Having read other reviews, I was half expecting that I would be disappointed. However, I am glad to say that I was far from disappointed. This really has the makings of a great series. Yes, it strays far from the original and well known story, but it keeps the premise. It is this very difference that makes it great viewing. I am surprised it has not been done sooner. Full marks to the writers and producer for showing great vision. It has a great story, excellent script, fantastic settings and brilliant acting. The naysayers, need to remember that this is entertainment, and not a historical documentary/drama. I think it will appeal to a wide selection of viewers across all age ranges. I for one, look forward to watching it unfold. I recommend it highly as an hour well spent.
Add a Review
-
kmichaelpm26 October 2013
-
findwilliams26 October 2013Have to say without reservation that I will watch both Thomas Kretschmann and Jonathan Rhys Meyers in anything they choose. I would watch them sitting and staring at a wall for an hour because I know both are talented enough to make it interesting. Pairing the two and pitting them against a shadowy shared foe should prove interesting and I'm intrigued enough to want to know more. I like the lavishness of the production value and enjoy hearing all the names familiar to the novel, though with different interpretations. The character of Renfield has certainly taken a unique twist, and oh my goodness the shining Lady Jayne definitely has some secrets, doesn't she? Throwing in Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla and the magnetosphere doesn't hurt. Flashlights didn't exist, eh? Well, do vampires? Take it for what it is, an imaginative derivation of a tale that still enthralls. I for one will keep watching, and probably re-watching to catch what I miss.
-
joshkaplan226 October 2013Dracula has been done more times than pretty much any other story, and it's difficult to create something new in that kind of environment. Nevertheless, this incarnation, if done well, could be an incredibly compelling series, even if only to fanatics of the original. The titular character is made substantially more complex, both with a historical back-story (ala Bram Stoker's Dracula) and the incorporation of a Count of Monte Cristo-like persona into the vampire myth.
The novel Dracula was already a polyphonous one (being told through letters of various people), and by taking select bits of the original dialogue and mixing them into a more wide-scale (but interesting) context, each character is given a chance to be shown and developed in an organic way.
It's stylish, fairly atmospheric, and the dialogue is both era-appropriate and mostly lacking in clichés. Overall, it was nice to see show creators who seemed to genuinely want to do something creative rather than just going through the motions (such as in "Agents of Shield."). Who knows if Dracula will pan out well, but it's definitely worth seeing if it does. -
adamknebel3 December 2019Fantastic reimagining of a classic. Myers is such a great Dracula! Someone needs to pick up this show, the people at NBC that cancelled this show should be jailed for cancelling it in the first place. It probably won't get picked back up, but we can hope, right?
-
Jbtullisorder26 October 2013Some reviewers obviously disliked this show. Yes, there is a lot of historical sloppiness such as flashlights before the dry cell and incandescent electric bulb were invented (Google "history of flashlight"), or the use of dry ice at the opera (dry ice was invented, but not in widespread use as their was no commercial manufacturing or distribution yet), how Jonathan Rhys Myers (Dracula) can mimic an American accent (presumably without having been there) are all flaws, however these nuances shouldn't ruin the total viewing experience, and I don't think they did.
This show is a completely new approach to the Dracula story--it would seem the only thing in common with previous versions is that Dracula is a powerful vampire who shuns daylight. Other than that, pretty much everything about the story seems to be original. There are familiar characters like Renfield and Van Helsing, however in this story they are completely different than in past depictions, with totally different motives and purpose in Dracula's life.
I'll give it a couple of more episodes to see if it thumbs up or down, but it wasn't too bad for a series premiere, just a little sloppy.
UPDATE: Episode 2 Well despite the rant trying to say my facts are wrong and the writer's are correct (just Google to see for yourself), Episode 2 came forward with the same sloppiness. The storyline carried on, but the story is already getting tired. Same old Dracula where for some reason, he kills in the middle of the street, makes a bloody mess, then looks up and growls before continuing his meal. Grrrr?
