XoWizIama Excellent adaptation.

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Lucia Ayala It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

PeterBradford1 I am still struggling with how to process this version. My first impression, about 20 minutes into the film, was that I felt I was watching a movie where all the action had been cut out and all the boring dialogue scenes kept in. On top of that, the film looks like it was edited in a salad spinner. Scenes jump around in no particular order. The continuity of the novel isn't followed at all. The Bloofer Lady subplot and Quincey Morris are both absent. The ending like something out of an Eighties horror film, and this was from 2006. The characterization of Dracula, at least in the early scenes, was more in line with Stoker (and better than Gary Oldman). Check it out. You have been warned.

kriitikko In 1977 BBC produced three hours long "Count Dracula", a very faithful and one of the best adaptations of Bram Stoker's classic vampire story. In 2006 BBC excited fans by releasing a new version of the same book, this time directed by Bill Eagles. Sadly, this one doesn't come anywhere near the 1977 versions quality.Set in the 1899 Victorian England, Lord Arthur Holmwood (Dan Stevens) has just proposed the girl of his dreams, Lucy Westenra (Sophia Myles), when he finds out that his father has died of syphilis that he had for number of years. The disease has been passed to Arthur, who decides to keep it a secret and in desperation turns to Alfred Singleton (Donald Sumpter), a leader of a strange cult, who promises that Arthur can be cured, if he finances a strange Romanian noble man Count Dracula (Marc Warren) to England. Arthur arranges Jonathan Harker (Rafe Spall) to travel to Transylvania and make the deal with the Count. Jonathan's fiancée Mina Murray (Stephanie Leonidas) stays with Lucy until his return.Technically this film is typical BBC quality work with beautiful sets, colorful sceneries and music fit to the scenes. However, that alone is not enough to save this mess. What's with the plot? I understand that Stoker's book is not the most easiest thing to film and people want to add new things to the story, but Stoker's book has never had a truly faithful adaptation, so why such huge changes? Not only does the plot have more than enough for one film, the events go with such an incredible speed that it is easy to loose your track here. The entire sequence with Jonathan and Dracula in the Castle, one of the most important parts of the story, is over so fast, that if I had briefly gone to a toilet I would have missed it. Now, there are some parts from Stoker's book, like the shipwreck and Lucy's death, and the film tries to keep the themes from the book, the Victorian era morality, dangers of affairs and Catholicism. However, even those themes seem to get lost in this film.One of the biggest flaws is the way film presents most of its characters. The good natured and kind hearted Arthur has been turned to a desperate, almost menacing man who at times appears as a complete jerk. Lucy becomes so desperate for sex that she would have probably opened her legs to a gardener if Dracula hadn't come. Abraham Van Helsing has been lowered to a minor character who briefly appears towards the end of the movie. If that's not bad enough, he is played by talented David "Poirot" Suchet, who is completely wasted in this film. Dracula has also gone through a terrible change. While still in Castle and under a heavy makeup, Marc Warren actually makes him creepy and interesting. However, when he becomes young and goes to England, he merely appears as a bored playboy, poor man's Frank Langella, who doesn't have any chemistry with neither of the women (which makes Lucy's seduction scene ridiculous). Although I'm not fond of the more romantic version of Dracula in Coppola's film, at least Gary Oldman was interesting. Warren's Dracula doesn't appear neither as a seducer or a monster, he just is there.Dracula appears very little in this film and with all the other plots going around here, the film should not have been called "Dracula". Because all in all, this is a period-costume-drama film that just happens to have a vampire as one of the (minor) characters. If you haven't read the book or didn't like it, then this may be good film for you.

bensonmum2 Based on several aspects of the plot description for this 2006 BBC version of Dracula, it would be understandable to ask what this production has to do with either the Bram Stoker novel or the many film adaptations that came before it. In this version, Lord Holmwood, with the assistance of a Satanic/blood cult, sends for Count Dracula hoping for a cure to the syphilis he inherited from his parents. He saw what the disease did to them and wants to rid his body of the disease before he marries his fiancé, Lucy. Count Dracula arrives in England, but has other plans in mind that do not include Lord Holmwood. Dracula views England as the center of a new empire he wants to control. And his first victim – Lucy.Honestly, though, these changes to the traditional Dracula plot (other than those involving the Van Helsing character) had little effect on my enjoyment or lack thereof of this movie. What really did in the BBC's Dracula for me was the sloppy direction and poor acting. While much of the movie looked good (And don't all period BBC pieces?), it felt so rushed that there was never a chance to get to know the characters or to build atmosphere or do any of those things necessary for effective period horror. The movie jumps from scene to scene to scene without providing either establishing shots or taking the time for a scene to end properly. Quick camera cuts, poor lighting, overusing hand held camera shots, and MTV-style editing are just a few of the sins that I'm laying at the feet of director Bill Eagles. As for the problems I had with the acting, other than David Suchet (who is on camera far too briefly), I cannot name an actor who stood out. They were either just plain old bad (Sophia Myles as Lucy and Stephanie Leonides as Mina) or they were wrong for their part (Tom Burke as Dr. Seward and Marc Warren as Dracula). While a few random set-pieces were quite nice, there are too many problems for me to call this Dracula a good movie.Overall, the BBC's most recent stab at filming Dracula is a weak, unsatisfying, and disappointing affair. For what it's worth, I'll give it a 4/10.

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