Dracula

:

Season 1
  • Network: NBC
  • Series Premiere Date: Oct 25, 2013
User Score
7.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 197 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 148 out of 197
  2. Mixed: 28 out of 197
  3. Negative: 21 out of 197
Watch Now

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

view
per page
  1. Nightling13
    Nov 16, 2013
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The thing I hate most is 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.

    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.    … Expand
  2. Maxime
    Oct 26, 2013
    3
    Aiming to be something it clearly isn't, 'Dracula' fails to deliver.

    It doesn't offer anything new. It tries to be what every other show, nowadays wants to be: sexy, witty, shocking, unpredictable and classy. 'Dracula' does not hit any of these notes. Sexy? Well yeah, the lead is played by Henry Tudor himself, an eye-candy for the girls. The women are plenty and they are quite    Aiming to be something it clearly isn't, 'Dracula' fails to deliver.

    It doesn't offer anything new. It tries to be what every other show, nowadays wants to be: sexy, witty, shocking, unpredictable and classy. 'Dracula' does not hit any of these notes.

    Sexy? Well yeah, the lead is played by Henry Tudor himself, an eye-candy for the girls. The women are plenty and they are quite attractive in their provocative corsets. But having Lord Dracula "feeding on", "kissing" every random woman, every other scene is just... not sexy after the fifth scene. And everything seems forced and unreal!

    Witty? Shocking? Unpredictable? I think not! It's like The Vampire Diaries' rip-off, with its warring families, shadowy history and cliched plots all over the plays.

    Classy? It's forced! The scenes are so perfect that you know it's in a studio! The pavement is so clean and the houses so neat that you forget you are watching a movie.

    That DUMB fight scene? What the hell was that? Slow-motion, really? Sword fighting, really? Bad effects?

    The over the top, forced luxury! It gets old, after the fifth episode.

    You should make the audience crave for more! But instead the audience is bored and doesn't want to do anything more.    … Expand
  3. raviopatra
    Nov 19, 2013
    3
    I'm not saying that anything with vampire in it has to be scary, but this is just... ridiculous? Rhys-Meyers is hot, yes, but what is Dracula without the mystery and all the bites? The pilot is very weak, there's no clarity for the story, and somehow far from being exciting. Disappointing.
  4. Demorase
    Nov 15, 2013
    0
    Talk about not knowing your audience!

    Who on earth wants to see boring, nonsensical, political intrigues about green energies in a show called "Dracula"? Seriously.
  5. mak3658
    Nov 4, 2013
    3
    This version of Dracula with Jonathan Rhys Meyers doesn't work for me. I continually am looking at the clock to see how much longer it will drag on before the episode's completion. I am an avid fan of Bram Stoker's book, and I have loved the versions which starred Christopher Lee, Frank Langella, Gary Oldman and, of course, the great Bela Lugosi, as the screen writers/directors remainedThis version of Dracula with Jonathan Rhys Meyers doesn't work for me. I continually am looking at the clock to see how much longer it will drag on before the episode's completion. I am an avid fan of Bram Stoker's book, and I have loved the versions which starred Christopher Lee, Frank Langella, Gary Oldman and, of course, the great Bela Lugosi, as the screen writers/directors remained close to the story line. The story line is very seductive and alluring. The version close to the original draws one in and holds you in its grasp. Jonathan Rhys Myers is a wonderful actor, but doesn't cut it as Dracula. It seemed to work well when he was Henry the VIII in Tudors, but that character doesn't befit the more subtle, dark seduction of Dracula's character. The writers have gone way overboard straying from the original story. An American industrialist? We aren't even told how he became an industrialist Harker, in the second episode, mentioned something about there being no record of Alexander Grayson's professional existence prior to 8 years. Even Renfield's appearance in Grayson's life as his gentleman's gentleman isn't explained. Who is the woman who's trying to destroy Dracula? Who cares? Anyway, I always give a new show that I decide to watch at least three episode viewings before calling it quits. I think this next episode will be it for me unless there is some kind of inviting surprise that will keep me watching. Sleep Hollow on Fox has taken a character from a book and developed it correctly. The person chosen for the part of Ichibad Crain is perfect a naive, seductiveness that transcends the show itself and the writers, who have had to elaborate on the story and have taken it to the vision of the 4 horsemen of the apocolypse draws you in. I find myself looking at the clock during the commercials, hoping that the episode isn't nearing its end. I look at the clock every now and then when I'm watching Dracula, but more for how much longer the episode will go on before it, mercifully, ends. The costuming, though, is incredible!… Expand
  6. carlvonmaltitz
    Nov 3, 2013
    2
    Dialogues taken directly from hell, silly costumes, ridiculous action, and a total lack of wit make this a true carnival of the undead: I didn't expect much from this one thousandth reenactment of the old Dracula story, and after watching the pilot I can honestly say it fulfilled all my expectations.
    If you can get around the bad script and the tasteless production, your score probably    Dialogues taken directly from hell, silly costumes, ridiculous action, and a total lack of wit make this a true carnival of the undead: I didn't expect much from this one thousandth reenactment of the old Dracula story, and after watching the pilot I can honestly say it fulfilled all my expectations.
    If you can get around the bad script and the tasteless production, your score probably depends on whether you like the star, Rhys Meyers. I, for one, absolutely adored him in Woody Allen's "Match Point", but as Dracula, he behaves a little like an adolescent attempting to impress his older brothers, hissing one manly statement after the other, with his eyes half closed, desperately hoping that none of them sees through his charade. So no, that doesn't do anything for me either.    … Expand
  7. Ziminy
    Jan 7, 2014
    1
    A show about Dracula that really has nothing to do with Dracula. Hmmm. Producer "More red velvet! I want costumes, costumes, costumes. And can we get some more wrought iron candelabras." And I'm just thinking.... "This set would be great with all the lead characters played by drag queens. Once you've laughed at the sets and costumes, then you fall asleep. SOOOOO BOOOORRRRINNNNGGGG! IA show about Dracula that really has nothing to do with Dracula. Hmmm. Producer "More red velvet! I want costumes, costumes, costumes. And can we get some more wrought iron candelabras." And I'm just thinking.... "This set would be great with all the lead characters played by drag queens. Once you've laughed at the sets and costumes, then you fall asleep. SOOOOO BOOOORRRRINNNNGGGG! I barely made it through the second episode and couldn't attempt a third. I give it 1 star for the hope of shirtless Jonathan Rhys Meyers. I can't imagine any reworking of this show that would make it watchable. After the quality of shows like Vampire Diaries, The Originals and True Blood... How DARE you call your show DRACULA and then suck this bad?… Expand

Awards & Rankings

25
#25 Most Discussed TV Season of 2013
59
#59 Most Shared TV Season of 2013

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
55

Mixed or average reviews - based on 33 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 14 out of 33
  2. Mixed: 12 out of 33
  3. Negative: 7 out of 33
  1. Zap2it (Inside the Box)
    Reviewed by: Billy Nilles
    Oct 28, 2013
    30
    Dracula is meant to be powerful and alluring, but this version of him feels stilted and withdrawn.
    Read full review
  2. St. Louis Post-Dispatch
    Reviewed by: Gail Pennington
    Oct 25, 2013
    40
    Unfortunately, this Dracula isn’t fun at all. It’s not really scary, either, although it does spill a lot of blood.
    Read full review
  3. Denver Post
    Reviewed by: Joanne Ostrow
    Oct 25, 2013
    20
    Not funny enough to be campy, not smart enough to be serious, NBC's Dracula is an incomprehensible mishmash in period costumes.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »