I shall have to give this a look. Gary Oldman will always be my favorite Dracula, but Marc Warren's a damn good choice for the role. He's charming, he's sedictive, he's eccentric, he's scary, he's got the most hypnotic voice. I gotta see him as one of my favorite villains in film/literature!
@FantasmaLuna Hi there, just wondered what you thought of Marc Warren in this production of Dracula. As per my comments below, I was not too enamored of his performance. I prefer him in the other roles he has played. The Dracula part was just too big for him I think. But if you enjoyed it, then good. That's the main thing. But compare it to the 1977 tv version by the BBC and this version just doesn't stand up at all.
@18andreab Hello! I think he did an okay job, actually. Again, he's not Gary Oldman, but I liked how he could be alluring without being too over the top or trying too hard. I also liked how he showed the monstrous side to Dracula as well. He's a really good actor and it really shows that he enjoys playing the villain (can't say I blame him), but again Gary Oldman has always been and always will be my favorite Dracula.
@FantasmaLuna Yeah. Absolutely. I have watched Brahm Stokers Dracula at least 40 times. Sad isn't it! But I love it. I'm word perfect on a lot of it. As for Gary Oldman, fantastic performance. Utterly nailed it, understood the character and brought somethin new to it. I may have to watch this again. FAB! All the best and happy vamire movie watching.
@18andreab I love it too. I absolutely LOVE the artwork and I love how Oldman plays the role, especially his monstrous side. I watch it every Halloween! Same to you! *blowkiss*
@FantasmaLuna Yeah. The artwork is fantastic. I esp liked the costumes for Lucy and Mina. The colours, the attention to detail. I have a book about the movie which is great. All the inside info about everything for this movie. I love it. Happy vamp watching. Rgds Andy18
I really looked forward to this, then when it aired, what a disappointment. Marc Warren, a very very forgettable Dracula. He was playing TEATIME in The Hogfather, aired at the same time (ish) and should stick to that kinda role. He just couldn't do Dracula, at all. Very disappointing...
@lifeson46 No comparison at all. The 1977 version was more faithful to the novel and had some excellent performances - eg Frank Finlay as Van Helsing, Louis Jordan as Dracula ((plausible but not my favourite as Dracula). Watch the 1977 version. I got a very cheap DVD of it on Amazon for about 2 quid!! Enjoy! Are you an avid vampire fan? I am. Have you seen the Twilight stuff and what do you think of that?
The book was amazing. Why do people feel that they need to change the story?? Arthur Holmwood did NOT have syphyllis and he and Lucy weren't even married yet when Dracula came into their lives! Bram Stoker would probably turn in his grave.
The story was changed because back when the book was 1st relesed it got bannad [or they stopped selling] and someone re-wrote it by changing a few thing and names... So would still make money the the owner of the book could not suit them [or something like that... dont remember 100% any more sorry]
Neither of this happened. The book was never banned, nor stopped circulation. Nobody rewrote it or rewrote parts of it - until Fred Saberhagen wrote the novelisation of "Bram Stoker's Dracula", probably =P. I really wonder who came up with that story ...
All Dracular films come from the film "Nosferatu" which is based on a book. The book is slightly different from the film because the people who made the film stole the idea from the book and called it there own. It was banned for a while until they found out they were allowed to bring the film back, And from there on it became Dracula.
"Nosferatu - Eine Symphonie des Grauens" was an unautorised adaptation of Stoker's novel, obviously, and was ordered by verdict to be destroyed (it did survive, fortunately). The Universal movie was based on the stage play by Hamilton Deane (revised by John F. Balderston), with little similarities to the changes made by Murnau. The Hammer movie used the sunlight to destroy Dracula, as was done in "Nosferatu", but nothing else. And nothing ever has - or had - to do with Syphillis, for example ...
I liked this movie. In a way it's cold but strong,tone makes it in some way better than the the - maybe even overly romantic though beautiful and impressiove 1992 adaptation. And this version is visually beautiful as weel, plus sexy. But especially I liked the way the actor of Dracula portrayed him. The tense, arrogant, cunning and self-assurent being was really impressive. Especially when combined to the beautiful shaded eyes and that adorable wake of a smile we see in some scenes.
