MOVIE: Dracula on Hulu

Auughhh! Do NOT watch this movie if you have not seen it already.

Dracula, by Bram Stoker, is one of my favorite books, probably my favorite fiction book. It is brilliant, funny, and showcases virtue, good and evil as few fiction books I know. It suffers from none of the ridiculous occult/sexual obsession surrounding the current “vampire” craze…

So, imagine my excitement when I saw that there was a movie, Dracula, on Hulu! And with Anthony Hopkins, nonetheless! Apparently this is a pretty old movie, but still, I was excited, having not seen it before. To my shock, it was horrible… In the book, all of the main characters have exceeding amounts of virtue, of which purity and humility are at the top. In the movie, Lucy is turned into a slut, Mina is an adulterer, Quincy is a vulgar jerk… and Keanu Reeves is a terrible actor (wait, I guess he wasn’t in the book). Not to mention many scenes of (almost) laughably unnecessary nudity. And then there’s Keaneu Reeves, whose English accent… which is leagues worse than these!

Anyway, I just wanted to put out a quick warning (and vent my frustration) about this terrible butchering of a great book. Avoid it at all costs.

I also loved the book! The movie does not compare to the book at all…but I enjoyed it none the less. I don’t remember the nudity in many scenes, but there were a few salacious things at Dracula’s castle.

Interesting note…Bram Stoker was Protestant and had a father who was highly against Catholic “superstition” yet in his book the communion wafer has power to stave off evil as do crucifixes.

For a fairly good Dracula movie, try either the old silent movie, Nosferatu, or the Dan Curtis production of Dracula.

Here’s a link to the entire movie Nosferatu, on Youtube, if you have time!

And here’s a link to the Amazon site for Dan Curtis’ Dracula:

I have read Dracula by Bram Stoker annually for almost 30 years, so I know the book well. On the surface, the novel is a wonderful example of the “heroic quest” genre, featuring Christians vs. Evil.

It is my theory, though, that Stoker was actually making fun of Christianity, specifically Catholicism, in the novel. I also believe he was attempting to titillate his readers with glimpses of the practices of evil. I don’t think that this should stop Christians from reading the novel–Stoker’s plan apparently backfired, since so many decent people enjoy this novel. And by today’s standards, the raciest parts of his novel are so very modest and tame that even a teenaged boy could read them and not get aroused. (That’s pretty tame!)

I have not read Bram Stoker’s Dracula, but the movie is terrible. And not just in a moral sense, im talking about in a cinematic sense. Its just not god in any way. I couldn’t even get half way through it I thought it was so bad.

In my opinion if you want a good vampire movie either watch Nosferatu by Murnau (i’ve also heard Herzog’s version is really good but i’ve yet to see it) or Vampyr by Dreyer.

But yes, never watch Dracula. It’s a complete waste of time.

Interesting theory. Why do you say he was making fun of Catholicism? I’m not sure I understand the titillation idea, either–you’re right that the raciest parts are rather tame, at least by today’s standards–but I think he presents virtue (particularly humility and faith) in such a positive light, I have a hard time seeing how he is trying to promote or exploit evil. I suppose one could say that by bringing Dracula into popular imagination at all, Stoker did humanity a disservice–he is probably responsible for this abhorrent fascination with the vampires, for example. I guess I always look to which characters are glorified, and their traits… and in this book, the glorified characters’ traits are all tremendously virtuous. The characters with evil traits are vilified at every turn. But it sounds like you have thought much more about this than I have, so I’m interested to hear your thoughts!

These are all my theories, of course, so please take them with a grain of salt. And if you or others know things that would blast my theories, please present them. I would love to be proven wrong on this one!

I have read that Bram Stoker wrote Dracula in a tiny “apartment” in Soho, one of the slum districts of England. There are hints in various bios of “darker” behaviors by Stoker.

That sets up an alarm bell with me. Why would a man who is writing a “virtuous” book feel the need to write surrounded by dabauchery and crime? And if the “rumors” are true, he himself was delving into some of this lifestyle.

I would think that if a virtuous man or woman is writing a novel about the darker side and sin, that they would write the novel in a wholesome and pure setting so that the Lord Jesus could help them to write something uplifting and filled with hope and light, even in the midst of the darkness. I would think that the writer would want to be very careful not to get swept up in the evil and tempted too much.

I take the novels I’ve written into the Adoration Chapel (24/7) at my parish and show them to Jesus.

That’s my main reason for suspecting that underneath the veneer of religion and the devoutness of the Christian characters in the novel is a leering disdain for Christianity.

In the novel, Dracula’s character is strong, well-developed, intriguing, sexy (for those times), intelligent–a real man’s man (and woman’s man, too–I’m a woman, BTW.) The Christian characters in the novel seem insipid and foppish compared to him, other than Quincy Morris, the American in the novel.

In many places in the novel, it almost feels as if Stoker WANTS to let Dracula win, but he can’t take his story in this direction because he would become a social pariah and an outcast in English society. At one point, in a confrontation between the team and Dracula, Dracula taunts them by saying, “Your girls that you all love are mine already.”

It just seems to me that Stoker presents the “evil” as a temptation, a “power” that is available to anyone who will venture in and accept Dracula’s “gift.” The various descriptions of the “undead” are simply too fascinating. It’s as if Stoker is holding out something forbidden, a “bait,” and saying, “Isn’t this just hideous? It’s so disgusting and offensive. Isn’t it horrible to think of taking this evil thing into your life?” But what he’s really saying is, “You want it, don’t you, you hypocrite! And you call yourself a Christian!”

I hope I’m not doing Mr. Stoker a disservice here. I’m just basing this theory on my reading about the lives of the authors who lived during that time period.

Let’s move my theory into the present time. Let’s say that Michael Moore writes and produces a charming and touching spiritual story about Jesus.

I wouldn’t trust it as far as you could shake a stick!! Would you?! I wouldn’t believe it. I wouldn’t go see it. I wouldn’t care if Billy Graham and Pope Benedict XVI both announce that it’s the best story about Jesus ever written! Considering the source (Michael Moore), no way!

Michael Moore would have to literally give away all his wealth and join the poorest missionary organization in the world and clean out the weeping wounds of the poor for years before I would be convinced that his sweet story was anything other than a vile satire, a fun-fest at Jesus’ expense, a trick to fool stupid Christians into thinking that he had repented.

Like I said, I hope I’m not doing Mr. Stoker a disservice. And I do think that on the surface, the novel is an excellent heroic quest. Perhaps the Holy Spirit wouldn’t let his viler motives break through into the novel!

I saw this in the theatre and thankfully fell asleep.

Trivia note: One of the actresses who played Dracula’s “brides” played Magadalene in Passion of the Christ.

Two more versions od Dracula to consider. The 1979 remake of Nosferatu and the BBC production from the mid 70’s.

By the 1979 remake of Nosferatu I am assuming you mean the Werner Herzog version with Klaus Kinski? Is it good? I have heard a lot about it and do like some of Herzog’s films (especially Fitzcarraldo) but I have yet to see it.

Yes to both questions. Herzog’s film had the actors do both a german and an english version.

How about the old 1931 classic Bela Lugosi version? It is also rather tame by today’s standards but his was the archetypal portrayal of Dracula on film. Christopher Lee was also good but in a different way, his films from Hammer studios started the more gory trend, I suppose.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit