I love this movie so much

Excellent but underrated film

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

The acting in this movie is really good.

Why oh why oh why do scriptwriters, directors, producers, etc insist on taking wonderful books, ripping out the pages, and inserting garbage?How dare the scriptwriter employed on this project believe he can improve on Stokers original?Dracula is one of the finest, most frightening horror stories I have ever read. Why oh why oh why is no one prepared to make a faithful film of it?

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.

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/

while i can't say whether this adaption of the Dracula myth is true to Bram Stoker's novel,(since i haven't read it)i still liked it.i liked the look of Dracula as an old man and as the young man.i also really liked the almost unrecognizable David(Poirot)Suchet as Abraham Van Helsing.i don't think i've ever seen an episode of Masterpiece theatre,but i think they did a fine job with the Dracula lore.Marc Warren was good as the count and i could see how the character could be seductive to women. i liked the look of the film.it is certainly beautifully photographed.i think this is the most romanticized version of Dracula i've seen so far.it's just as good as any of the others i have seen.i give this version of "Dracula" 8/10