Rate And Review
-
What did you think of this tv season? (optional)
You're almost there! Just confirm how you got your ticket.
What did you think of this tv season? (optional)
How did you buy your ticket?
Episodes
For over 120 years, Bram Stoker's classic novel, Dracula, has inspired generations of filmmakers. Now the creators of Sherlock give the legend fresh blood! It's 1897 and St Mary's Convent in Budapest plays host to a desiccated husk of a human being, Jonathan Harker, an English lawyer with a strange and unsettling story to tell. Listening in is the kind and inquisitive Sister Agatha, a nun with an unusual interest in the creatures of the night. Invited to Transylvania to meet the reclusive Count Dracula, Harker finds himself trapped in an ancient, terrifying castle, a maze of mouldering corridors and vaults: a prison without locks. It soon becomes clear that he and his client are the only things living in the echoing halls of the moulding pile, and that the Count himself isn't living at all. In fact, Dracula is a 400-year-old vampire who has grown weary of his own exhausted country and has set his sights on the new world.
Russian ship The Demeter seems a perfectly ordinary vessel, but the motley collection of passengers includes one Count Dracula. The ship of death has a new captain.
Count Dracula has made it to England - a new world pulsing with fresh blood - and lays his plans to spread his foul vampire contagion.
Tv Season Info
Cast & Crew
Dracula
News & Interviews for Dracula: Season 1
Critic Reviews for Dracula Season 1
All Critics (55) | Top Critics (15) | Fresh (39) | Rotten (16)
Bang deftly sells this intelligent take on the legend.
This three-part adaptation of Bram Stoker's classic is a bloody masterpiece from beginning to end.
A sinewy, self-aware deconstruction of power, control and consent.
The three part season has some high and low points, but my biggest issue revolves around the third episode, as it takes a rather jarring shift. It feels disjointed from the other episodes... and it's rather boring to be honest.
It is a mix of the brilliant, the questionable, and the simply terrible, resulting in an entertaining, but at times, rather confusing experience. [Full review in Spanish]
An at times reasonably diverting, but far more frequently exasperating skit on the novel which doesn't seem sure it wants to play for laughs, shock with gore or - most appallingly of all - play to the Twitter choir.
This iteration of DRACULA will maintain viewer interest, but I would not call it a rush-to-must-see adaptation.
See a different side of Dracula in this dark and twisted must watch Netflix series. It starts off slow, but then you won't be able to stop watching.
An audacious rekindling of the undying appeal of literature's most famous vampire.
What gives Dracula a witty frisson is its presumption that we're very familiar with the story, as most of us are. The pleasure comes from the surprising variations and clever changes the creators bring to the tale.
Well-done take on vampire classic is compelling, gory.
The story keeps things interesting by jumping around in time, preserving some of the epistolary format of the 1897 novel and springing a few twists on the viewer.
Audience Reviews for Dracula: Season 1
-
5d agoWatch the first two episodes and then stop. It's a very intriguing adaptation of Dracula during these two parts and worth watching. Problem is that the third episode jumps the shark in terms of plot and tries to cram too much information in a short time.
-
Feb 21, 2021Maybe the real Dracula is the friends we made along the way. For a show that started off so promising but got so terrible as it went along. Thanks Steven Moffat. However, I got to say that the actor who played Dracula, Claes Bang, did a great job, even though his Dracula is basically Benedict Cumberbatch 'Sherlock'.
-
Jan 30, 2021It throws the book out for the horror of SGI gore and the twisted plots of Jekyll and Sherlock(also by Moffat) with a queerbaiting James Bond villain with shot on a wide budget. A Moffat and Gatiss classic.
-
Jan 20, 2021Episode 1 is a little slow to get going, but makes up for it with a compelling final act. Episode 2 is very enjoyable as the crew and passengers aboard the Demeter piece together what's happening and the battle of wits continues. Episode 3, on the other hand, is a complete turkey with one misstep after another. It comes close to completely undoing the good work that precedes it, and left me with the overall impression that this take on the story is a disappointment given the calibre of talent involved.
