Dracula

Was really rather looking forward to this, but was very disappointed by the finished product. It simply was so far removed from Stoker's tale that it could hardly count itself as an adaptation of the book. Not a single line of dialogue from Stoker's text was used; none of the characters were presented as they are on the page (Van Helsing a hermit living in a cellar!), and what book did the Satanist Singleton step out of? It was neither scary, nor sexy. Marc Warren did an interesting Klaus Kinski impersonation when he was old man Drac in the first act, but after his transformation into Robert Smith from The Cure, I lost interest. This is the 2nd time the BBC have filmed Dracula, and this one pales in comparison to their 1977 version starring Louis Jordan.

In 1992, Francis Ford Coppola made the definitive version of Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula", with his stylish "Bram Stoker Dracula". Coppola's work and F.W. Murnau's masterpiece "Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens" are the best adaptation of the foregoing novel. I am a fan of vampire movies and the Hammer productions with the character Dracula performed by Christopher Lee are part of my youth.

"Dracula" (2006) is a stylish version made for television, with a great cast and magnificent cinematography that are wasted in a poorly written screenplay that introduces awful modifications to the original romance. This version is decent but absolutely unnecessary; entertains, but also disappoints the fans of the romance. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "Dracula"

First, as others have noted, this has nearly nothing to do with the Bram Stoker novel other than the names of principal characters and the larger plot arc (Dracula moving to London). But I am not bothered by that if they think it in deeper ways.

There are quite a number of VERY clever plot additions that could have been very helpful. One is the religion that Mr. Singleton leads. The book was written at a time when such "spiritualist" groups were popping up all over Europe, which is why the book was so popular. So that part makes sense. But then they turned it into a cartoon-like cross between the Mob and Dungeons and Dragons. Had it been more like the Theosophical Society, they would have had a brilliant turn.

There were strong allusions to the British Empire's global reach, but it was dropped quickly. This could have been at the heart of an ongoing TV series, where Dracula sends out the Undead across the Empire. But no, it was just a throw-away line in the rush to finish within 90 minutes.

I also felt that the sexuality was WAY overdone. Sure, it's there in all vampire tales, and abundantly so in the original. But this made it the prime motive of all actors. Too much.

And finally, the SLAM BAM ending made me ashamed of being an American. Why must our pop culture do so much damage to film-making around the world?

The new BBC adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula is flawed but makes for enjoyable viewing. It seemed so promising, with a great cast and the aim to create an exciting new take on the old tale. Also, the BBC rarely produce a bad piece of TV drama.

So where did it all go wrong? I think the sometimes drastic changes from the source material were poorly constructed. The writing was competent but the plot dragged and never really flowed. Characters were underwritten and, despite the efforts of the talented cast, remained unconvincing throughout. The character of Jonathan Harker was reduced to a couple of scenes, then disappeared, leaving Lord Holmwood to become the main character. The changes were supposed to bring freshness to an often told story but paled in comparison to the original story; which, told well, is an exhilarating experience.

The casting was perhaps the production's strongest point, though the script never did justice to the characters. Talented young actors Rafe Spall, Dan Stevens and Sophia Myles were wasted in their roles, but Stevens in particular did well to convincingly portray Holmwood despite the dodgy dialogue he had to contend with. Marc Warren made a decent attempt at the Count but his was the most severely underwritten role, and because of this Dracula is never menacing, just some foreign bloke who likes blood. The standout performance came from David Suchet, as Abraham Van Helsing, who stole the limited screen time he was given.

This telling of Stoker's tale was competent but largely dull, benefiting from some interesting acting and a decent ending.

Being a huge fan of the book and countless other screen adaptations, especially Hammer's fine back catalogue, I looked forward to this with eager anticipation.

Although I found the twists in the plot to be really exciting and a breath of fresh air, I personally found that the hammy acting spoiled it and thought that Mina and Lucy were just plain awful. Not convincing whatsoever.

The creepy Warren gave me some hope as Dracula, although he didn't have presence of character enough to pull it off. I guess not too many actors do! I can only think of Christopher Lee, Bela Lugosi and Gary Oldman who have pulled it off.

David Suchet played a fantastic van Helsing, however and for me, was the star of an otherwise disappointing adaptation.