Okay I remember people saying I was making assumptions by talking about a second series, when yes, both main characters die at the end of it which would in theory rule it out (despite the fact, um, y'know...its Dracula) Dear said people: I will just leave this article here: www.digitalspy.com/tv/a34489559/dracula-season-2-update-claes-bang/

I will just forever be pissed that I body doubled for Lucy's monster scenes in the last episode and didn't even get a bloody credit. Full body prosthetics are HOT

I do like Claes Bang's version of Dracula. He can switch between elegant gentleman, sadistic killer, and horrifying monster in a split second, and it always feels like the same character.

Sad there is no mention about how Sacha Dhawan was in Doctor Who Jan 1st, then Dracula Jan 2nd, and Doctor Who again Jan 5th. The man gets around

Lydia West, who plays Lucy, is a great actress. We went to drama school together, so I'm glad she's now getting the big breaks she deserves.

So, Shergoth Holmes then.

I'm suprised you didn't mention the fact that the Dracula just decides to die at the end of the series...because of reasons.

Man the 3rd ep was so bad that it made Dracula kill himself.

I do think the show is at its best in the first two episodes, where it is very much a Hammer style horror film, it's campy, scary and just pure fun. Bringing it to the present and introducing all these new ideas really, REALLY, hurts the show and as you said, makes it feel like its a completely different show. There really wasn't any real need to bring it to modern day, you could have ended the second episode with Dracula rising out of the water onto Britain and continuing on down, and then showing Van Helsing following suit, who has returned as a member of the undead, but is on a mission to make sure Dracula dies. Hell you could follow a similar plotline as the third episode does, except it's the 19th century, and Dracula is doing all of this because he really likes to do it. He doesn't even need a motivation, he's fucking Dracula! Overall it is a fun show, especially the second episode on the boat, but man was there so much missed opportunity.

FRIEND: They made a ‘Dracula’ film in 1979. ME: Oh. FRIEND: It stars Frank Langella as Dracula. ME: OK. FRIEND: With Laurence Olivier as Van Helsing. ME: I see. FRIEND: Oh, and Sylvester McCoy has a minor role. ME: *We’re watching this film right now*

I think there is room in the modern age for a notable Dracula adaptation, what about a modern adaptation where he is a seedy businessman who's castle is a weird office block in some corner of the states rather than Romania, but the rest of the plot is kept including him coming over to London.

Its a telling sign of modern Dracula's struggling relevance when the most notable recent media with him I can recall getting any actual attention is the Castlevania animated series. And its saying something when it takes the adaptation of a video game series to get audiences to care about you.

Surprisingly the most successful Dracula related media after the Gary Oldman Dracula film were the Hellsing anime, where Dracula is a protagonist and Castlevania where he doesn't appear much because he's the final antagonist.

Whenever Dracula called jonathan "Johnny", It made me think of Jackie from Friday night dinner saying it.

Episode 3 totally KILLS the series.

The actor for the nun Van Helsing was awesome. For *once* I'm not cringing at the Moffat quips! She sells it, just like Capaldi! Maybe it's the lack of RP...

FyI: yes this was uploaded earlier but I wanted to add a line about the Lugosi and lee draculas cause if I didn't it would bug me

There was already a take on Dracula in the modern era; it's called Hellsing.

I felt exactly the same about the time jump. I literally went “oh come oooooooooon”. Like I was having such a nice time...

My main contention with episode 3 is not how they time-jumped 100-and-odd years, but how they substituted Agatha - a character we had come to love over the previous episodes and who shared an intriguing relationship with Dracula built up over 2 hours of television - with Zoe, who has none of the same personal connection with the Count and therefore creates a vacuum of actual conflict in the final chapter. Yes, it's still Dolly Wells, but it's not Agatha. It's her descendent. The established foil to Dracula is removed entirely and abruptly for no reason, and that just killed the series for me. There is no reason Agatha could not have lived through to the 21st century. She was practically undead at the end of episode 2 and knowing she had deep knowledge of vampirism surely could've conceived herself a way of achieving Dracula's immortality. But no. Instead here's another character instead to push the reset button on the series' central bloody conflict.

Personally, I think the biggest flaw of ‘Dark Compass’ is that it has a severe identity crisis. Does the time jump radically alter the story, or does it just make it a modern-style retelling? Is it supposed to conclude Dracula’s story, or is it the beginning of a new series? Frankly, it doesn’t seem like Moffat or Gatiss knew either.

I liked it, yes even episode 3. I loved the detail about the blood giving Dracula memories and knowledge, that was a very neat take on the vampire mythos. Though I wasn't a fan of the "surprise" at the end, it felt cheap and completely nullified a key charictaristic of every vampire.

Steven Moffat's massive massive brain

Can't ANYONE make a faithful adaptation of the book? Is that really so hard? :P

I'm surprised you didn't mention the ending with Helsing's final psychological analysis that Dracula's fear of sunlight is just a traumatic reaction to something in his past memory. Dracula's decision to commit suicide.

For my money, Netflix has the best Dracula in Castlevania.

I hate that there's some good in here. That's how the story is supposed to go isn't it? Moffat realises that he's not good at writing in someone else's shoes, (I.e. writing for a property he didn't create) and decides to create something original, I mean even if he borrowed ideas from his old work it would still be an improvement, as you said he reused that idea about the dead feeling pain through cremation and that's a really twisted idea that works well here. But now that this does have its great elements, what next? He gonna become the next Star Trek show runner? Is he going to revive his Coupled series? How about a modern take of Romeo and Juliet? I feel that one would be great for Moffat because it's a modern day adaption of a classic and because it's actually not an original concept in itself

The 2006 Dracula's a weird one - all the press releases say BBC, and I remember watching it on BBC4 I think, but the DVD was handled by ITV for some reason. It says on the wikipedia it was made by Granada studios, which is ITV, so I'm guessing it got sold to the BBC for some reason

The second episode was my favorite, and I personally loved the twist ending. Too bad they didn’t really stick the landing with how it played out in episode three. Personally, I see they point he’s making here, but I found Lucy’s character to be absolutely insufferable.

I'm surprised that you didn't make a joke about Steven Moffat's massive brain in this video.

I wonder if this is cannon with the Jekyll series that Moffat wrote many years ago?

I liked it. I think we just have to accept the fact that as brilliant as moffat and gatiss are, they leave this sort of trail behind with their writing where you can tell it's them and their knowledge of their own cleverness can overwhelm us.

I feel like it’s weird to not mention the Netflix Original series Castlevania in the rundown of recent Dracula media at the start, which is unlike anything Moffat and Gatiss have ever done in that it’s actually a good series. Yeah

People always shit on the Van Helsing movie with Hugh Jackman from the early 2000's but at least I can actually remember it. The only other vampire related media I can recall from the past two decades is Twilight and Supernatural.

I have to admit I adored this series, I think Claes Bang played the part perfectly, Agatha Van Helsing was the most compelled I've been by the character since Peter Cushing, and considering I normally hate Dracula being done in the modern day, I quite liked the way this Dracula used blood to teach himself how the world and technology had evolved, etc...

When the modern-day reveal happened I could just imagine Moffat and Gatiss writing that and laughing at how clever they are. The third episode was jarring but I agree there were some really good scenes in there.

The guy who played Dracula should be the new who Vallyard.

A generous review and an enjoyable video, as always. Maybe I'm just getting more intolerant as I get older but I found it a struggle to get through the first two (mostly boring) episodes, which seemed to me crafted top to bottom in the deeply unfunny Moffat-Gatiss 'look-at-us-aren't-we-clever?' house style, and I bailed as soon as I saw the twist at the end of episode 2. Nothing I've heard about episode 3, including this review, encourages me to give it a poke. It's funny how once, a long time ago, the names Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss would have stirred my enthusiasm for an upcoming show. Now, they induce anything on the spectrum from weariness through apathy to outright loathing, the latter especially when Gatiss's name appears in the writing credits. Whoever keeps commissioning him to pen ghost/horror-related fare must either be related or currently starring in incriminating photographs somewhere. PS Enjoying your current very productive run.

Wait, youre telling me a vampire that was on a boat got lost at sea for 100 years before finally resurfacing? Where have I heard that one before...