An actress uses a quotation written in 2008, "The Devil you know...." Time travel? The fencing scene has the actors wearing modern, lightweight fencing masks and modern form-fitting suits... These consistent flaws aside, its been revealed (by obviously a writer of the show) that Dracula's American accent will be explained, as prequel episodes are forthcoming. -
I'm not a fan of those series/movies but i admit this one is masterpiece. The main actor (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) was incredible, mysterious man and unexpectedly sentimental. The whole cast was good but the script wants some amendments. The biggest problem is season 2 not exist. I don't know why producers determined to finished that too soon but it was a huge mistake.
-
Dracula is a story that has been done as many times as Pride and Prejudice, sometimes as a success (Bram Stoker's Dracula being a personal favourite), sometimes as a complete utter failure (Dracula 3000).
Thankfully, this version starring Jonathan Rhys Meyers is one towards the successful end of the spectrum. While most of the supporting cast are mediocre, Jonathan Harker, a character often mocked, (looking at you Keanu), here has a very different story than the original, something that was fresh and enjoyable. Oliver Jackson Cohen does a smashing job as Harker, second only to Mr. Dracul himself. Rhys Meyers plays a three-piece suit clad Dracula in this 10 episode series with grace and equal parts cunning and danger. Thomas Kretschmann as a secondary character has given Dr. Van Helsing a new outlook as well.
Overall, this is a retelling of an oft repeated story, could have been done better and yet, done better than most. -
jcsilva6121 February 2015Here I was. Poised to get on a great adventure with this wonderfully creative series when some TV execs with bad taste kill the series. Loved the 1st season. Imaginative writing, great cast and acting, great reviews. What is it about TV execs that they think we only want garbage reality TV? Corporate America lacks quality in its execs and decision makers. Plenty of proof of that since the 1970's. I think corporations need to start offering these execs minimum wage salaries and if they are successful, then pay them rewarding bonuses...not the other way around. I am continuously amazed at the lack of quality, vision and creativity in corporate America, especially the TV moguls and their ever present stupidity. NBC should be ashamed of its track record in recent years. Once in a while TV puts out some decent productions, very rare.
-
fsaavedrab26 October 2013I saw the pilot, thinking that Rhys-Meyers would keep the high standards of "The Tudors". Being a life-long lover of vampire stories, I was sorely disappointed by this new take on the classical story of the Count. Although production values are decent, the script, the dialogues and the narrative are hardly appealing to the viewer. Showing all the elements that make up a story is not equal to deprive the viewers of their involvement as co-creators of the plot. We can only hope that writers will correct this in-your-face disclosure and provide us with more hints to not being boringly certain about what is going to happen. Dracula is too complex a character to make him just a corporate tycoon looking for revenge and nothing else. It remains to be seen if mystery and true horror can redeem the show in the future.
-
spidyfreak1620 November 2013I like the way the creators have re imagined Dracula as a character. I'm familiar enough with the novel to know that Stoker wrote him as the epitome of sin. He had no soul, and lived only to kill and have sex. (Possible spoilers)This Dracula, while still lacking a soul, remembers his human life and what brought him to his afterlife as a vampire and he hates it, or at least hates the people that brought him to his current state. It's also refreshing to see a modern vampire in love, but doing everything he can to make sure the object of his affections doesn't know and focuses her feelings on someone as human as herself. This Dracula may feel, but he has lost none of the traits Stoker gave him that made him evil. It's fascinating to watch if one acknowledges it as a re imagining and ceases to expect it to be just like Stoker's original story.
-
Shizuka20082 November 2013This show is sooo stupid it makes Honey Boo-Boo and the Kardashians look like Nobel Prize candidates.
Where to start with that disaster?
Well it's 1890 and some "Order of the Dragon" killed Dracula's wife a hundred years ago (why?) - but they didn't kill Dracula although they did get him too (why? why? why?).
Somehow these vampire hunters don't actually kill vampires but burn their spouses instead - what a really smart plan (duh).
