The first episode was very dark and intense, then second one was ok, then the third one made a 180 degree turn to something that totally lost gravity, a free fall.
1,302 Reviews
A sarcastic posthumanist Dracula won't be to everyone's taste, but I thoroughly enjoyed this unique take on the Count
Bertaut27 January 2021
Bram Stoker's 1897 novel, Dracula, has seen over 350 adaptations for the screen (big and small), with many of them using the original tex to explore some of the socio-political issues of the day. So, for example, Tod Browning's Dracula (1931) turns the count into an elegant aristocrat analogous to the various monarchs in power across Europe at the time; the nine Hammer Horror films from 1958-1974 are at least partially structured around simple Cold War good/bad-west/east dichotomy politics; Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992), which was made at a time when the media were in the habit of making superstars of criminals, very much leans into the idea of the seductive power of evil. And now we have this latest BBC adaptation, created by Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat. Running a hefty 270 minutes (divided into three episodes of 90 minutes each), the series seeks to capture the tone of the original novel, if not necessarily the plot. Extremely funny in places, extremely disturbing in others, this is probably the best small screen adaptation since Philip Saville's superb Count Dracula (1977). There are some problems, and fans of the novel have taken especial (and not entirely unjustified) umbrage with the unexpected narrative shift in the last episode, but all in all, helped in no small part by an immense central performance, I thoroughly enjoyed this version.
Hungry, 1897; Jonathan Harker (John Heffernan), an English lawyer sent to Transylvania some months prior, has become a shell of a man. Physically deformed and mentally fragile, he is now staying at a small convent. Having written an account of his experiences, Harker is being interviewed by the acerbic Sister Agatha (a superb Dolly Wells), who is hoping he can fill in some of the details he left absent from his document. And so he tells how he came to Transylvania to meet the elderly Dracula (an exceptional Claes Bang having the time of his life), and of the subsequent horrors he experienced.
Whereas the novel begins just before Harker arrives at Castle Dracula, the show begins with him already in a nunnery in Hungry, having fled the castle, and the novel's multi-perspective epistolary narrative is replaced with a more basic single-character flashback-style narration. Opening this way is a wise move, as it alerts the audience immediately that this isn't a 1:1 adaptation. Unfortunately, because the show deviates so much from the novel, and because the third episode is so unexpected and unique, discussing much about the overarching narrative design lends itself to spoilers.
Indeed, the same could also be said of the aesthetics, with each episode looking and feeling substantially different from the other two, but in such a way that to go into detail would spoil the nature of the final episode. In any case, the first episode is your basic gothic horror full of deep shadows, huge towers, labyrinthine interiors, and ominous opulence; the second is a ship-based murder-mystery along the lines of Murder on the Orient Express (except, of course, we all know who the killer is from the start); and the third is a gaudy, postmodernist-infused examination of youthful vapidity, corporate greed, decadence for decadence sake, and the all-conquering power of superficiality. Arwel Jones's production design across all three episodes is simply stunning; from the twisting staircases and dead-end tunnels of Castle Dracula to the weather-beaten Demeter (the doomed ship in the second episode) to Dracula's quite stunning residence in the third episode, everything on screen seems completely real and the world feels legitimately lived in. Costume designer Sarah Arthur also deserves praise, especially for her work in the first episode, where Harker's disintegrating mental and physical state is matched by his increasingly shabby clothing.
And there are some really extraordinary visual moments here. A close-up of a fly crawling on an eyeball, for example, which then crawls behind the eyeball is particularly disturbing (indeed flies are a recurring visual motif throughout the show), as is a scene where Dracula quite literally climbs out of a wolf (shot practically on set without any CGI). The exterior shots of Castle Dracula are also amazing, and why wouldn't they be as the show uses the incredible Orava Castle in Slovakia, which was also used for Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens (1922).
The acting is also terrific, particularly Bang and Wells, who both get to have tremendous fun; Bang as the sarcastic Count and Wells as perhaps the most irreverent nun ever committed to screen. Much of the strength of their performances comes in how well they handle the incredibly dry humour, of which there is a surprising amount (although Bang can also be truly terrifying when necessary). So, for example, when the convent is surrounded by hundreds of bats, and Agatha is asked "why would the forces of darkness wish to attack a convent", to which she replies (completely deadpan), "perhaps they're sensitive to criticism." Dracula also gets in on the comedy. Explaining to Harker how he has had artists paint the sun for him, he then says, "And Mozart wrote such a pretty little tune", before mumbling to himself, "I really should have spared him". The nonchalant way Bang delivers the line is hilarious, as if it's only just occurred to him (not to mention that it ties into real-world speculation about what actually killed Mozart). Later on, he points out, "I'm undead - I'm not unreasonable". As the show goes on, Bang gets to show more of his range, bringing out not just Dracula's confidence and sarcasm, but so too his pride, frustration, boredom, and fears, culminating in an exceptional final scene, with Bang doing some truly wonderful silent acting.