I wished Dracula remained an elderly man but I admit his ability to gain the skillset of those he feeds upon is great

Did we really need another Dracula adaptation, not really, was it a travesty no, it was alright, it was entertaining, except the end but we didn’t really need it

You neglected to mention the best Dracula adaptation of them all: Dead & Loving It!

cbbc young Dracula slapped tho

I just wanted epic vampire fights between Count Dracula and newly turned Sister Agatha whose on a mission to destroy him while also battling with the fact she’s also a vampire. Also Mina Harker should have actually been in it properly like she is in the book instead of th wasteful, throwaway character they turned her into.

Good timing as this has just been re-uploaded to BBC iPlayer

At the ended of the second episode I was like are they copying Jojo? Are we getting stands now?

Who else watched this review when it was first uploaded and is watching again?

Loved the series overall, but fell apart on the 3rd episode. Claes Bang was absolutely magnetic as Dracula. Hope there's more episodes in the works!!

the first episode was almost perfect and had me excited for the rest of the series, and i got so dissapointed i died

I LOVED Dracula untold. It should have been the start of (and could still be included in) the dark universe.

I thought it wasn't great...it was clear that the last third of Episode 1 was just Moffat making it up as he went. Dracula's entire motivation is trying to get Jonathan as his wife, but he apparently stops caring because of a single conversation with the Dutch girl (who is a terrible actress btw, distractingly bad) and just murders Jonathan so he can get the Dutch girl.

Wait, a vampire gets stuck at the bottom of the sea only to emerge a hundred years later? Is this show a JoJo's reference?

Great review. On the whole I enjoyed this series for what it was. As a fan of the Hammer Dracula films, I appreciated the many references and callbacks. I audibly groaned when Dracula said 'anywhere you go, always take the weather with you' in episode 2 though. It was also pretty cringe-worthy watching Dracula ask for a wi-fi password in the third episode. There were quite a few 'head in hands' moments for me in third episode, and I really wish it hadn't made the time jump to the present. I enjoyed it for the most part though, and it was a nice thing to sit and watch as a family around the New Year

Me a grumpy old gay: where is the pizazz?! The showmanship?!?! The drama?!?!?!?!

I think rather than seeing this as an adaptation of the book its more a homage and adaptation to how Dracula has been done in cinema and tv over the years. There was even going to be a 70's set bit as homage to the 70's Dracula films. There are several visual homages to cinema Dracula through the ages throughout it, and the shift to modern day is also explained best within this context. I too found that shift it jarring on first view, as like you I was simply enjoying the gothic atmosphere, but on a second watch and on reflection and viewed as a homage to Dracula portrayals down the years it makes perfect sense and is fitting with what they seemed to be trying to achieve in that regard.

I'm actually watching this video 2 years exactly from when it was released.

Felt the same way. Worst part was all the vampire lore was in his head, just guilt you really want to die but to afraid to do it.😐😑

People seriously need to stop hiring Moffat.

“What if Dracula in modern” “Dracula get iPad” 😱😱😱

Seems we pretty much agree, especially on stuff like making the castle episode one and the nunnery episode two, and the modern day stuff should have been a second series.

So what's happened to the galaxy of Stephen Moffat's brain? Surely it has grown beyond the mere confines of a puny galaxy and has become it's own universe - NO - it's own dimension

Honestly though it has its issues, Claes Bang was brilliant as Dracula and I hope there’s a way for him to revive it.

What really killed my enjoyment was Zoe pointing out why Dracula can't die. ...Because he's afraid to die. Like...what?? How the hell does that work?! And then they spend eternity fucking inside the sun??

Great video! I'll definitely check Dracula out sometime soon then. Also check out the Hong Kong anthology series the Republic, basically the Chinese Black Mirror. Absolutely brilliant stuff!

The difference between episodes 1+2 and episode 3 is that I feel like I would find myself rewatching episode 1 and 2 on some rainy night with nothing better to do, but with episode 3 it was something I enjoyed while it lasted but would never watch it again

I had to watch it, because I had to support my fellow Dane Claus Bang. He rocked. I’m proud! The last episode was like a really weird Sherlock fan fiction... Is it just me, or do Moffat and Gatiss just,,, suck (pun),,, at writing their last episodes?

