ReaderKenka
Let's be realistic.
Mjeteconer
Just perfect...
ShangLuda
Admirable film.
jp1701
I first saw Dracula the TV series when I was nine. I liked it so much I became obsessed with vampires I even walk around in a black cape calling myself 'Dracula' I would were it every where even to the beach, yes I was that stupid. As I got older I stop doing that of course but I still credit this series for peaking an interest that later led me into Anne Rice. Seeing it now I have to view it a little more critically. The children (Max and Chris) are either written and/or acted poorly. Chris for example is made out of stereotypes that adults think of kids, Chris is into rap but never acts like it and all plays guitar like he is more into rock and role. They are in 'Europe' we never know where exactly and in the entire series I only count two other people other than Dracula himself who speaks with something other than an American accent, Sophie (who is still hot today)for example,always talks about 'American girls' while speaking in an American accent. Also the shows are only a half and hour, which makes everything, feel rushed. It also makes for slow development, the first episode is not very good, but pilots rarely are do to the fact that they take up most of their time explaining who everyone and what everything is but here they have to do that for two episodes. It's in the second episode in which they finally get around to explaining what it is that vampire bites can do. They can either leave you dead, turn you into a zombie, or make you into a vampire. They never get around to explaining how a vampire chooses which one to use but it is a good that they cleared up why Vampires are not over populating the Earth. Anne Rice's version was better but I like Dracula can make an Army of Zombies whenever he wants. The series has three saving graces. The first is Gordie Johnson's portrayal of Dracula is fun and incredible it still inspires me the way it did my nine-year old self. (Okay maybe not that extreme but I like him a lot better than the Buffy version.) The second is concept is the modern Dracula. It reminds me of Marv Wolvman's modernized version of Superman archenemies Lex Luthor. When you think of Count Dracula you think of the old vampire who became the Count of Transylvania, lives in castle with all his gold and spends his nights terrorizing the local population. What would Dracula do in modern times in our capitalistic democracy? Well for starters he would keep his money in a bank as opposed to his castle. He builds a huge corporate empire in order to gain power on the world stage. He cannot call himself Dracula anymore so he calls himself, Alexander Lucard (A.Lucard is Dracula backwards to fool the ignorant.) The third is their take on Dracula in relation to other vampires. In almost all other mediums (Dracula 2000, Blade, Van Helsing, and even Buffy the Vampire Slayer) Count Dracula is portrayed as the first vampire and/or as a super-vampire who cannot be destroyed by the same way as other vampires. In this portrayal we see Dracula who is just a vampire (neither the oldest nor most powerful) who is the worlds greatest vampire because he is just smarter then all the others. He is in control of his vampire nature not the other way around. In closing this was a great series I just think there was a lot of potential wasted, it did not add up to Buffy the Vampire Slayer material. Though it did one thing better than Buffy and that is the way vampires looked when they were vampires. Vampires are not supposed to be ugly when they are vampires. I am complete convert to Anne Rice's idea that all vampires are supposed to be pretty. Werewolves do the ugly thing not vampires. Dracula the series accomplishes this.
insightstraight
"Dracula: The Series" had all the elements of a forgettable kid's series, but was saved from that crowded ghetto by lush locations (Luxembourg), clever writing, and the wonderful presence of Geordie Johnson as the title character.Handsome, confident, and typically with a slight smile playing about his lips, Johnson brings a nice interpretation to the role. Rather than the tortured and sometimes wimpy psycho-studies we have too-often been subjected to in the vampire realm, Johnson's Dracula delights in being eternal and powerful -- he embraces his condition with relish. His Dracula is believably aristocratic and beguiling, while still being ruthless.Like any serial involving valiant hunters after evil, this show requires a certain suspension of disbelief. A multi-billionaire businessman as well as a vampire, Dracula could quickly snuff out his pursuers, either supernaturally or, far easier, just by arranging an "accident". But like all serials the foes have to continue so the stories can continue.The series at first focuses more on the children, even attempting to develop the older brother as a teen heartthrob, and tries to be topical by having Dracula listening to hip-hop and ska (and even making a Milli Vanilli joke). But it seems the show's producers quickly realized the appeal of Johnson, and began tailoring the show more to his talents.The scripts start moving away from the precocious younger brother and the teen angst of the older kids, to more mature themes -- later scripts are versions of "Casablanca" and "Pygmalion", and there is actually some very interesting examination of what it would be like to be immortal. A definite plus is the continuing character provided by Geraint Wyn Davies (later to be a vampire again in "Forever Knight", likely partly due to this role). Davies' Klaus has a lively maniacal presence, and a very memorable Frank-Gorshin-as-The-Riddler laugh.The show could easily have devolved into camp, but somehow never quite starts down that slippery slope. Johnson is especially to be credited for delivering his character's lines in such a way as to keep them from sounding tongue-in-cheek -- he comes off rather as being eternally amused by life, and in fact values his opponents as a tool against boredom. The closest the show ever comes to being corny or self-mocking is in the final episode, a "clips show" recapping the entire series. (The production had obviously received word that the show was being canceled, as this show serves as a final episode.) "Dracula: The Series" is a worthy addition to the vampire genre and deserves a look from anyone interested in the tradition. There are a few scenes which make as valid a commentary on the vampire state as other, more "serious" works; the writing is clever and surprisingly complex. It should not be overlooked because of being perceived only as a series for children.
SkippyDevereaux
This is a great series. I found it for a very reasonable price, around $16.00 dollars, and snapped it up quickly. I remember wanting to see this when it first came out in 1990, but none of the television stations in my area carried it. I never imagined that I would have to wait 15 years to see it!! Geordie Johnson was a very good Dracula, not over-the-top or flamboyant like some actors who have portrayed this role in the past. Mr. Johnson has a very good speaking voice. It really fit the part magnificently. The actors that portrayed the kids were, for a change, not obnoxious or overtly cutesy. Sometimes a kid can kill a good program or movie and thankfully, they did not in this show. I only wish that this series had been able to have a final wrap-up episode.
Rubygurl78
I really don't think that Dracula: The Series was "corny" at all, in fact, you can't really compare it to "Friday the 13th" or the "Nightmare" movies at all. The best way to explain the series is to compare it to modern-day Buffy: The Vampire Slayer. The series was more campy than anything else, but on occation, did explore darker themes. All in all, it was a good show and frankly a lot of fun. If it had come out now instead of then, I think the show would have gone on for more than 21 episodes.