Mwaha. I liked this adaptation. I can't really compare it as an adaptation though as I don't know the book's story but this movie is visually really beautiful. And quite sexy. And I like the actor's portrayal of Dracula. That tense, arrogant, slef-assurent and cunning tone in his being is impressive.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This is the most fucking retarded Dracula Film I have ever seen - I want the e-mail address of the playwright motherfucker that wrote this aborted piece of distended shit! The book was fantastic, and ever since Gary Oldman dought for vampiric control over Winona Ryder, this story has been aborted!! And the casting? Marc Warren looks like a sad little Emo faggot! And Van Helsing?? WTF?? And recruiting Dracula to treat Syphillis?? Meizo and fans of this, check out Frank Langella's Dracula!
wow people, this dracula movie is the best...I dont really know whats wrong with it. Marc is ever so sexy. perfect story. Also wondering if anyone knows of a site, a movie site perhaps, that shows this dracula movie...I cant seem to find it anywhere!!
why is there always reworkings of dracula i have never seen a film that does a half decent job of adapting the book, the book is incredible shouldnt be changed at all its a perfect novel
dspikey- I'm an avid reader and agree that movies rarely do their novel-counterparts justice, but I found the book to be quite... drawling. It's almost over-written, with all those long, uneventful journal entries. But I suppose I have to take into consideration that it was written in the 1800s, so it was very scary and cutting edge for the way back when days.
I disagree and I think the book was an incredible page turner way ahead of its time, try to read Frankenstein and tell me Draculas overwritten ok, the book was so simple and easy to picture the film adaptions try to add too much and the result is a big mess
That's why they're labeling it as a "new adaption". They're trying to give it a bit of a twist, something new for a change. Otherwise we all just might as well watch the Ryder/Oldman version.
...Mr Teatime?
AnkokuEvangeline 8 months ago
Marc Warren makes an awesome Dracula!
MultiBelle22 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
where can i watch?
ShortStorys 1 year ago
READ THE BOOK ,MUCH MUCH BETTER IT'S SEQUEL AIN'T SO BAD EITHER
schawalski 1 year ago
not impressed
ubba8 1 year ago
where can I watch this?
123jisse123 1 year ago
Where can I see the whole movie?
PinkCarnationProDux 1 year ago
I shall have to give this a look. Gary Oldman will always be my favorite Dracula, but Marc Warren's a damn good choice for the role. He's charming, he's sedictive, he's eccentric, he's scary, he's got the most hypnotic voice. I gotta see him as one of my favorite villains in film/literature!
FantasmaLuna 1 year ago
@FantasmaLuna Hi there, just wondered what you thought of Marc Warren in this production of Dracula. As per my comments below, I was not too enamored of his performance. I prefer him in the other roles he has played. The Dracula part was just too big for him I think. But if you enjoyed it, then good. That's the main thing. But compare it to the 1977 tv version by the BBC and this version just doesn't stand up at all.
18andreab 1 year ago
@18andreab Hello! I think he did an okay job, actually. Again, he's not Gary Oldman, but I liked how he could be alluring without being too over the top or trying too hard. I also liked how he showed the monstrous side to Dracula as well. He's a really good actor and it really shows that he enjoys playing the villain (can't say I blame him), but again Gary Oldman has always been and always will be my favorite Dracula.
FantasmaLuna 1 year ago
@FantasmaLuna Yeah. Absolutely. I have watched Brahm Stokers Dracula at least 40 times. Sad isn't it! But I love it. I'm word perfect on a lot of it. As for Gary Oldman, fantastic performance. Utterly nailed it, understood the character and brought somethin new to it. I may have to watch this again. FAB! All the best and happy vamire movie watching.
18andreab 1 year ago
@18andreab I love it too. I absolutely LOVE the artwork and I love how Oldman plays the role, especially his monstrous side. I watch it every Halloween! Same to you! *blowkiss*
FantasmaLuna 1 year ago
@FantasmaLuna Yeah. The artwork is fantastic. I esp liked the costumes for Lucy and Mina. The colours, the attention to detail. I have a book about the movie which is great. All the inside info about everything for this movie. I love it. Happy vamp watching. Rgds Andy18
18andreab 1 year ago
I really looked forward to this, then when it aired, what a disappointment. Marc Warren, a very very forgettable Dracula. He was playing TEATIME in The Hogfather, aired at the same time (ish) and should stick to that kinda role. He just couldn't do Dracula, at all. Very disappointing...
18andreab 2 years ago
@18andreab was it really that bad, how did it compare to the 1977 version?
lifeson46 1 year ago
@lifeson46 No comparison at all. The 1977 version was more faithful to the novel and had some excellent performances - eg Frank Finlay as Van Helsing, Louis Jordan as Dracula ((plausible but not my favourite as Dracula). Watch the 1977 version. I got a very cheap DVD of it on Amazon for about 2 quid!! Enjoy! Are you an avid vampire fan? I am. Have you seen the Twilight stuff and what do you think of that?
18andreab 1 year ago
The commercial isn't the best, but it does look interresting. I'll have to check it out. :3
HollowGroundsInc 2 years ago
Estaría guay que hicieran una versión de Drácula en la que no se cambiase la historia! La novela le da mil vueltas a todas las películas juntas.
