PodBill Just what I expected

Adeel Hail Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

Derry Herrera Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Jonathan Finlay (codenamecuckoo) There's an expectation of modern horror films (particularly remakes or adaptations of previously adapted material) to be of very poor quality. This British production subverts that expectation rather well. It's by no means a masterpiece, and it doesn't exactly break new ground, but it is good-looking and entertaining.It's true that this film is not the most faithful adaptation of the Stoker novel (that would be the 1977 BBC version), but I feel it is the film which addresses most of the novel's themes. Obviously we have the usual themes of sex and death, but we also have references to religion, science, imperialism and the Victorian fear of occult societies and sexually transmitted disease.The film also reinvents the Count in a far stronger way than the Coppola film. Marc Warren's Dracula perfectly blends the hideous monster of the book with the suave socialite of the 1931 Universal film. He starts off (as he should) old and withered, but later rejuvenates himself to a wild, Byronic appearance. Warren himself is rather good in the role; his accent tends to wander, but he strikes a good balance between seduction and animalistic rage.Far more emphasis is placed in this film on Arthur and Lucy than the traditional "Dracula couple" of Mina and Jonathan. Holmwood is here a secondary villain (this isn't a spoiler as it's clear from the first 10 minutes) rather than a secondary hero, and his unconsummated marriage to Lucy (and her subsequent frustration) provides much of the drama. Sophia Myles is excellent as Lucy - not the promiscuous flirt of Coppola's film nor the childish girl of the 1977 BBC version, but a strong woman with hidden desires. Stephanie Leonidas is also very good as Mina; she's weaker than usually portrayed but this arguably makes her more convincing as a victim of Dracula.The hero of the piece is, unusually, Dr Seward, ably played by Tom Burke. There's an animosity between him and Dan Stevens' Holmwood, originating in their rivalry over Lucy. As the hero, Seward's character is somewhat inconsistent, changing to meet the needs of the story, but he's nevertheless an engaging protagonist.Van Helsing is radically different from normal; it's hard to discuss David Suchet's portrayal without spoilers, but it would be fair to say he takes on some aspects of the omitted Renfield character - he doesn't eat flies, but he does go a bit mad.The film is well made. The music is great, the sets display the British flair for costume drama, and the cinematography is dark and moody. It's overall an excellent piece of Gothic drama; it's not particularly scary, but it captures the sense of morbidity that characterises Gothic fiction.

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.

hugobolso-1 and also one of the originals ones. Based on Bram Stocker Dracula, this movie center on Arthur Holmwood (Dan Stevens). A powerful English lord who suffer an heritage Syphilys who killed his parents. So he contacts a Secret Society as his last hope to finish his fatal illness, so he can depose the beautiful Lucy Westerna (Sophya Miles). At first looks like another boring BBC TV Movie or Miniseries, but then the crippy and the horror appeared. The thing that I like of the movie is that finally makes justice for a forgotten part of the book. The dead calm of the British coast before the huracaine of blood starts. Also makes justice to Lucy Character, who isn't a slut, just a Virgin girl who try to forget her virginity after several month of marriage. The cast is not the best but Sophia Miles and Dan Stevens shines as the Holmwood, and Tom Burke (as Seward), David Suchet and Marc Warren (as the Roumanian Count) makes also a wood work. The only miscast are Stephanie Leonidas and Rafe Spalle as Mina and Hycker.

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?!?