Thematically, the show deconstructs much traditional vampire lore, particularly the power of crucifixes. Exactly why Dracula would fear the cross when he doesn't believe in God is a theme that spans all three episodes. Along the same lines, Dracula's immortality is examined in light of the boredom that it must entail and the irony of how a creature of death can't know death itself ("in a world of travelled roads, death is the last unprinted snow"). Similar deconstruction of Dracula's need for blood sees it presented more like an addiction than a necessity. And, of course, as in so many vampire movies, the show examines the idea that evil can be seductive, suggesting that if evil is sexy and alluring, if it's attractive, it can be difficult to resist.
As for problems, many viewers despised the last episode, and I can see why (although I loved it), as it takes things in a wholly new, totally unexpected direction that asks more than a little leap of faith from the audience. Certainly, if the first two episodes form a broadly coherent unit, the third disrupts everything, and is thematically, aesthetically, and tonally divorced from its predecessors. Some of the humour in this episode also pushes things a little too far, with one joke in particular crossing the line into farce. I'm also not sure the show needed to be as long as it is; three 60 minute episodes probably would have sufficed.
That aside though, I loved this adaptation. Purists' disdain for it is understandable, but to my mind, it captures much of the tonal qualities of the original very well. Much like Coppola's version, it deviates wildly from the book but is made by people who are clearly familiar with the source and respectful of its mythology. Featuring a suitably posthumanist Dracula for our jaded times, Gatiss and Moffat may not have pleased traditionalists, but this is a very fine attempt to bring Dracula into the 21st century without ever losing sight of his origins and raison d'être.
Hungry, 1897; Jonathan Harker (John Heffernan), an English lawyer sent to Transylvania some months prior, has become a shell of a man. Physically deformed and mentally fragile, he is now staying at a small convent. Having written an account of his experiences, Harker is being interviewed by the acerbic Sister Agatha (a superb Dolly Wells), who is hoping he can fill in some of the details he left absent from his document. And so he tells how he came to Transylvania to meet the elderly Dracula (an exceptional Claes Bang having the time of his life), and of the subsequent horrors he experienced.
Whereas the novel begins just before Harker arrives at Castle Dracula, the show begins with him already in a nunnery in Hungry, having fled the castle, and the novel's multi-perspective epistolary narrative is replaced with a more basic single-character flashback-style narration. Opening this way is a wise move, as it alerts the audience immediately that this isn't a 1:1 adaptation. Unfortunately, because the show deviates so much from the novel, and because the third episode is so unexpected and unique, discussing much about the overarching narrative design lends itself to spoilers.
Indeed, the same could also be said of the aesthetics, with each episode looking and feeling substantially different from the other two, but in such a way that to go into detail would spoil the nature of the final episode. In any case, the first episode is your basic gothic horror full of deep shadows, huge towers, labyrinthine interiors, and ominous opulence; the second is a ship-based murder-mystery along the lines of Murder on the Orient Express (except, of course, we all know who the killer is from the start); and the third is a gaudy, postmodernist-infused examination of youthful vapidity, corporate greed, decadence for decadence sake, and the all-conquering power of superficiality. Arwel Jones's production design across all three episodes is simply stunning; from the twisting staircases and dead-end tunnels of Castle Dracula to the weather-beaten Demeter (the doomed ship in the second episode) to Dracula's quite stunning residence in the third episode, everything on screen seems completely real and the world feels legitimately lived in. Costume designer Sarah Arthur also deserves praise, especially for her work in the first episode, where Harker's disintegrating mental and physical state is matched by his increasingly shabby clothing.
And there are some really extraordinary visual moments here. A close-up of a fly crawling on an eyeball, for example, which then crawls behind the eyeball is particularly disturbing (indeed flies are a recurring visual motif throughout the show), as is a scene where Dracula quite literally climbs out of a wolf (shot practically on set without any CGI). The exterior shots of Castle Dracula are also amazing, and why wouldn't they be as the show uses the incredible Orava Castle in Slovakia, which was also used for Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens (1922).
The acting is also terrific, particularly Bang and Wells, who both get to have tremendous fun; Bang as the sarcastic Count and Wells as perhaps the most irreverent nun ever committed to screen. Much of the strength of their performances comes in how well they handle the incredibly dry humour, of which there is a surprising amount (although Bang can also be truly terrifying when necessary). So, for example, when the convent is surrounded by hundreds of bats, and Agatha is asked "why would the forces of darkness wish to attack a convent", to which she replies (completely deadpan), "perhaps they're sensitive to criticism." Dracula also gets in on the comedy. Explaining to Harker how he has had artists paint the sun for him, he then says, "And Mozart wrote such a pretty little tune", before mumbling to himself, "I really should have spared him". The nonchalant way Bang delivers the line is hilarious, as if it's only just occurred to him (not to mention that it ties into real-world speculation about what actually killed Mozart). Later on, he points out, "I'm undead - I'm not unreasonable". As the show goes on, Bang gets to show more of his range, bringing out not just Dracula's confidence and sarcasm, but so too his pride, frustration, boredom, and fears, culminating in an exceptional final scene, with Bang doing some truly wonderful silent acting.