And in their wisdom these clever vampire hunters don't stake and behead Dracula but bury him in an "iron coffin" and conveniently leave a big hole in that coffin so he can be resurrected a hundred years later by Van Helsing (!) who is dripping human blood through that very hole.
All the people who killed Dracula's wife a hundred years ago are long gone but nevertheless he is being convinced by his savior Van Helsing that it is a good idea to destroy the Order of the Dragon now because... well, uh, hmmm?
Yes, why is that?
Ah, yes, it's because although Van Helsing isn't a vampire, the Order of the Dragon for some reason killed his wife and also his kids while they were at it and he needs a dangerous monster like Dracula to avenge them.
Of course, Transylvanian Dracula speaks and understands English perfectly fine and instantly agrees to a master plan of Van Helsing to do so - right there in the dark tomb where he has been resurrected after a hundred years.
And that's the great master plan of Van Helsing the genius:
Dracula has to go to the United States get incredible rich (somehow) and invent something as easy as transferring energy without wires (child's play).
With his riches and his invention he has to go to London after ten years and bankrupt The Order of the Dragon there because they are not only in the business of hunting vampires but they are also coal and oil tycoons.
And of course Dracula the wonder boy really manages to get filthy rich in the USA and invents just the right technology to bankrupt The Order of the Dragon.
However, Dracula doesn't always stick to this "master plan" (I wonder why) back in London and kills some of the members of the Order of the Dragon right away. (Perhaps he got fed up with the stupid screen play.)
"Hmmm, who could have killed our members?" the Order of the Dragon wonders. "Perhaps it's that new rich guy in town who tries to take over our company?"
"No", the Order of the Dragon says, "although everybody dies who stands in his way and he looks exactly like the Dracula whose picture we have in our archive, he surely just is some nice fellow who just happens to dislike sunlight and who only goes out at night and is constantly being seen with that that Van Helsing fellow. You know, Van Helsing, the bloke who lives near by and whose wife and kids we killed for SOME REASON although he isn't a vampire - ooops sorry mate. No hard feelings eh?"
I give up.
This is the worst piece of television I have ever seen.
Either everybody involved got a wooden stake in their brains or they really spent all their money on set design and got their script on the cheap from one of the many guys sitting around Starbucks pretending to write a screen play.
Even if you like watching Ed Wood movies or really, really bad television just for fun this one isn't for you.
It isn't even that kind of weird "bad" that it's somehow good in its own quirky way - it is just really bad and it gets worse every minute you watch it.
My favorite of the many, many stupid lines go something like this:
Renfield: "Master, why don't you just compel Mina, that would be much easier. It's in your power."
Dracula: "No, Renfield, I can't do that, because that would be evil and I am evil."
Where is Ed Wood when you need him? -
teresa_gibson3112 January 2014I don't care if there is inaccurate things about this show. Or that it does not follow the typical lore of what a vamp can do etc. It is dark, it is engrossing, you feel the underlining essence of foreboding evil. Old Dracula didn't hate what he was, didn't care whom he killed. The new one is not far from that. But he wants to be a mortal man again. To have the life he had stolen when they killed his wife. But with Mina, whom he feels is his wife reborn. He doesn't just want to whisk her away as his vampire bride to Transylvania. The show is such a surprise. The cast of characters interwoven and so different from Stoker's story. Each episode doesn't rap up the story in a neat little bow by hour's end. It continues, pulling you in each time. It is a cinematic journey. I have to remind myself it's a TV show not an ongoing movie. Watch from the start or you will be lost. The lead becomes his character. Not just acts it.
-
mcmugged11 November 2013I have watched the first 2 episodes of this, only because I like Jonathan Rhys Meyer. He was great in The Tudors.
I will say that this show is well done and has a higher standard than many other vampire TV shows. However, I am just sick of vampires. I could watch more if there was less blood and guts and heads being ripped off.
The acting is good and the scenery is good. We see cobblestone streets, horse drawn carriages and Victorian housing. The costumes are also well done. I just can't take any more vampire violence.
