stwmby 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?

jacobjohntaylor1 This is a very scary movie. It is very underrated. It is a lot better then a 5.2. This is one of the scariest movies ever. It has a great story line. It has great acting. It has great special effects. It not has good has Dracula (1931). But it is almost as good. This movie is very intense. A Romanin vampire movie to England to find new victims. If this movie dose not scary you then no movie will. Mac Warren is great has Dracula. David Suschet is a great actor. This movie is a must see. It no 5.2. It is a 10. This is one of the best horror movies ever. Tom Burke is a great actor. This is one of the best horror movie remakes of all time.

schf 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

FromBookstoFilm SPOILERS AT END OF PARAGRAPH! I don't know what is up with some of modern remakes of classical literature. This adaptation was really just a rewrite. Marc Warren as Dracula was good in the very beginning but as the story moved on got worse. His Dracula was a mixture of Klaus Kinski and Gary Oldman. He had the creepiness of Kinski but not the charisma or sexuality of Gary Oldman. I don't want to criticize the man but he was not meant to play Dracula maybe if they did another remake of Nosferatu he might be quite good if he matures in his acting. The sets and costumes were quite good. Too long of a novel to be made for just a 90 minute time slot.My two biggest complaints about this adaptation were the subplots involving a Satan worshiping Nosferatu (undead) cult and Lord Holmwood's so-called hereditary syphilis. The female leads were adequate but not great they both could have performed better. Suchet's Van Helsing stole the show. The Actor playing Holmwood was fine in the role but Bram Stoker's Lord Holmwood was not a pompous ass unlike the portrayal of the character in this adaptation. If a person wants to really see close to the book adaptations of Bram Stoker's Dracula here are my listings of the four must see films.Count Dracula (1977)BBC with Louis Jourdan,Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) with Gary Oldman,Bram Stoker's Count Dracula (1970) with Christopher Lee and Bram Stoker's Dracula (1974) with Jack Palance. Watching any of those films would be better than watching this but if you are a vampire film lover by all means watch the 2006 version of Bram Stoker's (?,He would roll over in his grave and if this had been adapted in 1922 instead of 2006 the widow Stoker would have sued Mr.Harcourt's butt like she did F.W. Murnau for Nosferatu!).