Dracula Online

I actually bought Dracula's Curse(the U.S. title) on DVD a few months ago, but I never found it on IMDb. That is until I saw that this was actually just the film version of an Italian TV series. So I watched this the first night and I couldn't help but laugh more than a few times, like one of the opening lines "Mina, did you ever think we'd be in a magnificent ballroom in Budapest, Hungry?", it was so cheesy, especially the way the actor said it, along with how the voices are so preppy and outgoing. But you know what's strange? I actually continued to watch this film a couple times, it's so hypnotizing. While it remains faithful to the novel, with the exception that it's updated, it's just too mystery solving. But at the same time I enjoy it's cheesiness, I think we all need that movie in our lives where it's so ridicules that you can't help but enjoy it.

A group of friends in Budapest are about to celebrate their friend's, Jonathan and Mina, engagement. But Jonathan is helping out a client, Vlad Tepech to move out to Budapest. Guess what?! Vlad's a vampire! And he's after Jonathan's friends by tempting them with things that they dream of in the world to build an unstoppable army of vampires. But when he goes after Jonathan's fiancée, he's gone too far and now the gang is on a mission to destroy him once and for all.

The actors are a bit funny. We have the women, who actually are kind of fun in this film, the woman who played Lucy was funny, I loved her delivery of the line "How delicious!" to Mina about her engagement. Then we have the boys, oh, the boys didn't do so hot. Speaking of hot, Dracula wasn't sexy! I know it's a silly complaint, but isn't he supposed to be dashing or something? But then again, Gary Oldman wasn't that much of a sexy Dracula either, but that's besides the point. But for some reason this movie has me addicted, I still don't mind watching it. It's like chocolate cake, you know it's bad, but yet you can't help but enjoy it.

4/10

Dracula is a major presence in our house (along with his relatives the Mummy, the Wolf Man, Frankenstein, zombies, ...) I cannot claim to have seen all of the many films which are descendants of Bram Stoker's original work -- the "Dracula" name has been applied to everything from sex farce to psychological allegory, and some of it is pure trash. But we have seen more than our share of not only Dracula movies but also vampire movies in general, as well as any number of play adaptations.

It seems that most Dracula movies are not adaptations of the book, but rather adaptations of previous movies. Admittedly, the book is devilishly hard to stage/film, as it is structured as a series of excerpts from journals, difficult to weave into a consistent narrative flow. But one often gets the impression that the directors (or screenwriters!) of some of the films haven't bothered to read Stoker's novel, contenting themselves with merely screening some previous efforts.

So it is always with some trepidation we watch a new "Dracula" film, bracing ourselves for yet another schlock assault with only passing connection to the original. (Not that we are against schlock per se -- only when it masquerades to deceive.) Frankly, the cover art and copy of "Dracula's Curse" didn't give us much hope of quality.

Thus, we were pleasantly surprised to find that it is a well-appointed, thoughtful, and reasonably faithful version of Bram Stoker's book. Obviously, the production team had not only read the book but understood it, and labored to bring it to the screen as accurately as possible. In this, it stands head and shoulders above most "true to the novel" versions, including Coppola's (don't get me started on *that* one...)

The film does strike several sour notes -- the flying effects are in my opinion quite overused, and in fact unnecessary -- and at several points is at odds with tradition. (Vampiric insensitivity to sunlight will jar most people.) But many of these "traditions" are actually creations of earlier films, as careful reading of the novel will show. The ending is also rather rushed, as though the production was running out of money and could not afford the chase across Europe to save Mina.

The multinational cast does take a bit of getting used to, with as many accents as there are actors. But even this is true to the spirit of Stoker, who inserted an "exotic" American and the European Van Helsing into his story to lend it an international flavor.

Some of the casting plays against movie convention; Dracula (Patrick Bergin) in particular is at odds with what many people expect of the bloodsucking count. He looks far more authentically Romanian than any other Dracula we have seen (like a cross between Robert Goulet, Harvey Keitel, and Lech Walesa). Unfortunately, as the "aged" Dracula he looks distractingly like Scots comic actor Billy Connolly. But he has appropriate menace as well as some regal bearing, and is closer to Stoker's description than most.