Thematically, the show deconstructs much traditional vampire lore, particularly the power of crucifixes. Exactly why Dracula would fear the cross when he doesn't believe in God is a theme that spans all three episodes. Along the same lines, Dracula's immortality is examined in light of the boredom that it must entail and the irony of how a creature of death can't know death itself ("in a world of travelled roads, death is the last unprinted snow"). Similar deconstruction of Dracula's need for blood sees it presented more like an addiction than a necessity. And, of course, as in so many vampire movies, the show examines the idea that evil can be seductive, suggesting that if evil is sexy and alluring, if it's attractive, it can be difficult to resist.
As for problems, many viewers despised the last episode, and I can see why (although I loved it), as it takes things in a wholly new, totally unexpected direction that asks more than a little leap of faith from the audience. Certainly, if the first two episodes form a broadly coherent unit, the third disrupts everything, and is thematically, aesthetically, and tonally divorced from its predecessors. Some of the humour in this episode also pushes things a little too far, with one joke in particular crossing the line into farce. I'm also not sure the show needed to be as long as it is; three 60 minute episodes probably would have sufficed.
That aside though, I loved this adaptation. Purists' disdain for it is understandable, but to my mind, it captures much of the tonal qualities of the original very well. Much like Coppola's version, it deviates wildly from the book but is made by people who are clearly familiar with the source and respectful of its mythology. Featuring a suitably posthumanist Dracula for our jaded times, Gatiss and Moffat may not have pleased traditionalists, but this is a very fine attempt to bring Dracula into the 21st century without ever losing sight of his origins and raison d'être.
It's a vampire movie
delaney_monique5 January 2020
I like the vampire genre. This is another stab at the classic Dracula tale but with a lot of liberties. I found those liberties to be quite entertaining, however if you are a huge fan of the novel and hoping for some degree of accuracy or commitment you might be disappointed. This movie attempts to be scary, smart and funny. It succeeds somewhat. I enjoyed the campy special effects, they reminded me of the old classic horrors I grew up watching. All in all I found it to be fun. This is not a heavy duty serious gothic Dracula film, this is more like a mini series and has enough moments of humor to keep it a little lighter. Sets and costumes are beautiful. Camera work is good. Acting was good as well. I can definitely see why some people take issue with the overall storyline and some of the dialogue which can come off as modern. At the end of the day, every movie and show isn't meant for a serious award, sometimes you just spend a few hours being entertained by something new. And that's all. I enjoyed it.
Quite entertaining...
Veritas994 January 2020
Warning: Spoilers
+ It should be named " Sister Agatha" , not Dracula. Her lines were excellent, and she/Zoe was actually the main character.
- They could find a Romanian speaker for the only Romanian word ( " Omoara-ma") to be pronounced correct
- Agatha was bitten, so she shouldn't drown, she should raise, like Lucy, after she was cremated. I really thought that Zoe was Agatha.
- I can't see the relevance of the flies
- Quite lame finale - you won't expect a 500 years old vampire to become ashamed after 3 minutes of conversation and kill himself...
Reasonably entertaining but lacks bite
mhiggott4 January 2020
Unlike previous adaptations (however loose) that have either focused wholly on scares or laughs, this latest version appears to try to combine the two. Unfortunately it fails to deliver much of either. The writers have taken liberties with the story, which is frankly no bad thing (who wants to see exactly the same thing that we've seen so many times all over again?), but it feels incoherent and loose compared to the original. There's some good writing here, mostly the part of Sister Agatha (Dolly Wells), who is the real star of this show. The real problem is that this Dracula is more parody than scary, and there's no real tension in the four and a half hours of the series. The sets and settings are good, the effects and makeup are fine, and there are references and nods to other shows and films that are kind of fun to spot, but ultimately it isn't enough to take this beyond mildly entertaining.
Atmospheric and entertaining
ontheis17 August 2020
Really, really good up until last 10 minutes.
Each episode is great, even the third one which features one of the scariest parts. It was a lot different from the first two episodes, and I can see why a lot of people hate it, but I found it equally entertaining, although I didn't like the ending, and the whole atmosphere and Gothic vibe is lost. Maybe it would work even better as a long movie, with third act changed and shortened? Nonetheless, I think the whole miniseries is a bit underrated.
Episode 1 - Great, sometimes awkward, but really fun! Episode 2 - Great too, with "The Terror: season 1" vibe! Episode 3 - Nice change, not as great as the first two, some notable scenes and bad ending!
Each episode is great, even the third one which features one of the scariest parts. It was a lot different from the first two episodes, and I can see why a lot of people hate it, but I found it equally entertaining, although I didn't like the ending, and the whole atmosphere and Gothic vibe is lost. Maybe it would work even better as a long movie, with third act changed and shortened? Nonetheless, I think the whole miniseries is a bit underrated.
Episode 1 - Great, sometimes awkward, but really fun! Episode 2 - Great too, with "The Terror: season 1" vibe! Episode 3 - Nice change, not as great as the first two, some notable scenes and bad ending!