If later on, I hear that this show is still going strong, I may watch it on Netflix--assuming it will be there. Watching shows that have advertising on the screen as you are watching--is another reason not to watch while it is on the network. -
Where do I begin? When I first started watching NBC's Dracula I thought it might be fun. Considering the little tidbits that had already leaked out I figured it would not be great but maybe it would be fun, sort of a guilty pleasure. And those first two episodes provided that even though there were things wrong with it.
The thing I hated most was how Jonathan Rhys Meyers was actually proud that they had removed references to stakes and garlic and all of Dracula's traditional shapeshifting powers and the power to summon storms and wind. Why is the idea that Dracula could turn into a bat, wolf, and mist suddenly shameful? Less than twenty years ago these were powers we associated with Dracula without question. Now you only find them in cartoons and parodies. Why? why are all vampires portrayed now as nothing more than super strong pretty boys, with heightened senses and the ability to run fast. And even his senses don't seem that heightened in this incarnation. I have seen many versions of Dracula and this, quite simply, was the weakest, physically speaking.
Jonathan Rhys Meyers went as far as to mock Romanian accents in his interviews and brag how his Dracula was more of a Howard Hughes or Citizen Kane type. Have I mentioned this Dracula puts on a bad fake American accent for his persona of Alexander Greyson? I thought I could stick with it. I thought it wasn't so bad but then came episode three. Episode three pushed me into hatred for this show.
Now in this version Dracula isn't proud of his connection to the knightly Order of the Dragon. Now they are an Illuminati type group and apparently they turned Dracula into a vampire as a form of punishment. Because... you know... fanatical illuminati groups often do that... But this isn't so bad. I have seen worse origins for Drcaula before such as Dracula 2000.
Dracula has been sleeping with the vampire hunter Lady Jayne (who somehow has no idea that he is Dracula, by the way). And while she is dozing after they have been intimate he hears a voice calling "Sire... Sire... help me... sire..." So Dracula takes up a torch (because apparently he can't see in the dark now...) and follows the voice. Before we go any further just know that you cannot convince me that torch was for our sake, the viewer. I have seen too many well done and well lit vampire films where rooms that are supposed to be black to human eyes are quite easy to see. And they never had to sacrifice a vampire's night vision before just for the viewer. Even the 1960s Dark Shadows never considered doing such a thing. Dracula finds the imprisoned vampire and she begs "Kill... me..." She has clearly been tortured. Dracula kisses her hand and with clear normal tears (Because people have forgotten portrayals of Dracula and blood tears LONG before True Blood) running down his face, he stands there, cracks his fingers for some reason (seeing some vampire claws would have been cool right now but they took those away from him too...) and he crawls right back into be with Lady Jayne.
Traditionally if you make Dracula cry that usually means something terrible is about to happen, that he is about to rip someone apart. This is true in novels, TV, and film but alas, not here. This is the ultimate moment in which he did NOT feel like Dracula.
Now previously on the show Mina and Jonathan had a fight because he wanted her to be a proper wife and give up her dreams of being a doctor. Guess what Mina does in this episode? She apologizes to him! Why!? Bella Swan was more feminist than this! Back in 1979 in Frank Langella's version of Dracula, Lucy (actually the Mina character as in that film the names were reversed) was a suffragette. She gave lectures on how women were not chattel and even scolded that version of Dracula for hypnotizing someone. She charmed Dracula in that version, asking him to dance with her right in front of her fiancé. Dracula admired her boldness, that is what he fell in love with in that version. Why is it a version that is nearly thirty five years old is more feminist than this?! Oh, Dracula talks Jonathan into getting back together with Mina. Why!? He's competition! And then he brags to Renfield about doing a good deed.
So, no traditional powers, no traditional Dracula temper, and he puts other mens happiness before himself. This is the man who supposedly fought The Ottoman empire? We never see him feed really. Every time he lunges in for a kill we never actually see it happen.
I have seen many versions of Dracula. If you want a good contemporary version of Dracula read Fred Saberhagen's Dracula books. Even Buffy vs. Dracula was more respectful to the source material in regard to Dracula's look, behavior, and powers.