The film is set in the present day, but by clever and deft scripting allows whole sections to feel as though they are set during Stoker's time. The locations and settings are sumptuous; the film makes very effective use of Budapest scenery to set the mood. Great care was obviously taken to achieve interesting camera angles.

And more of Stoker's dialogue is present than in perhaps any other version of the story, including the Louis Jourdan mini-series.

For someone who has only seen other "Dracula" movies, this one may seem slow and overstated. But to anyone who has read the book and enjoyed it, this movie is a refreshing attempt to bring Bram Stoker's original vision to the screen. Rather than rely on gratuitous gore and nudity, this production builds on mood and a fluid sensuality. Just as Stoker intended.

In the present days, in a ballroom of a hospital charity party in Budapest, the successful American lawyer Jonathan Harker (Hardy Krüger Jr.) surprisingly proposes his girlfriend Mina (Stefania Rocca) to get married with him on the next week. Their common friends Lucy (Muriel Baumaster), Quincy (Alessio Boni) and Arthur (Conrad Hornby) have been invited by Jonathan and have just arrived for their wedding without the awareness of Mina. Meanwhile, they are introduced to the promoter of the party, the psychiatrist Dr. Seward (Kai Wiesinger), and they stay together along the night. Later in the same night, Jonathan is called by a rich client, Tepes (Patrick Bergin), who hires him to prepare the inventory of the wealth of his uncle, the count Vladislav Tepes (Patrick Bergin), in Romania. Jonathan travels to the Carpathian Mountains in his Porsche, has an accident and finally arrives in the count's old castle. From this moment on, his life and the lives of his friends are jeopardize by a terrible menace. "Dracula" is an excellent contemporary version of Bram Stoker's famous novel. I expected a bad movie, based on the low IMDb User Rating, but this movie is surprisingly good. I have watched it on VHS in a version of 104 minutes, and I found many favorable points. The locations are amazingly beautiful; the camera and the photography are excellent, inclusive the introduction in a ballroom is fantastic; the story is a great adaptation of the Bram Stoker's novel to the present days; last but not the least, the unknown (at least for me) actress Muriel Baumaster is certainly one of the most beautiful women I have ever seen on the screen. The important role of Jonathan deserved a better actor, but anyway, fans of vampire movies like me will not be disappointed with this version. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "O Beijo do Drácula" ("The Kiss of the Dracula")

This is quite an interesting series not because of its faithfulness to Bram Stoker's novel but because it introduces modern versions of the characters and as the novel reported Stoker's concerns for the problems of his time this one reports our concerns for our own time.Spoilers ahaid.

As in the novel Vlad Tsepes, here caling himself Count Vladimir Tsepes, decides to leave his castle and move to the west.Here his reasons are that he feels tired from Rumania's decline and the seclusion of his life during the last centurie or so.Thus he decides to move to Budapest of Hungary.He wants to raise an armie of vampires and he goes there to search for recruits since he now only has three female vampires.

There he discusses he pursuits the Carfax manor by doing some illegal business with businessman Jonathan Harker.He also wants Jonathan's help in turning his colection of paintings, jewels and his gold deposit to cash.Jonathan's friends fellow businessman Quincey Morris, specialising in money swindles, and Arthur Holmwood, a British diplomat that is in a dept and is realy in need of money offer to help.Though Jonathan and Arthur have their doubts about the deal Quincey convinces them that money is all that matters and its one true power that makes the world go around.

Along with the three are Jonathan's girlfriend Mina Murray, with strong moral values and does her best to help orphanages and hospitals, and her friend Lucy Westenra, a true sexual predator.She also introduces to the gang her new lover and Dr.Seward, much to Arthur's disappointment since he is love with her.

