Dracula - Masterpiece Theatre | 
 enlarge | Director: Bill Eagles
Actor: Dracula
Studio: WGBH BOSTON
Category: DVD
List Price: $19.95
Buy New: $9.59
You Save: $10.36 (52%)
New (30) Used (9) from $9.59
Rating:  31 reviews
Format: Closed-captioned, Color, Dvd-video, Ntsc
Languages: English (Original Language), German (Original Language)
Rating: Unrated
Region: 1
Aspect Ratio: 1.78:1
Number Of Discs: 1
Running Time: 90 Minutes
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1
Dimensions (in): 7.1 x 5.4 x 0.6
MPN: WG41629
UPC: 783421416291
EAN: 0783421416291
Theatrical Release Date: February 11, 2007
Release Date: March 6, 2007
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: This item is BRAND NEW, factory fresh, and sealed. May have store or price stickers affixed.
Tell A Friend
| |
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Masterpiece Theatre presents a stunning new dramatization of Bram Stoker's terrifying horror story. A young aristocrat with the world at his feet is about to marry the love of his life when he discovers he's inherited an horrific disease. But his desperation to cheat death could bring destruction to all those around him--including his new wife--as he becomes embroiled in a sinister cult and unleashes the evil force of the fatally charismatic Count Dracula.With incredible CGI and effects the film contrasts the beauty of Victorian England with the corrupted sex and dark horror of Dracula's world. An impressive cast includes Marc Warren (Band of Brothers) as Dracula Sophia Myles (Doctor Who) and David Suchet (Poirot).System Requirements:Running Time: 90 Mins.Format: DVD MOVIE Genre: DRAMA Age: 9+ UPC: 783421416291 Manufacturer No: WG41629
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 26 more reviews...
 another vampire movie June 18, 2008
Carol Murphy (Parma Ohio)
I am happy with this movie. It was actually pretty good. I got it quickly and in great condition.
 Original and well done in parts March 30, 2008
Michael Smith (Marshall, TX USA)
Ran across this Masterpiece Theater production of Dracula which aired on PBS earlier this year. Seemed to have been panned by critics, but as it (to my surprise) happened to have Sophia Myles as Lucy, who's my favorite part of CBS's Moonlight series about a vampire and his reporter girlfriend.
The plot is a distinct variation on Stoker's original, with Dracula summoned to London by Holmwood, who has been told he can cure Holmwood's inherited syphilis before he infects his new bride Lucy. Actually not nearly as serious a variation of the story as the Deane/Balderston play that was the basis of the 1931 and 1979 movies, although not as close as the 1992 version.
I was pleasantly surprised by how good the production was. Sets and settingss are uniformly outstanding, and far closer to historical accuracy that Coppola's version (which was a nice change). Myles was very good as Lucy, and Dan Stevens and Tom Burke do outstanding jobs as Holmwood and Seward.
By far the best thing about the production to me, however, was Marc Warren as the "old" Dracula. He was the best I've ever seen, with aged, diseased skin, straggly white hair, filthy fingernails, and an ancient, moth-eaten robe. He looked and sounded like someone a few days either side of being dead, which is exactly how I thought a vampire should be played, including Dracula at the beginning of the book - far better than Kabuki Dracula in Coppola's version (who was, admittedly a hairstyle and a dressing gown away from being what I had in mind). I had no idea who he was until he became the "young" Dracula, and I realized he'd been the focus of an entire episode of Band of Brothers. I am not a fan of young Draculas in general, but what was different about this one is that his attraction to women was pretty clearly some sort of hypnotic interest, not a romantic one. He exerted some sort of power over Lucy, then Mina, but it wasn't romantic - even his seduction of Lucy was clearly when she was not conscious.
A quick note how well the sexual frustration angle between Holmwood and Lucy - who doesn't know why her new husband won't consummate their marriage - was handled. It could have been (enjoyably) expanded, but wasn't at all inadequate for purposes of the story, and was an interesting take on the issue, as well s bringing in through the back door all sorts of associations with Bram Stoker's life and writings.
Warren as a vampire in full fang was somewhat annoying (as they all are) but as a young Dracula, I think he was probably the best I've seen. It's just hard to really say, since I really don't seen the book's Dracula as a young man. As I've said before, I probably see someone with about the age and presence of a current Tom Selleck (not the Magnum one, the Las Vegas one). Myles and Stephanie Leonidas I'd hire as Lucy and Mina any day. Myles just seduces the camera whenever she feels like it, and Leonidas portrayed someone of markedly different social standing to Lucy, which is accurate to the book. And neither was asked to go out of character to be some sort of seductress, or consumed by sexual hunger around Dracula. Mina in particular was desperately in love with her Jonathan, and what Dracula gets out of her is markedly different. Same with Lucy - her reaction to Dracula is never romantic - it is simple reaction to his power over her. Again, to me that's a better way of telling the story. Footnote to the seductress - of course Lucy does act this way just before being staked, and Myles' acting and the direction hits precisely the right tone - she's a vamp, but let's not overdo it. (Her vamping on Moonlight last night under the influence of some bizarre pharmaceuticals was an order of magnitude greater, incidentally).