I have no trouble with extreme adaptions, but this is just a torpid mess
random-707782 January 2020
I really don't care about ownership, orthodoxy or faithfulness to classics. Dracula is essentially an archetype and any creative person is free do use that archetype, diverge from typical telling or in fact invert everything about it.
But that can't be the only thrust of an adaption: "Hey look we did a different take on Dracula!... isn't that refreshing and cutting edge of us?" when in fact no real talent went into do it. in fact BBC "2020 Dracula" is the opposite of cutting edge it is just applying newer tropes. On top of that the scripting and dialogue is childish, indeed moronic. Skip it
But that can't be the only thrust of an adaption: "Hey look we did a different take on Dracula!... isn't that refreshing and cutting edge of us?" when in fact no real talent went into do it. in fact BBC "2020 Dracula" is the opposite of cutting edge it is just applying newer tropes. On top of that the scripting and dialogue is childish, indeed moronic. Skip it
"I'm a vampire! Why have you given me a toilet?"
Stevieboy6667 January 2020
Saw the trailer for the new BBC TV adaptation of Dracula, the Count spouting humorous one liners and the action taking place in both the 19th and 21st Centuries I was not sure if I wanted to devote 4.5 hours of my time to watching this. But I'm a big Dracula fan, plus I like Mark Gatiss so how could I resist? I couldn't.
Divided into 3 episodes the first was for me the best. This is the beginning, set in the Old Country at Dracula's foreboding castle. Very impressive, the sets, the stunning location, superb special effects. It is also pretty scary. great acting. The only thing caught me off guard was having Van Helsing as a female, but it kind of worked and it is essential to treat that this as a "Based On" adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel, or in other words a re-imagining.
Pretty much the entire length of part 2 takes place on board the boat to England. It is good, thankfully the various characters help make it interesting, but it is a tad too long. Part 3 takes place over 100 years later in modern day England. This one is by far the most reworked part of the story. I like the idea of this but do feel that the writers are trying to be too clever for their own good with this section and the humour detracts from the horror, though it still has plenty of scary moments.
I am glad that I watched the series, despite initial reservations. Like I have mentioned this is very much a modern reworking of the novel (none of the film adaptations follow the book exactly), watch it with an open mind. It's not going to please everyone but despite all the negative reviews so far it does have a respectable current average score of 7/10.
MOSTLY Magnificent
Her-Excellency7 January 2020
Where do I begin, without giving too much away?
I believe a good place would be to say that never did I think a show would pin me to the screen without ever wanting to move during the entirety of each of the first two episodes the way Dracula does. Breaking Bad is the only series to have done the same, and consistently.
I am amazed so far by Dracula. (And I almost hate saying that as I don't want to over hype it).
For a while now, the ratings on IMDB make me shake my head. Dracula is no different. The fact that it only has a 7.1 is unbelievable to me. This should be THE new show to watch. It almost leaves me at a loss for words with how good it is - for those who enjoy a highly intelligent script; extremely witty dialogue; great twists; a fast, forwardly-moving story (despite its slow-to-steady, almost delicious pacing, you'll understand what I mean if you watch it); fantastic acting; charismatic and sometimes quirky characters; and so much more! The only thing I can imagine is that perhaps people rated it based only on the first 20-30 minutes or so, which indeed are a little slow, in which case I would suggest they watch more and come back and re-rate; OR that some people have a problem with the subject matter. Well, that should tell you something. See, it is, simply, Dracula redone ... but REDONE SO WELL that it is raising hackles and disturbing those that don't understand this magnificent, bloody, especially clever piece of art.
Well done, creators! Bravo!
WATCH IT.
Edit: Lowered score due to the ending. The first 2/3 (two-thirds) were MAGNIFICENT. The rest felt uneven.
I believe a good place would be to say that never did I think a show would pin me to the screen without ever wanting to move during the entirety of each of the first two episodes the way Dracula does. Breaking Bad is the only series to have done the same, and consistently.
I am amazed so far by Dracula. (And I almost hate saying that as I don't want to over hype it).
For a while now, the ratings on IMDB make me shake my head. Dracula is no different. The fact that it only has a 7.1 is unbelievable to me. This should be THE new show to watch. It almost leaves me at a loss for words with how good it is - for those who enjoy a highly intelligent script; extremely witty dialogue; great twists; a fast, forwardly-moving story (despite its slow-to-steady, almost delicious pacing, you'll understand what I mean if you watch it); fantastic acting; charismatic and sometimes quirky characters; and so much more! The only thing I can imagine is that perhaps people rated it based only on the first 20-30 minutes or so, which indeed are a little slow, in which case I would suggest they watch more and come back and re-rate; OR that some people have a problem with the subject matter. Well, that should tell you something. See, it is, simply, Dracula redone ... but REDONE SO WELL that it is raising hackles and disturbing those that don't understand this magnificent, bloody, especially clever piece of art.
Well done, creators! Bravo!
WATCH IT.
