This was just really bad and boring! This was one of the worst Dracula movies ever! Don't waste your time on this!
shareI didn't get to see it, what was so bad about it?
shareI thought the actor playing Dracula was okay actually, but some of the other actors didn't come across well.
Sophia Myles, as always, was impressive, but the actress playing Mina was not that strong. Neither was the actor playing Jonathan Harker, and even David Suchet as Van Helsing was not too good at times.
It's weird that Jonathan Harker has such a small role in this...and where are the Brides of Dracula...they are my favorite part of the book and I don't even see them in this film...I may turn it off half way through.I seldom do this but the film is that boring.
Maybe the actor playing JH was as uninspired as the script.
Good news, you'll be playing JH!! The lead in the book!
Bad news, he'll only be in a few scenes, sorry...
I like my Lucys flirty too...everyone is this movie is so dark. Lucy is sadly sexless and not teasing, the Brides aren't there...it seems in every scene someone shoots themselves in the head or something else depressing happens...yikes...it's really bad. Wooden acting, a weird plot miles away from the book and a very depressing mood...I liked Sophia too, just wished she could have been more like the Lucy in the book!
The one who says, ""Why can't they let a girl marry three men, or as many as want her, and save all this trouble?" Where is she in this dreck of a movie?
The pros:
- Sophia Myles' Lucy was absolutely stunning and her characterization was well handled
- Marc Warren had a good "Dracula" voice about him which was very forceful
- The dialogue was very nice
- Dracula was rather creepy as an old man and very much reminded me of Graf Orlok from Nosferatu
- The interaction between Mina and Lucy was good
- Sophia Myles was hella sexy, not just for her looks, but for her eroticism as well
- The confrontations with the vampires were enjoyable
- The application of 20th century sexuality to the 19th century was handled far more realistically here than in Francis Ford Cappola's film
The cons:
- As one person put it, the young Dracula looked like a clean shaven Edgar Allan Poe
- The film had virtually nothing to do with the novel, which wouldn't be so bad if it was actually a quality production in its own right
- Jonathan dies early on and Arthur is a heel
- If were to pick a color which I most associated with Dracula, it sure as hell wouldn't be green
- Dr. Seward proves to be the hero and gets the girl?
- Pretty much everything else
It's not a good Dracula adaptation by any stretch. It's not even a good production when viewed as an original vampire story. However, it does have its positives. Again, one of them being that I felt the application of modern sexuality to the 19th century was handled better here than in Francis Ford Copolla's film where Lucy has memorized the Kama Sutra. I enjoyed the stripping, the girl on girl kiss, etc., but.... No, there is no but. It was awesome. This is still more believable though.
[deleted]