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.

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.

and also one of the originals ones. Based on Bram Stocker Dracula, this movie center on Arthur Holmwood (Dan Stevens). A powerful English lord who suffer an heritage Syphilys who killed his parents. So he contacts a Secret Society as his last hope to finish his fatal illness, so he can depose the beautiful Lucy Westerna (Sophya Miles). At first looks like another boring BBC TV Movie or Miniseries, but then the crippy and the horror appeared. The thing that I like of the movie is that finally makes justice for a forgotten part of the book. The dead calm of the British coast before the huracaine of blood starts. Also makes justice to Lucy Character, who isn't a slut, just a Virgin girl who try to forget her virginity after several month of marriage. The cast is not the best but Sophia Miles and Dan Stevens shines as the Holmwood, and Tom Burke (as Seward), David Suchet and Marc Warren (as the Roumanian Count) makes also a wood work. The only miscast are Stephanie Leonidas and Rafe Spalle as Mina and Hycker.

This a professionally and stylish looking BBC made-for-TV adaptation of the famous Dracula story by Bram Stoker, that however differs too much from the original story and adds very little new and interesting in exchange. On top of the that the movie has an extremely poor flow, which makes the movie confusing and dull to watch, with too many- and poorly developed characters.The movie makes too many leaps in time and the overall flow itself also isn't really perfect. It also makes the movie confusing to follow at times, especially if you don't know the Dracula story in advance. It also makes some of the sequences weak and causes to leave an unsatisfying impression such as the introduction of the Dracula character. Boom! He suddenly is there without any build-up. Its entire build-up and flow, or better said the lack of it all, is the reason why the movie just never becomes scary of even tense to watch. It's an extremely poorly told movie, without any introductions or development. It makes this a very disjointed and hard movie to watch.The movie leaves lots of room to put in multiple romantic plot-lines, which makes the movie also drag in points, especially the beginning.The movie was surprisingly good looking. I liked its style. It was a fine combination between the British upper-class kind of atmosphere and the more dark and moody horror atmosphere. The sets and cinematography were simply good.Even though the cast has some good British TV-actors in it, the acting is still one of the weaker spots and irritating part of the movie. It's painfully bad at times and unintentionally funny to watch. Most actors aren't really to be blamed for this but rather the poor script that makes some bad choices and has some poor and formulaic dialogs in it. It also doesn't help that none of the characters are introduced and developed properly. Seriously, who is who in this movie and what is their purpose exactly?Dracula really isn't right looking in this movie. I mean, even in his human form he's looking ugly and like a mad monster. He's supposed to be seductive, charismatic and sophisticated. He's none of those things in the movie and besides the actor portraying him looks too young.A version that you're better off not watching.2/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/