Sariyamari 2 years ago
This is the moust stupid version of Dracula ever made,and who is that f...k that plays Dracula,he's so ugly even without the make-up!
kary1431 3 years ago
bobo amp!!!
aikko123 3 years ago
The book was amazing. Why do people feel that they need to change the story?? Arthur Holmwood did NOT have syphyllis and he and Lucy weren't even married yet when Dracula came into their lives! Bram Stoker would probably turn in his grave.
BelovedCaptain 3 years ago 14
The story was changed because back when the book was 1st relesed it got bannad [or they stopped selling] and someone re-wrote it by changing a few thing and names... So would still make money the the owner of the book could not suit them [or something like that... dont remember 100% any more sorry]
KuroYuy 3 years ago
Neither of this happened. The book was never banned, nor stopped circulation. Nobody rewrote it or rewrote parts of it - until Fred Saberhagen wrote the novelisation of "Bram Stoker's Dracula", probably =P. I really wonder who came up with that story ...
Thespilian 3 years ago
All Dracular films come from the film "Nosferatu" which is based on a book. The book is slightly different from the film because the people who made the film stole the idea from the book and called it there own. It was banned for a while until they found out they were allowed to bring the film back, And from there on it became Dracula.
KuroYuy 3 years ago
"Nosferatu - Eine Symphonie des Grauens" was an unautorised adaptation of Stoker's novel, obviously, and was ordered by verdict to be destroyed (it did survive, fortunately). The Universal movie was based on the stage play by Hamilton Deane (revised by John F. Balderston), with little similarities to the changes made by Murnau. The Hammer movie used the sunlight to destroy Dracula, as was done in "Nosferatu", but nothing else. And nothing ever has - or had - to do with Syphillis, for example ...
Thespilian 3 years ago
the book dracula was based on a man named dracula who would torture people in gruesome ways. so the author called him a vampire
PikminMania 2 years ago
I liked this movie. In a way it's cold but strong,tone makes it in some way better than the the - maybe even overly romantic though beautiful and impressiove 1992 adaptation. And this version is visually beautiful as weel, plus sexy. But especially I liked the way the actor of Dracula portrayed him. The tense, arrogant, cunning and self-assurent being was really impressive. Especially when combined to the beautiful shaded eyes and that adorable wake of a smile we see in some scenes.
peterpanlegend 3 years ago
Mwaha. I liked this adaptation. I can't really compare it as an adaptation though as I don't know the book's story but this movie is visually really beautiful. And quite sexy. And I like the actor's portrayal of Dracula. That tense, arrogant, slef-assurent and cunning tone in his being is impressive.
peterpanlegend 3 years ago
right does anyone know were i can watch this again?
meatmeansmurder 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is the most fucking retarded Dracula Film I have ever seen - I want the e-mail address of the playwright motherfucker that wrote this aborted piece of distended shit! The book was fantastic, and ever since Gary Oldman dought for vampiric control over Winona Ryder, this story has been aborted!! And the casting? Marc Warren looks like a sad little Emo faggot! And Van Helsing?? WTF?? And recruiting Dracula to treat Syphillis?? Meizo and fans of this, check out Frank Langella's Dracula!
comichero 3 years ago
wow people, this dracula movie is the best...I dont really know whats wrong with it. Marc is ever so sexy. perfect story. Also wondering if anyone knows of a site, a movie site perhaps, that shows this dracula movie...I cant seem to find it anywhere!!
meizo 3 years ago
Marc Warren is a good actor, but doesn't suit as Dracula at all.
kriitikko 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i thought he was great!
Clairbear2007 4 years ago
i think im gonna watch just to see a shirtless marc warren
mkmallory 4 years ago 9
not very good, i think!
alysniper 4 years ago 2
why is there always reworkings of dracula i have never seen a film that does a half decent job of adapting the book, the book is incredible shouldnt be changed at all its a perfect novel
dspikey 4 years ago
dspikey- I'm an avid reader and agree that movies rarely do their novel-counterparts justice, but I found the book to be quite... drawling. It's almost over-written, with all those long, uneventful journal entries. But I suppose I have to take into consideration that it was written in the 1800s, so it was very scary and cutting edge for the way back when days.
AWickedMind 4 years ago
I disagree and I think the book was an incredible page turner way ahead of its time, try to read Frankenstein and tell me Draculas overwritten ok, the book was so simple and easy to picture the film adaptions try to add too much and the result is a big mess
dspikey 4 years ago 2
Umm what's the deal with the new syphilis subplot? That doesn't fit the story I think.
Breeslave 4 years ago
That's why they're labeling it as a "new adaption". They're trying to give it a bit of a twist, something new for a change. Otherwise we all just might as well watch the Ryder/Oldman version.
AWickedMind 4 years ago
actor who plays dracula is far to young
swiftjt 4 years ago 2
He's older than Gary Oldman was. I think he makes a great Dracula...creepy, but sexy!
faoroobs 3 years ago
ooooooooooooooo wanna watch it now!
givemeahugNOW 4 years ago