Edit: Lowered score due to the ending. The first 2/3 (two-thirds) were MAGNIFICENT. The rest felt uneven.
Well
fewsternoble9 January 2020
Was really into this for the first 2 episodes, then the third one came along and, well, was rubbish.
Loved the Dracula character and the Van Helsing character, but the third episode should just not have been made.
6 for the first two episodes only, 0 for the third.
Each Episode Ranked. What begins in brilliance ends in a train wreck
jeanvieve78 January 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Episodes Ranked.
Episode 1: 8 out of 10. Although a lot of liberties are taken with the source material of the novel as far as storyline, this retelling maintains the spirit of the novel almost more than any other adaptation done before. The underlying dread and dreariness and sense of horror are all present, and are almost a character in themselves.
(Thankfully) missing are the all too typical over the top splashiness of modern vampire tales. This, like it's source material is truly creepy.
Dracula himself could not have been better cast; he embodies pure evil, and yet like the devil himself maintains charisma and seductiveness, which is a hard thing to pull off.
I was fascinated with where they were going with the story, and the introduction of Dracula's antagonist: a nun with a lot of vampire knowledge, and a psychological battle begins.
Episode 2: 6 out of 10.
We start off the episode feeling a little off kilter... did we just jump forward in time?
I spent the episode waiting for a tie-in to where we left off in episode 1, trying to figure out how and when the story went on it's rabbit trail, and why a certain pair of individuals were talking so cordially who were at odds when we last left them....(psychological game continues, but is getting tired sans explanation of what is going on).
Mostly gone is the delicious dread and slow-burn horror of episode 1, and instead it's replaced by an almost Agatha Christie-esque flavor of who-done-it, (except we know who did it). There is bit of twist/explanation 30 minutes before the end, but it still leaves only confusion.
Episode 3: 2 out of 10.
What the heck? Everything completely derails, utter train wreck. Dracula in the modern world, storyline disseminates to the point of no return. Psycho babble no longer a smart play of foes, but becomes self-aware and self-indulgent. Ending is an utter letdown. Oh Dracula Act 1 you had so much promise!!! Yet here we are left in the excrement of what could have been greatness.
Episode 1: 8 out of 10. Although a lot of liberties are taken with the source material of the novel as far as storyline, this retelling maintains the spirit of the novel almost more than any other adaptation done before. The underlying dread and dreariness and sense of horror are all present, and are almost a character in themselves.
(Thankfully) missing are the all too typical over the top splashiness of modern vampire tales. This, like it's source material is truly creepy.
Dracula himself could not have been better cast; he embodies pure evil, and yet like the devil himself maintains charisma and seductiveness, which is a hard thing to pull off.
I was fascinated with where they were going with the story, and the introduction of Dracula's antagonist: a nun with a lot of vampire knowledge, and a psychological battle begins.
Episode 2: 6 out of 10.
We start off the episode feeling a little off kilter... did we just jump forward in time?
I spent the episode waiting for a tie-in to where we left off in episode 1, trying to figure out how and when the story went on it's rabbit trail, and why a certain pair of individuals were talking so cordially who were at odds when we last left them....(psychological game continues, but is getting tired sans explanation of what is going on).
Mostly gone is the delicious dread and slow-burn horror of episode 1, and instead it's replaced by an almost Agatha Christie-esque flavor of who-done-it, (except we know who did it). There is bit of twist/explanation 30 minutes before the end, but it still leaves only confusion.
Episode 3: 2 out of 10.
What the heck? Everything completely derails, utter train wreck. Dracula in the modern world, storyline disseminates to the point of no return. Psycho babble no longer a smart play of foes, but becomes self-aware and self-indulgent. Ending is an utter letdown. Oh Dracula Act 1 you had so much promise!!! Yet here we are left in the excrement of what could have been greatness.
Wow!!!
Sleepin_Dragon1 January 2020
Well I wasn't expecting that I have to say, it was brilliant, but given those behind it I shouldn't really be surprised. It was actually scary, again I wasn't expecting scary.
It looked wonderful, gloriously dark and gothic, despite being slick and modern I couldn't help thinking it had a vintage feel to it, more than a nod to the Christopher Lee films.
It started off in a dark and gothic tone and continued in the same manner, Parts one and two are amazing, such a shame Part three was such a let down, the early episodes were still enough to make it a wow.
Claes Bang, a name people in years to come will be making as their favourite actor in the role, he was superb and looked the part.
Horror to start 2020! Yes please! 9/10
It looked wonderful, gloriously dark and gothic, despite being slick and modern I couldn't help thinking it had a vintage feel to it, more than a nod to the Christopher Lee films.
It started off in a dark and gothic tone and continued in the same manner, Parts one and two are amazing, such a shame Part three was such a let down, the early episodes were still enough to make it a wow.
Claes Bang, a name people in years to come will be making as their favourite actor in the role, he was superb and looked the part.