19th century Dracula making a 'always take the weather with you' joke IN THE 19TH CENTURY was the moment when I lost all hope.

Speaking of gore...have you seen Penny Dreadful yet? If not, it really is a must see! Amazing writing, incredible actors and intoxicating cinematography, with some stunning gore.

Hey man - I don’t know if you’ll this but I’m really interested in how one would download Netflix films / TV shows to use in videos like you have with Dracula. I want to make my own review of the show and of others, but can’t find a good or free way of doing it. I would really appreciate the help.

oh boy, paused at 00:01 to comment...………..I'm looking forward to what Stuart made of this...……..

If you want a different take on part 2, there's a script online called Voyage of The Demeter. Was planned as a Hollywood Horror

I just re-watched episode three, the one I had a problem with the first time around, and, seen in isolation, I found it much more palatable. There wasn't the disorienting shift into the modern world, with which Dracula seemed to cope far better than I did, the first time I watched it.

Yeah, I got the Royston Vasey vibe at the start too.

So they didn't so much make another version of Dracula as another version of Love at First Bite.

When I was a teenager, in Canada, I saw the 1977 BBC adaptation of "Dracula" with Louis Jordan. I still have a soft spot for that version. It's not perfect (it's more like a theatre production in its production values and not all of the acting is great - Quincy) but I like the style.

The only Dracula I gave a shit recently was the one in Castlevania.

Pity the writers didn't go a different direction. I loved the sarcasm and wit Dracula embodied. I feel the show tried too hard to copy and parallel the original novel. Unlike some people I thought the ending was beautiful, but think they should have waited a season or 5 to kill him, and he should have run into the reincarnation of his wife first. I LOVE that Dracula Untold did that, as Tepes' wife did throw herself from a tower IRL and fictional Dracula does believe in reincarnation. Sister Agatha could have eventually got through to him but only with the help of his wife, who convinces him they should face death together. Now that would have felt less cheap, ya know? And saying he's too much of a coward to die? WTF is that cheeseball Hallmark channel crap? How about everyone wants to live forever, but not like this? His wife's reincarnation says that to him while crying and that's what changes his mind. At the end of MY show, Dracula and his wife would barricade themselves in their house and set it on fire, and lay down on the floor together to wait for the flames, then at the last minute he gets her out of there and says he must do this alone.

The Dracula in Penny Dreadful is easily my favorite

Are you planning on doing a review of the reconstruction of the faceless ones?

I actually liked Rhys Meyer starring Dracula. Dracula trying to be a big influence in the world by pioneering AC and sustainable energy fighting against an up and coming oil lobby, while also trying to deal with his obvious crush on his employee Harker's fiancée while also trying to escape the interest of the London charter of vampire hunters. It had potential.

Was the suggestion of having one series being an adaptation then the second his backstory and the third the future because big finish did that?

Blood Vessel was my favourite episode of the show

I loath this “oh X from Dracula should be in doctor who” you’re only saying that cous it’s a Moffat show

I agree that the writing style resembles 'Sherlock', but they copied ideas left and right too. The victims rotting away in boxes but never dying is definitely taken from 'The Hunger'. And when it turned out that the cross and the sun scared him just because he believed the peasants' legends, I swear I had distant echoes of Pratchett's 'Carpe Jugulum'. The acting was brilliant, though, and the effects and cinematography quite good. I must say I've only recently come across it, but I'm glad I did.

No views and no comments, and the original was deleted I guess? ... Wtf youtube???

there is no baby!!!

I had a blast watching Dracula. I wasnt quite as upset at the time jump, in fact, I loved seeing Dracula's reaction to the future. And I loved how it ended.

Whatever personal misgivings one may have for modern day settings notwithstanding, I kind of feel the show’s ending might have gone down better with a fourth episode. So have episode three with Dracula getting captured and doing his Hannibal Lecter shtick in the Harker Institute, ending with Renfield appearing to release him, and then dedicate episode four entirely to the Lucy storyline. At least that way we’d have more time to acclimatise to the new setting, and they’d have more space to establish and build up the new Van Helsing and Lucy’s non-boyfriend (I think his name was Jack, wasn’t it?), and all the big concepts they were just cramming in there would have had more time to breathe.