That having been said, the movie for me really started to fall apart as soon as they staked Lucy. Unlike every other movie I've seen, the staking consisted of her lying compliantly on the ground - arms out of the way conveniently - while Holmwood pushes (not hammers - just pushes) a stake into her belly (not her heart). The idea that she lies down and pulls him on top of her was an original one, but the idea she'd just lie there and let him stake her made no sense. At least distract her or restrain her or wait till she's asleep as in the book - make it look at least remotely realistic (I guess we're supposed to think she doesn't think he'll actually do it. Or, and I just thought of this, she's just a two day old vampire - maybe she has no idea what he was trying to do, or that it'd actually harm her, or even that he would want to harm her. That sort of makes sense, I guess).
After that, the movie just sort of dragged around until Dracula was the stakee. But, all in all, not a bad production, and a worthy addition to the Dracula ouevre. Comes in at #2 for me, and not by a whole lot.
I liked it. January 15, 2008
Charlton Allen (Tucker, GA United States)
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
I have read the book and seen all the movies from the silent version to the Frank Langella version. I am also a retied stage actor and opera singer. Without boring you with the technical detail, I lined this version. It was different, a little resque, with some good mood setting photography. Was it faithful to the book? To some degree, it was, but that it "poetic license." This is the best version made since the new century began. What that says, I will let the readers decide.
Sadly disappointing retelling of "Dracula" November 23, 2007
Amy Wallace (San Rafael, CA United States)
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
I was awfully excited when I discovered that Masterpiece Theater had made a version of Bram Stoker's classic novel. Always a favorite of mine, I eagerly awaited watching.
Alas, I was sorely disappointed. Lucy looked fabulous. She was gorgeous, her hair was lovely and she was exactly as I had always pictured her. Mina, on the other hand was...rather plain. In contrast, Mina was unexciting, plain and boring looking. If I had been Count Dracula, I would have fallen madly in love with Lucy, based on looks alone. Mina is supposed to be the love of Dracula's life, and she was so dull and drab!
Lucy's fiance was never a big part of the novel. He proposed, Lucy accepts him, he fights Dracula, the end. In this version, Arthur is supposed to have contracted syphilis. We see his tragically deformed father die in a horrible scene in the beginning of the film. Arthur discovers that he too, has contracted the disease. This means he must keep it a secret from his fiance. This whole ordeal made me think much less of him. He is selfish enough to marry the woman he loves, knowing he would give her this disease?
This version has Arthur as the one responsible for brining Dracula to London. He is involved with a black cult that has told him Dracula can cure his syphilis. (Far fetched, in my opinion) Arthur marries Lucy, with the hope that Dracula will cure his syphilis and he can be a true husband to Lucy. Jonathan Harker, Mina's fiance, is sent away to Transylvania (by Arthur) to have Dracula sign documents involving the purchase of property around London. He is swiftly killed by Dracula, who then becomes young. (who should have become young and gorgeous, but alas, disappointment there as well)
Dracula. Ah...the whole reason I've always loved this story. When Jonathan arrives in Transylvania, he is greeted by the oh-so-creepy decrepit Count Dracula. I thought this Dracula looked too much like the character in Bram Stoker's Dracula, played by Gary Oldman. He kills Jonathan (yes, that is really the end for our hero) and becomes young. Another reviewed likened Dracula to Bleak House's Guppy. I am sadly forced to agree. Dracula is pasty, bland and boring looking. No wonder he falls for boring old Mina! In the novel, Dracula is supposed to be handsome, charming and seductive, charms our Dracula/Guppy lack.
What really irritated me about this version is that Dracula falls for Mina instantly. There is no reason for it. Just suddenly he is whispering and moaning her name and clutching a lock of her hair. There wasn't a back story at all to explain his sudden attraction to her. Also, Dracula's aversion to the cross. We see religion as a big part of this film. There are crosses everywhere, and yet, Dracula's fear and loathing of God, religion or the cross isn't explained what so ever! We have to just assume that he is the devil, therefor, he hates the cross.
I liked the costumes and the sets, it was gorgeous to watch. The girls look lovely and are accurate to the period. The Westerna mansion is breathtaking, as is its mistress, Ms. Lucy Westerna. Other than that, Dracula was vapid, and he looked bored or drugged. In most of his scenes, he looked as though he was on the verge of falling asleep! (Except the ONE sex scene between him and Lucy, which I thought was the best part of the movie) I doubt I would watch this film again.
 Breathes life into a Done-to-Death story November 15, 2007
Dark Knight Jr. (Hurst, Tx. United States)
1 out of 4 found this review helpful
What do you people expect? The same story told over, and over, and over again? Director Bill Eagles, and Actors Marc Warren and David Suchet give us a fresh take on the Dracula legend, that some people are too thick to realize. Kinda like the scorn Ang Lee's Hulk recieves. Anyways, the film itself runs at an exciting 90 minutes, redoing faithfully the atmospheric, and truly essential, scenes that we've seen so many times. On a high note, the film, like Frankenstein: The True Story (1973), unveils itself more so like an exploration of the time period the novel was written in, specifically concerning the disease of syphillis. True Story was definitely not the most accurate version of Shelley's tale, and this film is definitely not the most accurate version of Bram Stoker's. In fact, this film reminds me of Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula, which I was impressed by from the first viewing. ***** for being different from other versions.
|
|
|