I am tired of the cookie cutter pretty boy vampires all being alike in personality and powers. I miss Dracula as Dracula! This isn't refreshing or new. It's pandering to the new, six or so year old cliché. At this point seeing a traditional Dracula, THAT would be new and refreshing.
As I said, I have seen many versions of Dracula. And this is in the bottom five... of the worst Dracula incarnations out there. That's down there Dracula 3000 and Dracula: the Dark Prince (not the good one with Rudolf Martin, the 2013 version).
This is no Dracula. And Jonanthan Rhys Meyers should be ashamed, not bragging, about the traditional Dracula abilities he so proudly demanded be stripped from the character. -
evaneberhardt10 November 2013I was skeptical about this show as it sounded generic. "Dracula"... really? The most famous vampire ever? But half-way through the first episode I realized this show was showing some surprising depth, not to mention top notch acting, beautiful cinematography, and a solid soundtrack. All I hear from naysayers is that this isn't Dracula according to Bram Stoker. So what? Do we want that same old stuff recycled forever? Or can we just enjoy a retelling of a famous name and not get bogged down by nitpicking?
The show is compelling thus far. Let's hope it at least gets a full season. NBC is showing some signs of life with this one, hopefully they don't ax it early like is the norm these days in network television. -
Garoth180227 October 2013I just watched the first episode of Dracula. I was looking forward to a TV show utilizing the classic Dracula, I was very disappointed that so much "artistic license" was taken with the original. Dracula never used or needed an alias and was never a "good" character like those sparkling teens of Twilight. The show is just another vampire show with the classic name of Dracula stuck on top of it to suck people in. Ask yourself what is Dracula? It is a story by Bram Stoker that has seen producers, directors and writers try to improve or reinvent the original story. However the story is classic and what they don't realize is that it doesn't need that much tweaking to work, and if they change it to much then it is not Dracula but instead it is Twilight or Interview With A Vampire or a story written by series writers and not a story written by Bram Stoker.
-
Alright , let me start by saying I am heart broken due to Victoria Smurfett being married. My apologies to her co-actresses, but she is by far the most enticing woman in the series. Certainly hope that Van Helsing fails in creating a serum that allows Tepes to survive exposure to sunlight rather than burning his flesh off his bones, he would be able create a whole army of blood sucking vermin. Now, onto that pseudoscience/technology. Is it possible to create light from electricity in the air?, yes!, certainly, if you do not mind dying a miserable death from Cancer. If you can find it watch the movie Ohms, if I recall it was made for regular network television. Go ahead and, not quite certain here either, I believe it is the cathode end of a florescent tube up towards 750,000 to 1,000, 000 volt power lines, oh yes they will glow. Electromagnetism can create magnificent things, can also mess with your DNA. what year is it?, forgive me, more than 1 detail I am not quite sure of, somewhat irrelevant, since generators capable producing that much electrical energy cables carrying that many volts did not exist until the 1940s. If anyone already knows all the facts to those doubts, my cynicism doubts I have to the implausibility of such technology, please!, enlighten me, otherwise I choose to remain the skeptic. What is the deal with Renfield?, in the original Brom Stoker's novel was he not a mentally disturbed patient committed to Bedlam, had a thing for eating live insects, and was he not Caucasian.
-
user-828-57353226 October 2013So far my opinion about this show is that it has A LOT of potential for a great story. Dracula spins himself to the public as an American Industrialist on a mission to provide the world with clean, sustainable energy through the use of geothermal power. Something that the major oil Tycoons of England want squashed before it becomes too large for them to control. His real reason for being in England of course is not what he claims in public and that is where the story gains it's real substance.
The scenery is exquisite and fits the time period very well. The only problem I can see with this show that might cause it to not get the ratings to continue is the fact that the plot is very fast paced and rich with historical nuances that the average TV watcher might not get. If the viewers are not paying attention or do not know their real history a lot of the subtle details they have done with the writing will be missed.
