could have been it's own season all together and more fleshed out so it didn't feel so forced. They could have put so much more into the story, and I wished they did. The acting was great, witty story telling, strong female to balance out Dracula. Worth the watch.

Dracula is a drama-horror three part series. It's a collection of three stories that don't really connect with each other. There are horrible details in the series: nuns get murdered by wolves, people get burned alive, Dracula licks a bloody knife, an online dating experience goes really bad. But none of that hardly makes any sense. The filmmakers are messing with our heads. In my opinion, it is really unsatisfying to watch horrible pointless things. It left me wondering why this series was made in the first place. It was cancelled and I can see why. I rate this series no stars it really sucked.