Dracula (2002) (TV)

Director:

Roger Young

Writers (WGA):

Bram Stoker (novel)
Roger Young (teleplay) ...

Release Date:

29 May 2002 (Italy)

Genre:

Drama | Horror

Tagline:

An Ancient terror lives on in the new world.

Plot:

Plot Keywords:

Blood | Budapest | Child Murder | Murder | Slitting Throat On Child

Cast

Patrick Bergin	...	Vladislav Tepes / Dracula
Giancarlo Giannini	...	Dr. Enrico Valenzi
Hardy Krüger Jr.	...	Jonathan Harker (as Hardy Krüger jr.)
Stefania Rocca	...	Mina
Muriel Baumeister	...	Lucy
Kai Wiesinger	...	Dr. Seward (as Kay Wiesinger)
Alessio Boni	...	Quincy
Conrad Hornby	...	Arthur Holmwood
Brett Forest	...	Roenfield (as Brett Forrest)
Alessia Merz	...	Fair Woman
Piroska Kiss	...	Dark Woman
István Göz	...	Male Nurse (as Istvan Goz)
Barna Illyés	...	Border Guard (as Barna Illyes)
Csaba Pethes	...	Captain of the Tug
Balázs Tardy	...	Tug Crew Member 1 (as Balazs Tardy)

Also Known As:

Bacio di Dracula, Il (Italy)
Dracula's Curse (USA) (DVD title)

MPAA:

Rated R for some violence and sexuality.

Runtime:

Italy:173 min (2 part TV-miniseries) | USA:104 min (DVD version)

Country:

Italy | Germany

Language:

Italian | English

Color:

Color

Aspect Ratio:

1.33 : 1

Sound Mix:

Stereo

Certification:

Argentina:13 | USA:R (certificate #40315) | Australia:M | UK:12

Filming Locations:

Budapest, Hungary

Company:

Lux Vide

Goofs:

Crew or equipment visible: After it is discovered that Lucy is missing, the group is discussing what has happened and Jonathan is standing behind a window in which two crewmembers are reflected.

Movie Connections:

Version of "Mystery and Imagination: Dracula (#4.3)" (1968)

I don't get the point

Yes, this is one of the most faithful screen versions to the Bram Stoker novel. And that is one of its biggest flaws. I mean, I'm not against updating the setting of a classic story to the present, but as long as said updating assumes that they're moving times and adapt things in consequence. People does not think and does not behave in 2006 the way they did in 1800, so a modern adaptation of a 1800s source must reflect those changes (unless, that is, the makers want to establish a different point, which was not the case). This "Dracula" sets the action in 2002, but its characters mainly behave like in 1897 and have a 1897 mentality, which is ridiculous, comparable to remaking "Gone With the Wind" to a 2006 setting but maintaining the slaves.

That said, this "Dracula" is sub-par in most departments. The cinematography is comparable to that of a porn movie, or, in some scenes, a perfume commercial (that "Brides of Dracula" sequence, or any outdoors scene between Dracula and Lucy). Direction (or lack thereof) is comparable to that of Lamberto Bava. Acting is below average with the exception of Giancarlo Giannini's Italian Van Helsing. The ever mediocre Patrick Bergin as young Dracula appears to be impersonating Gary Oldman (interestingly, he does somewhat better as old Dracula, at least better than Oldman's queen), and becomes a live anachronism by wearing the traditional costume of the character (long black cape, et al) in 2002. The rest of the cast are cyphers. The CGI are, of course, laughable, and the blue screens evident as ever. This is also the most overly Christian version of the story I've ever seen, with a very pious Van Helsing back to the flawless hero role, unlike the creep played (horribly, but from an excellent idea) by Anthony Hopkins in the Coppola version. Overabundance of dialogs about faith and being a soldier for God, and having Dracula being rejected by the public in a social party for having unorthodox views of religion, make this look as if it were produced by Joey Ratzinger. Plus, if I were Romanian I'd be offended by the portrayal of my countrymen as savages almost out of "Cannibal Holocaust" (and I'm not easy to offend). Don't get me started in the pointless additions like having Dracula pretend to be 2 different people (huh?). The only addition I liked was the brief moment of Renfield eating Romanian earth.

I must also point out that this movie falls for two common misconceptions about Stoker's work: that Dracula is supposed to BE Vlad Tepes, and that the word "Dracula" means "demon". In fact "Dracula" is a deformation of "Draculea", which is Romanian for "son of the dragon" ("Dracul" meaning "dragon", and the suffix "-ea" appended to the end of a word meaning "son of", similar to the English "Johnson"), and, in fact, Bram Stoker didn't even know of the existence of a certain Vlad Tepes until he had the novel practically finished, he liked the name, deformed it from Draculea to Dracula, and gave it (the name, just the name) to his creation, formerly named Count Wampyr. But I digress...

The best aspect of this version is that it washes off the pointless, ridiculous romance garbage of the Coppola stinker (about the least faithful one to the spirit of the novel, despite publicity) and gets the character right. Yet, because of the modern framing and the uninspired directing, acting and writing, nothing works. If you want the best Dracula, go for the ever wonderful "Nosferatu" by Murnau (the most faithful to the spirit of the novel, even if the text is cut to shreds), or the Terence Fisher Hammer version with Lee and Cushing, or even the Browning/Lugosi (a travesty but a sentimental favorite). You can very well skip this one. 3/10.