For example, some of the negative reviews I have read are about Dracula switching from an English accent to an American accent when he is told by Renfield that he must act like an American now. The viewers are assuming that it is poor writing since Dracula has never been to America. It is an assumption on their part as it is very possible that he has been there. The writers have not told us about that part of the story yet. The opening scene shows he was resurrected in 1881. Then they fast forward in time to him with his personal assistance Renfield in 1896. That is a 15 year gap where he could have traveled the world for all we know. I am sure given time we will find out.
Other complaints that have been mentioned over and over is about the first scene where two men are spelunking down a cavern with flashlights in 1881. A lot of the complaints were that the writers are being sloppy or just not caring about the inaccuracy. If people knew their history this would not be a complaint but a pleasant surprise of the detail the writers put into the show.
For those that do not know, the patent for the Flashlight was not officially signed until 1896 but the first invention and form of the flashlight they use in the opening scene matches the types of flashlights that were made and used in during that time period. For the record, the original design was made in 1879. Another complaint is about the use of Dry Ice. This again is historically plausible since the method and use of Dry Ice started in 1835 but again like the flashlight, an official patent was not acquired until 1897.
That kind of detail is what caught my attention from the very beginning. The story has definitely been written with a unique spin on Bram Stoker's Dracula. The only connection I can see so far are the characters have the same names and it is set in the same time period. But it is obvious the writers are telling a new story. For the younger Bram Stoker's Dracula fans expecting to see the original Dracula this is obviously not what you are going to find. In all honesty though, there has not been a version of the story retold by Hollywood to date in any form that has ever followed the original story. Any version of Dracula that portrays Dracula as anything other than a power hungry, blood drinking, demon that must be destroyed before he allures weak willed women into the temptation of sex, is a huge stray away from Bram Stoker's original book. The original book also did not have a love connection between Dracula and Mina but that has never stopped writers from making it happen.
One of the reasons behind a "Pilot" is to capture an audience's attention and making them want to see more of the story. It would not be effective if they told the complete story all in the first episode. As for me, they definitely have my attention. All of the actors with the exception of the actor that plays Jonathan Harker fit very well in their role. Each character has endless potential with the brief story we were given and the actors themselves are very believable in their roles.
Hopefully the show will survive the onslaught of ignorance from the viewers and become a long lasting series that leaves the audience always wanting to see more. I know I do. -
ebtoomey24 November 2013Last night Dracula's serum so he could go out in the sunlight would not work as his heart did not pump blood around his body. The serum only impacted where it was injected. But at the same time he keeps getting on with Lady Victoria S. I know this is make believe but seriously even basic knowledge of biology would be helpful here. Apart from that I am rather enjoying Dracula. Johnaton will get my vote any day. I am also wondering how long the series will go on for. Four weeks in and very little has happened. Why is Lucy not the un dead yet. The whole thing is a little bit slow. They need to more the whole thing along before people start getting bored, if that is possible with anything Johnaton is in.
-
roxy285310 November 2013I loved this take on Dracula. The show is different, scenic, visual with great characters and twists. I am sucked in and I am looking forward to new shows. Many have complained about the creative license of not following the true story. While I agree that is true, if I wanted to watch the same thing, I would simply re-watch Bram Stoker's Dracula or Van Helsing, which I also loved. I think people need to keep in mind this is a TV show and not a movie and in that respect I think it is top notch compared to a lot of other horror series. I love Jonathan Rhys Meyers and for those that find him attractive, I agree. No one ever said that Dracula had to be a heartthrob, but it appears that some believe he must be. Personally, I think Gary Oldman or Robert Patterson have nothing on Jonathan Rhys Meyers in the looks department, but they all have sex appeal, which I find really amusing in regards to Oldman especially. I really do hope this show continues throughout the season.
-
avdropm-944-92185216 March 2014I watched the pilot for this series, and based on what I perceived to be a set of clear warning signs, dismissed it as clichéd, highly derivative, pandering trash. By chance I saw the second episode on Hulu, and then systematically watched the whole series. My revised opinion is that it's creative, intelligent, well-produced gaslamp fantasy/horror, and one or more people on the creative team are familiar with both the source material and previous "reimaginings" (good and bad), as well as with certain works of mainstream literature relating to the approximate period.