Horror to start 2020! Yes please! 9/10
Take each episode individually
sjorr7820 January 2020
1 & 2 are placed in a different time period with intriguing takes from Bram Strokers Dracula I found it entertaining and creepy. 3 did feel like it jumped the theme. Placed in a different time period that could have been it's own season all together and more fleshed out so it didn't feel so forced. They could have put so much more into the story, and I wished they did. The acting was great, witty story telling, strong female to balance out Dracula. Worth the watch.
From sublime to the ridiculous in 3 steps.
nigelmacdonald4 January 2020
Started with so much promise and the first episode is really good. The second episode begins to take too many liberties with the source material and by the third is unrecognizable as even part of the same series. I can't remember a series which nosedived so rapidly.
Had the promise to be a lot better
muamba_eats_toast19 May 2020
I absolutely loved the first episode it was so dark, creepy yet hilarious in the most perfect way at the same time. The second episode lost the humour virtually completely though whilst keeping most of the darkness and the final episode regained some humour but only half of the first whilst completely losing the darkness. In summary the first episode was phenom and the following two were just ok.
It Sucks... But Not Blood...
P3n-E-W1s35 January 2020
TheSTORY
The Beeb put the blurb, "Contains Scenes Which Some Viewers May Find Disturbing", in its written teasers. And, granted, there are a few gory and disturbing scenes, however, the most disturbing thing, by far, is the story itself.
I had hopes that the trailers were wrong and that writers Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat would make a good job of this adaptation. After the travesties of War Of The Worlds and A Christmas Carol, the BBC needed a shot in the arm. Both Gatiss and Moffat have acclaimed writing credentials and a strong portfolio. Gatiss even loves horror and has done some good documentaries on the genre. So it couldn't be too bad... could it(?)
Oh, yes it could.
The biggest letdown was the count himself. Gone is the regal evil with an ominous and overpowering persona. Arrived is the wishy-washy overly camp non-entity. We all know the count is bi when it comes to blood-sucking but he didn't have to be so stereotypical that it damaged the character and turned him into a joke.
I'm glad that the campness disappears in the second episode. However, Gatiss and Moffit fail to replace it with anything, which only strengthens his nothingness, which reaches its apex in the third episode and he nearly becomes invisible, though you can see his reflection in the mirrors. This is one of the nice twists to the vampire mythos. He can see his reflection but it's a la Dorian Grey. Dracula sees himself as he should look.
Though not all the twists work. The reason for his aversion to sunlight and the cross, for example, which is the pivotal twist, is so bad it completely destroys the Dracula mythos and you wonder why you stayed with this rubbish.
The best twist is Van Helsing. This truly makes the first two episodes watchable. However, this all changed in the last episode and without this Van Helsing, the story loses it's most interesting element. Twenty minutes in and I was itching to turn off the show and forget all about it.
If you're a fan of Inside No.9 you may smile when you get a cameo in the second episode.
theDIRECTION
Now, I believe some of the issues I raised above could be down to the directors as each episode was directed by a different director.
Unfortunately, this means we get their visual interpretation of the story. The first episode was the best of the three and I would have loved to see how his vision would have been for the entire project. Though, it may have been his idea to go camp with the count.
The second episode was okay, though not as visually stunning as the first. Though, at times the third was as imaginative in the direction as the first the story was way too bland and boring.
theACTING.
By far, Dolly Wells is the best actress in the series and is perfect as Sister Agatha...
I would not have cast Claes Bang as Dracula. Even though the character was badly written and directed, Bang doesn't have the persona to pull off the Count.
I also wouldn't have cast Lydia West as Lucy. Granted the character isn't fully recognised in the writing. This woman is a self-absorbed, egotistical, narcissist, which everybody can see except for Jack who loves her - though we're never shown why. West, unfortunately, doesn't possess the skills to make Lucy the powerful character she demands, though, she does well to make the audience hate her, which is a bad thing when shes onscreen so much.
The rest of the cast are perfect though, especially those in episode two. There's more meat on their bones and help to keep the story interesting.
theGRATIFICATION.
Go watch the films as they are ALL better than this tripe. Come on Auntie BEEB, get your act together. Gatiss and Moffat, shame on you. You could have done better.
The Beeb put the blurb, "Contains Scenes Which Some Viewers May Find Disturbing", in its written teasers. And, granted, there are a few gory and disturbing scenes, however, the most disturbing thing, by far, is the story itself.
I had hopes that the trailers were wrong and that writers Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat would make a good job of this adaptation. After the travesties of War Of The Worlds and A Christmas Carol, the BBC needed a shot in the arm. Both Gatiss and Moffat have acclaimed writing credentials and a strong portfolio. Gatiss even loves horror and has done some good documentaries on the genre. So it couldn't be too bad... could it(?)
Oh, yes it could.
The biggest letdown was the count himself. Gone is the regal evil with an ominous and overpowering persona. Arrived is the wishy-washy overly camp non-entity. We all know the count is bi when it comes to blood-sucking but he didn't have to be so stereotypical that it damaged the character and turned him into a joke.
