The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

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.

The umpteenth in a long line of screen adaptations of Bram Stoker's iconic literary creation the BBC's 2006 production has the dubious distinction of a unorthodox casting in "Hustle's" Marc Warren as the vampiric Count while diverting more so from Stoker's classic novel than previous versions.This version sees young English estate agent, Jonathan Harker journeying to Transylvania to finalise the sale of a property being bought by the aged Count Dracula. Little does he realise and all of us are more than aware, the Count is a vampire and upon learning this, Jonathan is murdered by Dracula. Meanwhile back in England , Jonathan's fiancé, Mina Murray is celebrating the imminent nuptials of her best friend Lucy Westernra to Lord Arthur Holmwood. However, unknown to Lucy her husband to be has contracted syphilis, a disease that was passed on to him by his father before his birth and is therefore unable to consummate their marriage. In the vain hope of ridding himself of the fatal illness he enlists the services of Dracula who he has been told can rid him of the affliction and aided him to secure the purchase of Carfax Abbey as a residence in London. But the Count has his own agenda and with the help of a cult who worship him, he plots to make London his own personal feeding ground. It is only the sage knowledge of Dutch professor, Abraham Van Helsing that can put a stop to Dracula's plans. The BBC has a distinguished history, particularly when it comes to costume drama's and while it's beautiful to look at and the scenes in Transylvania are brought brilliantly to life, this latest adaptation is incredibly misjudged, hollow and ultimately unfulfilling. The problem primarily is with the unnecessary alterations made to the films source material. The whole angle revolving around Arthur's affliction only serves to add the ridiculous and terribly misconceived notion that Dracula is the figure of worship, a clear attempt by the films writers to do something original and inventive with the story which only manages to be tawdry. The actors struggle to bring any credibility to the sorry affair with Warren chiefly miscast as the titular Count, lacking any commanding presence that former Dracula's (Christopher Lee springs to mind) had in abundance. While impressive in earlier scenes where the Count is elderly, his later scenes are woeful. Warren stares fixedly at his co-stars clearly attempting to provoke chills and merely provokes indifference. Only David Suchet comes out of the whole farrago with any dignity in tact as Van Helsing. More depressing than scary and only running in at an hour and a half in length "Dracula" is a dull inspired mess as is the rest of the acting. It's hard to really care about any of the characters least of all Arthur who is partially responsible for bringing Dracula to London while Warren preying on Sophia Myles Lucy in the bedroom scenes, obviously an attempt to recreate the sexiness of Francis Ford Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" just comes across as flat and unappealing. If you want to see a good adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel then don't bother with this one, the hammy bygone days of the old Hammer Horror films were more enjoyable than this fluff.

while i can't say whether this adaption of the Dracula myth is true to Bram Stoker's novel,(since i haven't read it)i still liked it.i liked the look of Dracula as an old man and as the young man.i also really liked the almost unrecognizable David(Poirot)Suchet as Abraham Van Helsing.i don't think i've ever seen an episode of Masterpiece theatre,but i think they did a fine job with the Dracula lore.Marc Warren was good as the count and i could see how the character could be seductive to women. i liked the look of the film.it is certainly beautifully photographed.i think this is the most romanticized version of Dracula i've seen so far.it's just as good as any of the others i have seen.i give this version of "Dracula" 8/10

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!).