Episode 3... hurt me so much.

2013 NBC Drac was awesome, such a shame it was cancelled

Putting this out there before I watch the vid. I HATED THE MODERN TWIST. I COULD HAVE LIVED WITH THE FACT THAT SOME WAS SET IN THE PRESENT, BUT THE FACT THAT THEY MARKETED IT AS THIS AWESOME GOTHIC AESTHETIC DRENCHED SERIES AND THREW THAT ALL AWAY FOR THE SAKE OF A *GOTCHA* MOMENT SUUUUUCKS. I WAS SO PISSED! seriously, if they really couldn't have done without the modern aspects they could have established them throughout all the episodes and used the cool gothic bits as extended flashbacks. But no, they just wanted to get us with the twist and that made the last episode feel so disjointed and pointless. I don't much like the idea of modern day Dracula (the dude's not nearly as threatening amongst a more advanced society) but I could have lived with it if they'd been honest about what we'd be getting BEFORE I git so invested in the Victorian setting and imagery. We didn't even get anything in Victorian England and it pisses me off that they thought this would be a good tactic. If they were pushing the series towards those who'd actually enjoy the modern twist, then they should've feckin marketed it as such. Instead they managed to rope a bunch of classic Dracula fans only to completely betray their investment for the sake of a moment of shock, quickly replaced by utter disappointment. I was literally on the floor, staring at a wall for like an hour. Anyway rant over. Thank you for listening to my TED Talk

Somehow I've seen like in 13:18 that sounds like jojo bizzare adventure vampire in 1800s, vampire past and vampire present

The time jump just stank to high heaven...

I can't believe it. The BBC overlooked yet another adaption of pride and prejudice or yet another jane asten adaptation for yet another adaptation of yet another dracula .... gee i never thought I'd see the day. Well thats your licence fee at work i guess