I'm glad that the campness disappears in the second episode. However, Gatiss and Moffit fail to replace it with anything, which only strengthens his nothingness, which reaches its apex in the third episode and he nearly becomes invisible, though you can see his reflection in the mirrors. This is one of the nice twists to the vampire mythos. He can see his reflection but it's a la Dorian Grey. Dracula sees himself as he should look.
Though not all the twists work. The reason for his aversion to sunlight and the cross, for example, which is the pivotal twist, is so bad it completely destroys the Dracula mythos and you wonder why you stayed with this rubbish.
The best twist is Van Helsing. This truly makes the first two episodes watchable. However, this all changed in the last episode and without this Van Helsing, the story loses it's most interesting element. Twenty minutes in and I was itching to turn off the show and forget all about it.
If you're a fan of Inside No.9 you may smile when you get a cameo in the second episode.
theDIRECTION
Now, I believe some of the issues I raised above could be down to the directors as each episode was directed by a different director.
Unfortunately, this means we get their visual interpretation of the story. The first episode was the best of the three and I would have loved to see how his vision would have been for the entire project. Though, it may have been his idea to go camp with the count.
The second episode was okay, though not as visually stunning as the first. Though, at times the third was as imaginative in the direction as the first the story was way too bland and boring.
theACTING.
By far, Dolly Wells is the best actress in the series and is perfect as Sister Agatha...
I would not have cast Claes Bang as Dracula. Even though the character was badly written and directed, Bang doesn't have the persona to pull off the Count.
I also wouldn't have cast Lydia West as Lucy. Granted the character isn't fully recognised in the writing. This woman is a self-absorbed, egotistical, narcissist, which everybody can see except for Jack who loves her - though we're never shown why. West, unfortunately, doesn't possess the skills to make Lucy the powerful character she demands, though, she does well to make the audience hate her, which is a bad thing when shes onscreen so much.
The rest of the cast are perfect though, especially those in episode two. There's more meat on their bones and help to keep the story interesting.
theGRATIFICATION.
Go watch the films as they are ALL better than this tripe. Come on Auntie BEEB, get your act together. Gatiss and Moffat, shame on you. You could have done better.
A terrifically creepy, unfaithful but not unreasonable adaptation.
jamesflamesburns2 January 2020
Warning: Spoilers
This adaptation of Dracula is terrifically creepy. Very little I watch now genuinely freaks me out, but this did. To begin with, I was uncertain about the changes from Stoker's novel, but as the episode progressed I was less bothered. Gattis and Moffat are doing something different - what matters is that they are doing it well, notwithstanding a few cringey/contrived moments.
It is true that part of what makes the book great is the slow, tragic and harrowing realisation that Lucy is changing, the characters are helpless to stop it, and they'll have no choice but to kill her. [Edit: in the first two episodes,] The BBC's Dracula has eschewed the subtlety of such horror in favour of grotesque spectacle. However, this is fair enough, as it is an approach that may well be better suited to television. Indeed, the meandering second half of Stoker's novel where they chase Dracula through Europe would be difficult to adapt - and had they been faithful I think it would have been too drawn out and repetitive, whereas the TV series takes us straight into the action. In other words, the changes seem reasonable enough, and the ones they have made give the story focus. Still, I will be disappointed if we don't get some Whitby and hospital/familiar scenes [update, we did, to an extent!]
UPDATE: 2nd episode was superb - real sense of menace. And unlike many people, I actually enjoyed the 3rd episode. Despite being set in the present day, it was, in some respects, the episode that most resembled the book. Having previously thought they weren't going to include Lucy and Renwick, I was pleasantly surprised to see they did, and it accurately conveyed the growing feeling of horrible inevitability that surrounds Lucy's death and transformation. It was slower than previous episodes - in other words, it matched the pace of the book - so I understand why it wouldn't be for everyone. Still, the modern setting stopped it feeling repetitive (as I'd initially feared it could be) and I appreciated the classic Moffat/Gattis humour. Make what you will of the final explanation for Dracula's weaknesses - it felt unnecessary, but it could have been worse.
All in all, all the episodes had very different feels to them, and I think they all worked on their own terms. Whether they work together is another matter, and their varying styles is perhaps why some who enjoyed the first 2 weren't convinced by the last one. But, personally speaking, I enjoyed all three.
It is true that part of what makes the book great is the slow, tragic and harrowing realisation that Lucy is changing, the characters are helpless to stop it, and they'll have no choice but to kill her. [Edit: in the first two episodes,] The BBC's Dracula has eschewed the subtlety of such horror in favour of grotesque spectacle. However, this is fair enough, as it is an approach that may well be better suited to television. Indeed, the meandering second half of Stoker's novel where they chase Dracula through Europe would be difficult to adapt - and had they been faithful I think it would have been too drawn out and repetitive, whereas the TV series takes us straight into the action. In other words, the changes seem reasonable enough, and the ones they have made give the story focus. Still, I will be disappointed if we don't get some Whitby and hospital/familiar scenes [update, we did, to an extent!]