Dracula gets very interested in those three young men, hungry for money and power, Lucy who wants to sleep in many beds, in many cities , have new experiences and live for ever and Mina who wants to change the world and end human suffering.They all seem as fine recruits.Throughout the film Dracula tries to seduce all five of them into his own world, make them wish to become vampires.Focusing again and again on how hyprotical morality is and promising them the loss of their conciense that now bothers them.Convincing them that survival of the fittest is the proper way and even the strong can't save the weak.And referencing God's slaughters in the Bible to prove that humanity was created in his image, the image of a kiler.

There to stop him is the researcher of the occult and Seward's teacher Dr. Enrico Valenzi(instead of Dr. Abraham Van Helsing) the one who believes that Dracula can be defeated when he faces a strong will enpowered by faith.But throughout this film he raises more and more self-doubts and his will is almost broken by the end.

Its Mina, half-way through her transformation to a vampire, that manages to make Dracula trust her and kills him as he holds her in an embrace.The films end with Mina still having the vampire's mark and how that affects is remain a question.

This film offers a unic take on the legend placed in our modern world , seen as corrupt, who seems to care only about money.Dracula's true power here is the power to make others doubt their beliefs and search for securitie ... in his grasp.Should be seen by those interested in a modern and truly seductive version of the immortal Vampire.

Few years ago then I was aimlessly going through some of the video stores in our capital, when I came across this: a new version of Dracula. Not only that, but the DVD had two versions of this film: an edited hour and half long, and the original three hours long that was originally aired on TV in two parts. Now, I hadn't heard anything about this film and I wasn't expecting much, but it was cheap and as a dedicated fan of Bram Stoker's book I knew I would have to see it. So I bought the film and watched the edited version first. At best it was only an okay film. However, sometime later I embraced myself to watch the longer version and was surprised to find that it was a very good film.

Plot is surprisingly accurate to Stoker, with the difference that it is moved to present day Budapest. An American solicitor Jonathan Harker (Hardy Krüger jr.) and his girlfriend Mina (Stefania Rocca) are about to get married and have invited their best friends Lucy (Muriel Baumeister), Quincy (Alessio Boni) and Arthur (Conrad Hornby) to Budapest. At the time they also befriend with a local doctor, Johan Seward (Kai Wiesinger), who is in charge of an asylum and an especially interesting case of Mr. Roenfield (Bret Forrest), which has required the presence of Seward's former teacher, Professor Enrico Valenzi (Giancarlo Giannini). Just when the engagement has been announced, Harker gets an interesting job offer from a mysterious Vladislav Tepes (Patrick Bergin) who wants Jonathan to travel to Romania to meet his uncle, Count Tepes, who lives in a remote castle. Although the opening of the film may seem a little forced modern version of Stoker's book, the moment Jonathan arrives to Count Tepes' castle, film follows Stoker's book with a surprising faithfulness.

I don't understand why so many are against this film, maybe they have seen only the edited version. Sure, the film has many bad qualities, it is a TV film so budget is low, actors sometimes mediocre and special-effects downright ridiculous, but if you can just ignore those and enjoy this as a version of Bram Stoker's novel, you will not be disappointed. Many times I've heard how the fans of the book complain that there is not a movie faithful to the book. Well, this is set in modern day environment, but it follows the book so accurately you just have to forgive it. The makers of the film have been wise enough to film this in Budapest, that still has the feeling of an old world with it, and suits to the story a lot better than modern day London or New York. Also the Dracula's Castle here is an actual Romanian castle, which I think is a hundred times more eerie than any Hollywood set design.

Patrick Bergin may not be the first name to come to mind when thinking of Dracula, but he does a good job. Nothing Christopher Lee level, but his own version. Of all the Draculas there has been, Bergin especially makes his Dracula a warlord, a very straight relation to Vlad Tepes. Often his Dracula speaks about the Final Battle coming and how it is time to have grand days back. Bergin's Dracula is a tired warlord, who has spend centuries hiding in a castle, but who has sensed coming new battles and is ready to start his own crusade once more. He also looks down on humans very openly, many times challenging them to a battle of wits. Bergin, funnily enough, looks very much like Vlad Tepes from the portraits. Aside of Bergin another performance worth mentioning is Giancarlo Giannini (most famous probably from appearing as Mathis in recent James Bond movies) as Professor Enrico Valenzi, the Van Helsing of this film. Although the name is changed, probably to explain Giannini's heavy Italian accent, Valenzi is very much Van Helsing if I ever saw one. In fact, I think Giannini does amazing work here, many times stealing scenes from others, and going right there with Peter Cushing and Frank Finlay as one of the best Van Helsing's ever.