All of the flaws I perceived in the pilot carried through the entire season, but they proved to be an irrelevant background, overwhelmed by the various plot threads of intrigue, subterfuge, romance, and calculated revenge, and offering no impediment to the development of the primary characters.
If you read Dracula, The Count of Monte Cristo, and some of the more fantastic conspiracy theories about the Knights Templar, Freemasons, and Nicola Tesla, you could conceivably end up having a dream similar to this series.
The program is likely to be canceled, but is currently available on Hulu. My advice, should you decide check out the show, is to watch at least the first two or three episodes. The pilot is actually fine if you know where the story is going, but it might discourage further viewing if taken by itself. At least that was my experience. -
plex25 October 2013There have been so many Dracula/vampire movies and shows, especially over the past 15 years, it must be getting difficult to invent new ways to put an enticing spin on the tale we most are familiar. This latest big-budget installment strays so far from convention, and does so in such an odd way, it was difficult for me to find anything I liked about it. If the writers wanted to make a more effective political statement, they should have chosen to resurrect Dracula in modern times. I am getting ahead of myself. Right from the start, something smelled funny. Flashlights in 1881 Romania? Nope, they weren't invented yet. Orchestral music with a modern drum beat, that the people in Dracula's party were dancing to in 1898? The audio mixing is terrible, I had to lower the bass and boost the treble just to make out the dialog, but still the score is way too loud and muddy sounding. The story-line is such a complete mess, with dialog going off on all different directions. I have no idea why Dracula was brought back if all he's going to do is be part of energy business start- up, hell bent on making the petroleum industry obsolete, and seemingly answering to Van Helsing who is no longer the benevolent figure he had been in all the other versions of Dracula- based stories. Renfield is now a large lucid African-American, who is astute to the ways of business and not carnivorous madman he commonly was written as. I cant figure out Jonathan Rhys Meyers role at all. One scene he has an English accent, the next he almost sounds like a southerner, but his vocal range is not deep and commanding enough for a role like this, neither is his physical presences, unless its intentional to disassociate him from what we have grown use to over the decades. Harker, Mina and Lucy were all forgettable. The more I watched the more I got confused. I am all for seeing something new but you have to get my attention with first making sense of the questions I will need answers to, and will eagerly wait to see their resolve. The problem here is, I don't know which question to ask. This one's regrettably a stinker.
-
summers61627 July 2019Excellent variation on the Stoker novel. Lush sets and an even more lascivious story. Ten episodes wasn't enough for this gem. To end it on a cliffhanger was a huge mistake by the network, but NBC more often than not, gives up on unique shows.
-
Headturner12 October 2020Except the acting of Meyers and since he is the main protagonist that kinda sucks. I love the Irish Victoria Smurfit and was pleasantly surprised to see her in it and not sure the actors name who plays van Hessing but I like him as well. For a TV production I was amazed at the costumes/ settings etc looks like they didn't spare any expense in that department. I did fall asleep and can't remember what episode I was on but I'll probably revisit it tonight if I can't find anything else. So in the end I have to say it was decent because I was tired f searching for something but I don't know if I'd purposely seek this out to watch.
-
Oh dear. Probably the worst new series of 2013. Badly written, laughably acted and terrible music as well. Everything about this turkey is wrong. So now Dracula is American and wants to attack big business?!? He's declared an "economic war" against some stock character actors in beards! BORING! That's not what vampires do! And Van Helsing is in cahoots with him? What next? There was also a very clumsy reference to Jack The Ripper being a vampire - yeah why not. Rhys Meyers is so hammy it's a wonder some vampire isn't sucking on him. He seems to be giving the same exact performance as he did in The Tudors. How does this guy get work?? He must be sucking someone to get these roles! I definitely won't be watching another episode as it's just too awful.