Simply Perfect

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

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.

I think it is the best adaptation of Bram Stoker's classic novel so far and is pure drama and much much better than the Gary Oldman's version because in that movie, sex was the main theme and almost everybody was shown morally corrupt and no one seemed sensible or serious which is not in the novel, however acting were good. Where as in this movie, you can expect to see real life style of Victorian era and characters are not wronged. It is pure drama, however some major points are missing as Dracula's role is minimized which i wish was not. when it comes to acting, Marc Warren is too cute to play Dracula but he played it pretty good but he was misused as he could do it mush better and show his great acting abilities if he was given the chance to explore the role completely and if the role was not minimized.I really can't understand why people call him worst Dracula because he was not even given the proper chance to act which he should have been given as he was misused in a way but he still did great. However he is very charming and i have become his huge fan after seeing this movie as it is his first movie that i have ever seen. Others actors were good too and Sophia Myles was very pretty in the movie. I really wish it was more than just 90 minutes.

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.

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!).