So, if you want to see a horror film with lots of special effects and action, see Stephen Sommer's Van Helsing, but if you want to see a good movie version of Bram Stoker's novel, this is it. Mind you, three hours long version is better, but if you loved the book, it is worth seeing.

I didn't liked this movie very much, because I found that it was not very well explained:

Some facts about Lucy and her encounters with Dracula , and also Quincy's death are not well elaborated.

One of the most beautiful things in Dracula's story, is about his romance with Mina Murray, that is not even mentioned. [ I am a big fan of the book of Dracula's story]

But there is a cool fact: The idea about adapt the story, told centuries ago, to the modern days is appealing. I loved to see Jonathan driving a fancy car!

My vote is six.

Major spoilers ahead - you've been warned

pros: The film is beautifully faithful to the original novel - with some changes, i.e., Quincey dies in the raid of Carfax, and Mina is the Killer of Dracula – which I personally love, her line afterwards is beautiful – the film is set in Modern Day and seems to carry some Religious overtones; which, is why Mina kills the Count – she is intent on saving the world, the overall theme of the film. There is absolutely *no love*between Mina and the Count, as Stoker never once included a reincarnation plot, Mina loves Jonathan and loathes the count – thank Palance's film for the reincarnated love story, which in my opinion belongs nowhere near the story, unless it's Mina and Jonathan. The modern setting does not hinder the film, it actually pokes fun at horror tales, referencing that Dracula might have been played by Boris Karloff in their universe. The characters are fun, I will never say that they are great, the script works against them, but they are fun: Mina challenges the Count at every step she has with him, Jonathan is a conflicted soul, Quincey is vapid, Arthur is whiny, and Lucy is so much fun – she has so much fun playing the coquette. Van Helsing "Enrico Valenzi as he's called in this" is the ever-knowing Vampire Hunter, and he's good at it.

Bergen as Dracula is miscast, however, he plays his part well – both as the old man - with his homoerotic tones towards Jonathan - and as the younger 'Nephew' in the Budapest scenes. Overall this film is beautiful for what it has to work with; it's not much, don't go in expecting any award winning material, it is fun however to watch, and I am grateful I got that chance. Cons: The film is made on a MFT budget, which is neither here nor there, however it shows in the effects, lack of nudity, and special effects – but, ask yourself: are all the gratuitousness necessary in retrospect - although I would not have minded a butt-shot of Hardy Kruger Jr. or a bit more erotic evil in the case of Muriel Bauermeister. There is an original 3-hour film, which is not available to American Audiences and probably clears the air with some unfinished plot holes "Reonfield's Wife, Reonfield himself, the Weird Sisters "the Brides of Dracula" – so the diced film works against it.

overall view: personally I give it 10/10 because I have seen so much worse when it comes to Dracula adaptions, and this one, by comparison is the Oscar-Winner, Academy-Winner, and others, simply by comparison. Steffania Rocca and Muriel Bauermeister are GORGEOUS as Mina and Lucy Hardy Kruger Jr. and Kai Weisinger are delightful as Harker and Seward. Hardy Kruger Jr. is such a hunk. Bergen - although miscast - and Giannini are nicely done in their roles.

However, I suggest you make your own interpretations of this film, and if I must give an unbiased review, then I saw 7/10

the budget, sets, effects, and script work against it, as does the dicing and unfinished plot lines – that's it, really.

this is the worst film I've ever seen... actually. i thought it was duty to warn all the people out there as in the 1 review of it on here the person claims that it was quite good and incomprehendably gives it 8 out of 10. well in case you believed him think twice. i got this film in a vampire films boxset (of which most of the films were awful - my bad) and everything about it is absolutely disgraceful. its like they've purposely taken everyfing good from the novel and tried to make it rubbish or turn it into a joke... bram stoker must be turning in his grave... at the start its quite funny just how awful it really is but after a while it just becomes boring and painful.... avoid at all costs

The Count Vladislav Tepes wants to leave wayward and superstitious Transylvania (and who wouldn't) and involves a wealthy soon to be married investment banker in getting him some new digs. All while sucking the local population dry of their life's blood. Woo hoo it's yet another tired adaptation of the classic Dracula mythology with their own personal slant.

