AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks
Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.
RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.
Verity Robins Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.
lotusjosh Major spoilers ahead - you've been warnedpros: The film is beautifully faithful to the original novel - with some changes, i.e., Quincey dies in the raid of Carfax, and Mina is the Killer of Dracula – which I personally love, her line afterwards is beautiful – the film is set in Modern Day and seems to carry some Religious overtones; which, is why Mina kills the Count – she is intent on saving the world, the overall theme of the film. There is absolutely *no love*between Mina and the Count, as Stoker never once included a reincarnation plot, Mina loves Jonathan and loathes the count – thank Palance's film for the reincarnated love story, which in my opinion belongs nowhere near the story, unless it's Mina and Jonathan. The modern setting does not hinder the film, it actually pokes fun at horror tales, referencing that Dracula might have been played by Boris Karloff in their universe. The characters are fun, I will never say that they are great, the script works against them, but they are fun: Mina challenges the Count at every step she has with him, Jonathan is a conflicted soul, Quincey is vapid, Arthur is whiny, and Lucy is so much fun – she has so much fun playing the coquette. Van Helsing "Enrico Valenzi as he's called in this" is the ever-knowing Vampire Hunter, and he's good at it. Bergen as Dracula is miscast, however, he plays his part well – both as the old man - with his homoerotic tones towards Jonathan - and as the younger 'Nephew' in the Budapest scenes. Overall this film is beautiful for what it has to work with; it's not much, don't go in expecting any award winning material, it is fun however to watch, and I am grateful I got that chance. Cons: The film is made on a MFT budget, which is neither here nor there, however it shows in the effects, lack of nudity, and special effects – but, ask yourself: are all the gratuitousness necessary in retrospect - although I would not have minded a butt-shot of Hardy Kruger Jr. or a bit more erotic evil in the case of Muriel Bauermeister. There is an original 3-hour film, which is not available to American Audiences and probably clears the air with some unfinished plot holes "Reonfield's Wife, Reonfield himself, the Weird Sisters "the Brides of Dracula" – so the diced film works against it. overall view: personally I give it 10/10 because I have seen so much worse when it comes to Dracula adaptions, and this one, by comparison is the Oscar-Winner, Academy-Winner, and others, simply by comparison. Steffania Rocca and Muriel Bauermeister are GORGEOUS as Mina and Lucy Hardy Kruger Jr. and Kai Weisinger are delightful as Harker and Seward. Hardy Kruger Jr. is such a hunk. Bergen - although miscast - and Giannini are nicely done in their roles.However, I suggest you make your own interpretations of this film, and if I must give an unbiased review, then I saw 7/10the budget, sets, effects, and script work against it, as does the dicing and unfinished plot lines – that's it, really.
jacobjohntaylor1 This is a great film. A romanian vampire moves to England to search for new victims. If you do not get scared of this movie then no movie will scary you. This is a great horror remake. This movie has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. This is best one of the of the best horror books ever. This is one of the best horror movies ever. Patrick Bergin is a great actor. Giancarlo Giannini who was also in Casino Royale is also a great actor. This movie is very intense. This movie scarier then The Exorcist. And that is not easy to do. It is almost has scary as Dracula (1931) It is very scary. One of the best vampire movies ever. This movie is a must see. Hardy Kurger Jr is a great actor.
kriitikko Few years ago then I was aimlessly going through some of the video stores in our capital, when I came across this: a new version of Dracula. Not only that, but the DVD had two versions of this film: an edited hour and half long, and the original three hours long that was originally aired on TV in two parts. Now, I hadn't heard anything about this film and I wasn't expecting much, but it was cheap and as a dedicated fan of Bram Stoker's book I knew I would have to see it. So I bought the film and watched the edited version first. At best it was only an okay film. However, sometime later I embraced myself to watch the longer version and was surprised to find that it was a very good film.Plot is surprisingly accurate to Stoker, with the difference that it is moved to present day Budapest. An American solicitor Jonathan Harker (Hardy Krüger jr.) and his girlfriend Mina (Stefania Rocca) are about to get married and have invited their best friends Lucy (Muriel Baumeister), Quincy (Alessio Boni) and Arthur (Conrad Hornby) to Budapest. At the time they also befriend with a local doctor, Johan Seward (Kai Wiesinger), who is in charge of an asylum and an especially interesting case of Mr. Roenfield (Bret Forrest), which has required the presence of Seward's former teacher, Professor Enrico Valenzi (Giancarlo Giannini). Just when the engagement has been announced, Harker gets an interesting job offer from a mysterious Vladislav Tepes (Patrick Bergin) who wants Jonathan to travel to Romania to meet his uncle, Count Tepes, who lives in a remote castle. Although the opening of the film may seem a little forced modern version of Stoker's book, the moment Jonathan arrives to Count Tepes' castle, film follows Stoker's book with a surprising faithfulness.I don't understand why so many are against this film, maybe they have seen only the edited version. Sure, the film has many bad qualities, it is a TV film so budget is low, actors sometimes mediocre and special-effects downright ridiculous, but if you can just