-
Jan 10, 2021The first two episodes were fantastic, true to Dracula and the Victorian era. The third episode truly ruined the entire series.
-
Jan 02, 2021A sarcastic posthumanist Dracula won't be to everyone's taste, but I thoroughly enjoyed this unique take on the Count Adapted from Bram Stoker's 1897 novel by Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat, and running a hefty 270 minutes (divided into three episodes of 90 minutes each), this series seeks to capture the tone of the novel, if not necessarily the plot. 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, I thoroughly enjoyed this version. Hungry, 1897; Jonathan Harker (John Heffernan), an English lawyer sent to Transylvania some months prior, is physically deformed and mentally fragile, and is staying at a small convent. Having written an account of his experiences, Harker is 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 Count Dracula (an exceptional Claes Bang), 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 that this isn't a 1:1 adaptation. Each episode looks and feels substantially different from the other two; the first is a basic gothic horror full of deep shadows, huge towers, labyrinthine interiors, and ominous opulence; the second is a ship-based murder-mystery (except, of course, we all know who the killer); and the third is a gaudy, postmodernist-infused examination of youthful vapidity, corporate greed, and the all-conquering power of superficiality. Arwen Jones's production design across all three episodes is also 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 residence in the third episode, everything on screen seems completely real and lived in. And there are also some 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, as is a scene where Dracula literally climbs out of a wolf. 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 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 dry humour. So, for example, when the convent is surrounded by bats, and Agatha is asked "why would the forces of darkness wish to attack a convent", she replies (completely deadpan), "perhaps they're sensitive to criticism." Later, 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 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 wonderful silent acting. Thematically, the show deconstructs much traditional vampire lore, particularly the power of crucifixes; why would Dracula fear the cross when he doesn't believe in God? Along the same lines, his immortality is examined in light of the boredom that it must entail. Similar deconstruction of his need for blood sees it presented more like an addiction than a necessity. As for problems, many viewers despised the last episode, and I can see why (although I loved it), as it takes things in a new, 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. 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, which captures much of the tonal qualities of the original very well. It deviates wildly from the book, but 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.
-
Dec 18, 2020Disgusting. Never felt so much cringe like I had on episode 3 romance scene. True example how bad BBC production is these days. I actually told my girlfriend after first episode that there must be some black guy and Indian guy in next episode... and there you go - the black guy is even gay. I truly wish if I could return back time and skip this abomination. Recommendation: Stake it through the heart, cut its head and put some salt over the grave. I truly hope season 2 will never exist. Recap: Episode 1 - 3.5/5 - the only episode worth watching it - wished if all 3 episodes focused on this part of the story Episode 2 - 2/5 - a bit too long and boring, but bearable. Epiosde 3 - 0/5 - can't even find where to start explaining what's wrong with this episode.
-
Dec 02, 2020Basically Lucifer but with vampires
-
Nov 11, 2020The fact that this show goes from a solid 4.5/5 to a literal 0/5 in only 3 epsiodes is fascinating to me. The first epsiode is fun and interesting, even if the humour can be a little cringe-inducing. There's an actual sense of intrigue and some fun horror concepts. However, by episode 3, nothing makes sense, none of the characters are remotely interesting and everybody is simultaneously a genius and complete moron for the sake of plot convenience. And the ending, wow. I'm sure "his limitations were just in his head all along" sounded super deep on paper, but in execution it's nonsensical and kind of embarrassing.
-
Oct 01, 2020I was enjoying it a bit. The gross skin was off putting but whatever, I'm not gonna let that stop me, though I hesitated. Everybody dislikes flies so it was pretty stupid to use flies as the main symbol for the show in the intro. This is the bottom line: Mina invited JOHNNY in past the bread line. NOT Dracula. Dracula was wearing Johnny's skin, Dracula was still never invited in. If I invite Dracula's articles of clothing into my home is he allowed in? No. F***ing stupid writing. I have just switched it off to write this review. That is SO stupid it has ruined the whole thing for me. I very much enjoyed PARTS of it, but over all I wouldn't have recommended it to anyone.
Verified