Dracula

2006

Seasons & Episodes

  • 1
5.2| 0h30m| en| More Info
Released: 28 December 2006 Ended
Producted By:
Country: United Kingdom
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

Dracula is a television adaptation of Bram Stoker's 1897 novel Dracula produced by Granada Television for WGBH Boston and BBC Wales in 2006, it was written by Stewart Harcourt and directed by Bill Eagles.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

VividSimon Simply Perfect
Supelice Dreadfully Boring
Mehdi Hoffman There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.
Justina The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.
rustybarkeeper 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.
PeterBradford1 I am still struggling with how to process this version. My first impression, about 20 minutes into the film, was that I felt I was watching a movie where all the action had been cut out and all the boring dialogue scenes kept in. On top of that, the film looks like it was edited in a salad spinner. Scenes jump around in no particular order. The continuity of the novel isn't followed at all. The Bloofer Lady subplot and Quincey Morris are both absent. The ending like something out of an Eighties horror film, and this was from 2006. The characterization of Dracula, at least in the early scenes, was more in line with Stoker (and better than Gary Oldman). Check it out. You have been warned.
MeganEhrhard 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.
alnapc Oh wow! This thing stunk. I too was looking forward to it. I had a hard time getting to sleep after...but not from being scared, rather from being disappointed and in shocked disbelief. I am usually quite entertained and intrigued by the programs on PBS's Masterpiece Theatre...and now to find out it was a BBC production...I am really surprised. Why would this happen to such classic to be respected??? Perhaps they ran out of money for production or whomever was in charge had a bad several months? I was intrigued by the teasers' deviation from the novel's plot...bringing in the syphilis twist. And I was ready to be entertained by the twist, as I have with several other of the MANY versions out there (even the campy ones!). (Not that this or any could replace the original.) I really could've gotten into the altered plot, had it been better written or directed or __?__. Casting wasn't that INappropriate in my opinion. Though the acting seemed mediocre, I think the source of the stink lay elsewhere.And perhaps a longer time allotment would've helped to give more detail and explore subplots further. So much was left unsaid, TOO much.I was almost lost as to Van Helsing's role: how he came to be in this version of the story, what happened to him during it. And he seemed to be filled with paralyzing fear...such a departure from what I've always known him to be.Come to think of it, all the men were wimpy versions of themselves...I'd envisioned Holmwood being his book-borne adventurous,indulgent hunter self...yet in desperation to protect the love of his life resorting to this unorthodox procedure and unscrupulous dealing. This was not the angle that was portrayed. Rather it was a cowardly hiding of the truth, avoiding of his bride, and giving into the Count far too easily (and what was with him sleeping through Lucy's cavort with the Count and his attack of her right beside him in the same bed!?!).Harker gave into the Count without a fight as well... I guess. Maybe that bit was left on the cutting room floor, or never left the writer's head? Seward was the closest to a thinking, investigating, feeling, doing man. But even he fell short of satisfying.Then there's confusion about Dracula's travel agenda as well: Is he going to London to fulfill a "contract" with Holmwood, to get Mina, or Lucy (or was she just a contingency plan once there?)? I could go on, but I'll not. Well, maybe just one more...To finish it a pet peeve: where was Quincy P. Morris?!?

Similar Movies to Dracula