ignore those and enjoy this as a version of Bram Stoker's novel, you will not be disappointed. Many times I've heard how the fans of the book complain that there is not a movie faithful to the book. Well, this is set in modern day environment, but it follows the book so accurately you just have to forgive it. The makers of the film have been wise enough to film this in Budapest, that still has the feeling of an old world with it, and suits to the story a lot better than modern day London or New York. Also the Dracula's Castle here is an actual Romanian castle, which I think is a hundred times more eerie than any Hollywood set design.Patrick Bergin may not be the first name to come to mind when thinking of Dracula, but he does a good job. Nothing Christopher Lee level, but his own version. Of all the Draculas there has been, Bergin especially makes his Dracula a warlord, a very straight relation to Vlad Tepes. Often his Dracula speaks about the Final Battle coming and how it is time to have grand days back. Bergin's Dracula is a tired warlord, who has spend centuries hiding in a castle, but who has sensed coming new battles and is ready to start his own crusade once more. He also looks down on humans very openly, many times challenging them to a battle of wits. Bergin, funnily enough, looks very much like Vlad Tepes from the portraits. Aside of Bergin another performance worth mentioning is Giancarlo Giannini (most famous probably from appearing as Mathis in recent James Bond movies) as Professor Enrico Valenzi, the Van Helsing of this film. Although the name is changed, probably to explain Giannini's heavy Italian accent, Valenzi is very much Van Helsing if I ever saw one. In fact, I think Giannini does amazing work here, many times stealing scenes from others, and going right there with Peter Cushing and Frank Finlay as one of the best Van Helsing's ever.So, if you want to see a horror film with lots of special effects and action, see Stephen Sommer's Van Helsing, but if you want to see a good movie version of Bram Stoker's novel, this is it. Mind you, three hours long version is better, but if you loved the book, it is worth seeing.
insightstraight Dracula is a major presence in our house (along with his relatives the Mummy, the Wolf Man, Frankenstein, zombies, ...) I cannot claim to have seen all of the many films which are descendants of Bram Stoker's original work -- the "Dracula" name has been applied to everything from sex farce to psychological allegory, and some of it is pure trash. But we have seen more than our share of not only Dracula movies but also vampire movies in general, as well as any number of play adaptations.It seems that most Dracula movies are not adaptations of the book, but rather adaptations of previous movies. Admittedly, the book is devilishly hard to stage/film, as it is structured as a series of excerpts from journals, difficult to weave into a consistent narrative flow. But one often gets the impression that the directors (or screenwriters!) of some of the films haven't bothered to read Stoker's novel, contenting themselves with merely screening some previous efforts.So it is always with some trepidation we watch a new "Dracula" film, bracing ourselves for yet another schlock assault with only passing connection to the original. (Not that we are against schlock per se -- only when it masquerades to deceive.) Frankly, the cover art and copy of "Dracula's Curse" didn't give us much hope of quality.Thus, we were pleasantly surprised to find that it is a well-appointed, thoughtful, and reasonably faithful version of Bram Stoker's book. Obviously, the production team had not only read the book but understood it, and labored to bring it to the screen as accurately as possible. In this, it stands head and shoulders above most "true to the novel" versions, including Coppola's (don't get me started on *that* one...)The film does strike several sour notes -- the flying effects are in my opinion quite overused, and in fact unnecessary -- and at several points is at odds with tradition. (Vampiric insensitivity to sunlight will jar most people.) But many of these "traditions" are actually creations of earlier films, as careful reading of the novel will show. The ending is also rather rushed, as though the production was running out of money and could not afford the chase across Europe to save Mina.The multinational cast does take a bit of getting used to, with as many accents as there are actors. But even this is true to the spirit of Stoker, who inserted an "exotic" American and the European Van Helsing into his story to lend it an international flavor. Some of the casting plays against movie convention; Dracula (Patrick Bergin) in particular is at odds with what many people expect of the bloodsucking count. He looks far more authentically Romanian than any other Dracula we have seen (like a cross between Robert Goulet, Harvey Keitel, and Lech Walesa). Unfortunately, as the "aged" Dracula he looks distractingly like Scots comic actor Billy Connolly. But he has appropriate menace as well as some regal bearing, and is closer to Stoker's description than most.The film is set in the present day, but by clever and deft scripting allows whole sections to feel as though they are set during Stoker's time. The locations and settings are sumptuous; the film makes very effective use of Budapest scenery to set the mood. Great care was obviously taken to achieve interesting camera angles.And more of Stoker's dialogue is present than in perhaps any other version of the story, including the Louis Jourdan mini-series.For someone who has only seen other "Dracula" movies, this one may seem slow and overstated. But to anyone who has read the book and enjoyed it, this movie is a refreshing attempt to bring Bram Stoker's original vision to the screen. Rather than rely on gratuitous gore and nudity, this production builds on mood and a fluid sensuality. Just as Stoker intended.