You could plot an exponential curve of things that don't make sense in this series, as each episode goes on it gets worse. The characters are incredibly stupid, despite regularly possessing knowledge they simply should not know, and regularly throw away any advantages they have. I was often left near screaming at the TV for characters to do something (The Convent gate, the Beach, Dr Sharmen & Yamini's death), rather than continue talking. My problems with this show, in no particular order, Dracula is incredibly inconsistent in his blood lust, one second he'll behave like a rabid dog (The convent gate, injured crewmen), but then can also resist the blood with ease (Agatha spitting blood in his face, nun's being torn apart by wolves) Further Dracula repeatedly defends that he is a 'connoisseur' and selects his victims to enhance himself, very cool, and in that same episode we see him take the blood of a self-loving idiot who thinks he'll be Dracula's bride, a ignorant idiot who refuses to believe that Dracula exists despite seeing him in action, and a delusional idiot who exchanges their youth, health and ultimately life in exchange for pleasant dreams. On top of this he later selects victims through Tinder (I do think that's a great way of easily harvesting people, but it is in no way selective) While on the topic of victim selection, Dracula gains the memories and skills of his victims, including stuttering (Though that conveniently disappears in the next scene). With thousands of years of blood drinking surely his speech would be incomprehensible as a dozen accents, speech impediments and mispronunciation accrue. This wouldn't be limited to speech either, every misremembered fact or ignorant knowledge would accumulate as well, and if Dracula is selective in what he retains, why did he stutter? A joke only he gets? If it is just temporary, then Dracula's intelligence and skills would rapidly be lost between kills. Dracula was under the belief that his inability to interact with holy items stemmed from religious victims, so there must be something to this logic. In the first episode Agatha makes it clear that there is a contagion spreading, in second episode we see people staking the bodies of the dead to prevent them rising again. It is clear that people know that the dead are remaining restless, and this isn't connected to Dracula directly - it is not he's victims alone that remain alive. So why in hell is it in the third episode that the dead remain restless in the graveyard and people are naive to reanimated corpses (The babies regularly escape their graves as well!). They build their world, and then throw it away again. Why do the nuns, and Agatha, not mob Dracula at the convents gate? (In works in episode 2 with less people), it is incredibly infuriating that they throw away their single greatest chance at killing Dracula simply because Agatha wanted to gloat. Why does Johnny, having sworn to never serve Dracula again, invite him into the convent in return for his death? Why bring 51 coffins of Hungarian soil, a minor criticism I won't deny but it can only be for 50 residences in England, excessive and ultimately in the show they are all discarded, so the number isn't important, so again why 50? ^ While on the topic of soil, Dracula is offered a soil coffin by the Harker Foundation, but there is no such coffin in his prison cell, nor is that brought up again - I guess he had the soil delivered by amazon within the day. Ruthven is convinced that Dracula will make him a bride, in a extraordinary leap of logic, so how does he know about Dracula's bride, but conveniently doesn't know their fate either? Why exactly does Dracula remain at the bottom of the ocean, but is revived by a drop of blood - He was already full to bursting on the ship? What exactly did Jack and Agathoe do to protect Lucy, nothing it seems. I guess reanimated bodies are immune to fire. Why does Dracula prolong the deaths of some people (His Bride/s), but not the others? He gains their knowledge and skills regardless of the method, as seen in the second episode. Sure it can be just for pleasure, you can argue that the intellectual conversation with Agatha in the second episode justifies it, so what about Harker or Lucy? Sadistic pleasure? Why does the cross in episode 3 stop Dracula drinking a woman's blood, yet the cross Johnny wore in episode 1 did not stop Dracula? While I'm there, if sunlight cause's him no physical pain, he should have realised it had no effect much earlier, he realised when Agathoe bathed him in light (Also why does his apartment have a giant window?), but Johnny had already done such a thing before his death - with reflected sunlight! If reflected sunlight is enough to trigger delusional pain then Dracula should only be able to move freely during moonless nights or pitch black. If not, then the sundial chamber would have no effect on him. Also it would seem armoured glass is enough to restrain Dracula making him considerably less threatening. Dracula can produce a fog that protects him from the sun in episode 2, with no noticeable cool down or endurance drain. Therefore why is he afraid of the sun, he can abuse this fog. The sundial, the digger trap, agathoe's reveal would all be preventable by casting fog at all times. As someone who works in hospital laboratories, taking a single EDTA blood tube is pathetic, there is close to a dozen blood tube types each designed for specific blood tests. The EDTA is mostly used for blood cell counts, I'm not sure what analysis they expected from that. Zoe's phlebotomy skills are a little undesirable as well. Again minor, but valid. Dracula's escape from the Harker Foundation was cringe worthy idiocy. On one hand we have a organisation that has covered up a 'trail of destruction' who has suddenly lost any ability to withhold this lawyer, who can stroll in directly to Dracula's cell. They never consider the option to kill him (Especially as they've covered up other deaths)? They never hand over Dracula to the authorities? They do not simply kill Dracula, nor try to counter him once released. They simply give up and continue to do nothing afterwards. This is after the incredible stupidity of giving him a iPad (and not a kindle), which Dracula somehow not only understands how to use, understands what GPS is. He skypes them, within his cell, underwatch of guards (Armed with useless guns and not holy items). The beach scene in episode 3 epitomises that characters either hold knowledge that they shouldn't or are incredibly stupid. Dracula arrives at the beach, Zoe reveals that she knows that Dracula needs blood as sustenance and later that he needs Hungarian soil and cannot stand sunlight. Yet they do not realise that Dracula is immune to bullets, and 'forget' that holy items are the most effective weapon against him. They have access to the ship survivors and Mina's combined knowledge. The Foundations attempts to stop Dracula are simply pathetic.

A great miniseries.

Why does the outro music remind me of project twilight?

Love dracula, love horror cant take moffat anymore. nice review though.

I was cool with it. But then they had to show me helicopters xD I don't know. Episode 3 ruined it for me ^^' It are small things like having a cool explaination, why Dracula fears the cross just to throw it out for some "more clever" explaination. At one point I thought: Oh okay... we time skipped because Moffard wanted to show his updated text message effect with emojis!

It felt a lot like what Moffet did with Jekyll but with a better budget and more production time.