This umpteenth millionth adaptation of the great Bram Stoker's Dracula gives the film a more modern slant with mixed results. The TV production does stall a bit here and there with the lack of atmosphere but it's not a complete loss. 2 of 5

Van Helsing was a better movie than this. Badly written and terribly acted, this dreck doesn't deserve an IMDB page. The characters are all one dimensional - more so than in the original novel. Patrick Bergin is by far the worse Dracula ever seen. Even worse than Thomas Kretschmann in Dracula 3D. There are plot holes you could drive the Queen Mary through. Avoid at all costs. You'd have a better time watching Zoltan: The Hound Of Dracula than this.

After having searched for "Dracula's Curse" like the above viewer (the title I rented it under), I better post something to make it worth my while. Wow. What can you say about this one? Other than don't worry about watching it, that is. Maybe that's a little unfair. Patrick Bergin does a stand up job as Dracula (even has a nifty Bela Lugosi accent), he's very moody and creepy. And Giancarlo Giannini as the Van Helsing character (what the hell did they call him?) lent some nice talent. Their Renfield was right on but underused. Every now and then, there was nice camera work, but very little. Of course, Stefania Rocca and Muriel Baumeister were great eye candy (especially Stefania as Lucy in the red dress...sigh). But.... Hardy Kruger Jr. as Jonathan Harker made Keanu's turn like like Kenneth Brannagh doing Henry V. It's pretty bad when a guy like Kruger could take acting lessons from Ben Affleck. The story (while obviously familiar) took no turns or interesting takes and just drudged on and on. There was some surprising theological and philosophical discussion intertwined, but I really felt that this movie got made because Bergin was itching to play Dracula. Thank God it was him, or it wouldn't have had a whole lot going for it. For a great version of Dracula, stick with Coppola's film or, better yet, the original Lugosi or "Nosferatu". You'll thank me.

This movie is stunningly beautiful.

I have hunted down the Italian DVD and watched the complete 173 min version. Fantastic!

Even though it sets the story in the modern age, it is amazingly faithful to the original novel. For example, the "blooper lady" abducting children scene is present in this version, something usually ignored in other adaptations. This movie is faithful to the original novel in terms of not only story, but also vibe.

This movie has the best Dracula. "You must love me!" The Count is elegant, charismatic, cunning, and glamorous, unlike Gary Olman's portrayal from the disgustingly awful 1992 Dracula, which was entirely the opposite in addition to being unintentionally funny at times.

I adore this movie. It dares to be creative with the source material without being outrageous. Unlike Coppola's godforsaken 1992 movie, there is no "Dracula and Milla falling in love" bullshit in this one.

The cast is terrific and gorgeous. The score is beautiful and moody. The cinematography is breathtaking. They chose terrific locations to shoot the movie.

This movie is a hidden gem. I am so glad to have had the opportunity to witness its glory. Not everybody is that lucky. It is also a testimony to the fact that critics are useless, and that this is the age of geeks. This is one of those wonderful and rare vampire movies. Only die-hard vampire movie fans can appreciate its beauty.

This is a great film. A romanian vampire moves to England to search for new victims. If you do not get scared of this movie then no movie will scary you. This is a great horror remake. This movie has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. This is best one of the of the best horror books ever. This is one of the best horror movies ever. Patrick Bergin is a great actor. Giancarlo Giannini who was also in Casino Royale is also a great actor. This movie is very intense. This movie scarier then The Exorcist. And that is not easy to do. It is almost has scary as Dracula (1931) It is very scary. One of the best vampire movies ever. This movie is a must see. Hardy Kurger Jr is a great actor.