Watch Dracula For Free

That was an excellent one.

Sorry, this movie sucks

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

The BBC's Masterpiece Theatre, "Beautiful Creatures" director Bill Eagles, and "Jericho" television scribe Stewart Harcourt have appropriated Bram Stoker's immortal vampire tale "Dracula" and given it more than a few usual twists. Indeed, their adaptation is about as far out as you can imagine. I've seen virtually every version of "Dracula," and this concise but irreverent 90-minute epic takes incredible liberties that not even Bram Stoker might have if he could come back from the grave. Mind you, the producers shed more light on the early part of the story involving Jonathan Harker and his fiancée Mina Murry. Nevertheless, they have tampered considerably with the text (what brought Dracula to London) as well as ushered in some new characters, chiefly Alfred Singleton who leads a religious blood cult. These guys are so afraid of publicity that he kill anybody who they come into contact with. Meaning, they are a small bunch of fiends. One of Stoker's character, Arthur Holmwood takes on new dimensions with a larger part in the narrative. As unusual as "Dracula" remains, Eagles does a good job of shoehorning some the basics in this made-for-television story. Chiefly, Eagles and his hawks have sent Renfield, Quincy Morris, the vampire wenches, and the gypsies packing. Marc Warren is neither like Bela Lugosi or Christopher Lee. The best line that he utters is: "I only go where I am desired and while I am invited in." The scene when Dracula materializes in the bedroom and has sex with Lucy in the same bed that her fully clothed husband is sleeping in a hand's width away is rather risqué. Traditional "Dracula" fans may strongly take issue with this reimagination of the character.

In 1992, Francis Ford Coppola made the definitive version of Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula", with his stylish "Bram Stoker Dracula". Coppola's work and F.W. Murnau's masterpiece "Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens" are the best adaptation of the foregoing novel. I am a fan of vampire movies and the Hammer productions with the character Dracula performed by Christopher Lee are part of my youth."Dracula" (2006) is a stylish version made for television, with a great cast and magnificent cinematography that are wasted in a poorly written screenplay that introduces awful modifications to the original romance. This version is decent but absolutely unnecessary; entertains, but also disappoints the fans of the romance. My vote is five.Title (Brazil): "Dracula"

I am a huge fan of vampire movies ever since I have seen Bram Stokers Dracula (directed by Francis Ford Coppola). And this has been around 12 years ago. There are very few vampire movies that come close to the masterpiece of Francis Ford Coppola. And this movie sadly stays far away. It started quite promising, but this movie has a countless amount of flaws.The story: The variation of the original story isn't so bad, if it would just be a bit more „spectacular". The story simplifies the main-theme and adds some new interesting ideas. Some of those ideas are great, others seem too modern or simply don't fit.The action: Probably the worst I have seen in a long time. Every time action actually happened, there was a cut in less than a second. - Probably to hide how cheap it was done? The directing was very bad throughout the whole movie. You have been able to see that the best during the action scenes.Actors and characters: Mostly I found them awful. Characters have been boring, and actors plain bad. There have only been two exceptions. Holmwood (Dan Stevens) and Lucy (Sophia Myles).. those two seemed the only ones that have actually been given a character at all. Atmosphere: Music was decent, but nothing special. The camera showed very "warm" colors. Similar to cheesy women-dramas in the 18th century. I didn't really like it. Everything looked artificial. Overall the atmosphere was decent, but could have been much better.4 points because I had fun watching the movie. (I am not actually sure why.)

This a professionally and stylish looking BBC made-for-TV adaptation of the famous Dracula story by Bram Stoker, that however differs too much from the original story and adds very little new and interesting in exchange. On top of the that the movie has an extremely poor flow, which makes the movie confusing and dull to watch, with too many- and poorly developed characters.The movie makes too many leaps in time and the overall flow itself also isn't really perfect. It also makes the movie confusing to follow at times, especially if you don't know the Dracula story in advance. It also makes some of the sequences weak and causes to leave an unsatisfying impression such as the introduction of the Dracula character. Boom! He suddenly is there without any build-up. Its entire build-up and flow, or better said the lack of it all, is the reason why the movie just never becomes scary of even tense to watch. It's an extremely poorly told movie, without any introductions or development. It makes this a very disjointed and hard movie to watch.The movie leaves lots of room to put in multiple romantic plot-lines, which makes the movie also drag in points, especially the beginning.The movie was surprisingly good looking. I liked its style. It was a fine combination between the British upper-class kind of atmosphere and the more dark and moody horror atmosphere. The sets and cinematography were simply good.Even though the cast has some good British TV-actors in it, the acting is still one of the weaker spots and irritating part of the movie. It's painfully bad at times and unintentionally funny to watch. Most actors aren't really to be blamed for this but rather the poor script that makes some bad choices and has some poor and formulaic dialogs in it. It also doesn't help that none of the characters are introduced and developed properly. Seriously, who is who in this movie and what is their purpose exactly?Dracula really isn't right looking in this movie. I mean, even in his human form he's looking ugly and like a mad monster. He's supposed to be seductive, charismatic and sophisticated. He's none of those things in the movie and besides the actor portraying him looks too young.A version that you're better off not watching.2/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/