Dracula (2007)

This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

As seems to be an iron clad law with all Dracula adaptations , liberties are taken with the story that result in it being yet another abomination.The main thrust of the story is Arthur holmwood and his attempts at curing his inherited syphilis, utilising a strange blood cult and tricking Jonathan Harker into going to Transylvania knowing who he will find there??any of this sound familiar? no? because its nothing to do with the book at all. The actor playing Dr Seward in particular is incredibly bad. They don't even bother to hide his cockney accent or even consider how unlikely and unbelievable it would be to have a late Victorian era doctor with a working class London accent. This is all forgotten of course when you realise he cannot act.A Dracula too young to play the role, and an accent that you cannot understand is the icing on this cake of awfulness. I don't know about Draculabut I'm sure Bram Stoker is turning in his grave

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.

This was a silly adaptation of a classic and thrilling story. I had hoped that this would finally be a true telling of the story, with Dracula as a purely predatory character instead of a figure of seduction. Frankly, none of the characters were an appropriate interpretation of what Stoker had written, which was truly disappointing. There are several figures in the book that would be a challenge and a thrill to portray and there has yet to be any film that touches on them even briefly. This movie takes several liberties with storytelling and it is unfulfiling and distracting. It seems to be more concerned with trying to create an atmosphere of suspense rather than tell a good story. Very disappointing.

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/