UPDATE: 2nd episode was superb - real sense of menace. And unlike many people, I actually enjoyed the 3rd episode. Despite being set in the present day, it was, in some respects, the episode that most resembled the book. Having previously thought they weren't going to include Lucy and Renwick, I was pleasantly surprised to see they did, and it accurately conveyed the growing feeling of horrible inevitability that surrounds Lucy's death and transformation. It was slower than previous episodes - in other words, it matched the pace of the book - so I understand why it wouldn't be for everyone. Still, the modern setting stopped it feeling repetitive (as I'd initially feared it could be) and I appreciated the classic Moffat/Gattis humour. Make what you will of the final explanation for Dracula's weaknesses - it felt unnecessary, but it could have been worse.
All in all, all the episodes had very different feels to them, and I think they all worked on their own terms. Whether they work together is another matter, and their varying styles is perhaps why some who enjoyed the first 2 weren't convinced by the last one. But, personally speaking, I enjoyed all three.
Episode 3 sucks the life out of it...
nickle9815 May 2023
Claes Bang is absolutely delicious as Dracula, I really liked him in the part and Dolly Wells just brilliant as Agata Van Helsing.
Episode one had me gripped, episode 2 was brilliant, except had the unwelcome wiff of the BBC fitting it's agendas in, but episode 3, as others have mentioned and I wanted to test, was indeed an absolute train wreck. Not only did it completely fail the first two, it was almost a different programme and the BBC, of course, got their agendas in there. Just awful, with a rotten ending to finish it. Watch the first two, don't ruin it with the third.
10/10 for the first two, 0 for the third.
Episode one had me gripped, episode 2 was brilliant, except had the unwelcome wiff of the BBC fitting it's agendas in, but episode 3, as others have mentioned and I wanted to test, was indeed an absolute train wreck. Not only did it completely fail the first two, it was almost a different programme and the BBC, of course, got their agendas in there. Just awful, with a rotten ending to finish it. Watch the first two, don't ruin it with the third.
10/10 for the first two, 0 for the third.
A hot & dangerous Dracula!
ronterry555 January 2020
Claes Bang is a marvelous Dracula. Enigmatic, sexy, and scary in one terrific vampire.
I did not know what to expect going in to yet another Dracula story, but I was riveted from the start. The gothic atmosphere took hold and I watched the entire series in one sitting.
I was leery of having a female Van Helsing, but the actress made me a believer. The jump to the 21st century in episode 3 took me by surprise, but I went with it. I'd have preferred the story to stay in 1897, but I got caught up in the modern day story. I'm hoping for another season with these two actors reprising their roles.
Had SO much potential
atenabazargan-894232 April 2020
I'm not sure WHAT they were thinking when they wrote episode 3, but it wasted all the potential the series could have had to be really good. Pity that the great cast was wasted on the 3rd episode' script. Episode 1 was amazing though, just watch that episode on its own.
Don't watch the last episode.
nataliegpearce3 January 2020
Warning: Spoilers
The lead is brilliant as Dracula and I thoroughly enjoyed a fresh take on the old story during the first two episodes. Episode three... ruined it. It was interesting considering Dracula in modern day - but that's it. The story line kinda stalled and the shows greatness stopped. Redo episode 3?!
Blasphemy at its Best!
akira-hideyo5 January 2020
They had me at Sister Agatha! True wit genius !
I find it rather odd that all the extreme negative reviews runs a similar streak of personal vendetta rather than a moderate assessment of any good, fair or bad show expected. Truly strange indeed. I love good horror movies and shows but I sincerely cannot sense this series deserved such extreme hatred for not being a purist reflection of its original master adaptation.
It was fun enough to watch and in the immortal words of another beast, this show was truly, "Marvelous, Hugely entertaining and there was no COLLUSION frOm Ukraine.. Ahem.. Aka. TRANSYLVANIA!"
Lighten up haters. It's 2020. Give it a rest already and smell the blood red roses, will ya? 🙏🌹😜
Goes downhill rapidly
glenncelica17 January 2020
First episode was excellent. Really captures the atmosphere of the Dracula story. Great acting and lots of suspense. 2nd episode, still very good. Not as good as the first episode but still felt like a Dracula story.
Episode 3... complete b**locks! Absolute waste of time. The whole episode felt like the BBC were more concerned with 'ticking all the boxes' of modern stereotypes, rather than the integrity of the actual story itself!
Gets worse and worse each episode
gparxs3 January 2020
Warning: Spoilers
1st episode was really good: original and gory.
2nd episode: am I watching an episode of cluedo?
3rd episode: the WiFi password is Dracula & the lawyer gets him out of confinement because of his human rights (should have turned off then). The ending is even worse, he suddenly gets a heat and commits suicide?
I can't think of any program that gets worse and worse as much as this?
2nd episode: am I watching an episode of cluedo?
3rd episode: the WiFi password is Dracula & the lawyer gets him out of confinement because of his human rights (should have turned off then). The ending is even worse, he suddenly gets a heat and commits suicide?
I can't think of any program that gets worse and worse as much as this?
Ditch the postmodernist twist and it'd be great
x519MaLoNeYx27 October 2021
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
