User Reviews

The first part of this BBC mini-series is an imaginative twist on the classic Bram Stoker tale. Messrs Moffat and Gatiss demonstrate their love for the source material whilst adding their own playful spin on the proceedings.

The cast are excellent. Claes Bang is mesmerising as the ancient Count Dracula whilst Dolly Wells is brilliant as Sister Agatha. Best of all, in this first episode, is John Heffernan as the innocent Jonathan Harker. Heffernan has the task of playing Harker as the fresh faced individual who first steps into Dracula's castle and the shattered shell of a man who has faced the devil himself.

9 out of 10. Funny, shocking, gripping and thrilling...this is a memorable adaptation.

A superb start to this three part dramatisation. I was a kid that grew up on Christopher Lee films, I've disliked many attempts to bring Transylvania's finest back over the years, but this had me gripped. It was a very sinister and scary opening episode, which was wonderfully gothic and creepy.

Great acting, Claes Bang though, awesome. It looked impressive, very smart production values, but it was the tone that impressed me most. It just works. 9/10

I liked it. And for me, the Creators Mark and Steven have proved again after their near impeccable show Sherlock which was again my favorite.

From start their was freshness. Creepy atmosphere, good amount of horror and in slow pace improvising details of Count Draculas devil face. The creators knew how to reveal the pros and cons of being a Vampire and Dracula is the strongest of them.

Performance wise, the lead actors did their part very well be it Count, Agatha or Harker. The best was the small surprises which are revealed slowly as the episode progresses like who is actually Sister Agatha or how did Harker escaped Counts Mansion. Brilliant.

Waiting for next episode now.

The team of Steven Moffatt and Mark Gatiss reconvene to provide us with their own take on the legend of "Bram Stokers: Dracula". With their halo slipping a little after the later episodes of "Sherlock" my anticipation is a little tempered for this, but the opening episode was excellent.

Unconventional nun, Sister Agatha (Dolly Wells) is interviewing what remains of Jonathan Harker (John Heffernan) in a convent. Through flashback, we see Harker arrive at the stately home of Count Dracula (Claes Bang). As Harker's heath deteriorates, his host appears to get younger with each meeting. As the truth comes to light, Agatha comes to appreciate that she's not as safe in the holy house as she would have hoped.

I liked this a lot. Tonally, I think its spot on. A true horror story, pushing the limits of the BBC CGI limitations to the fore but not without humour and wit, both for the cutting one liner, from the phenomenal Dolly Wells - or some high camp from the Count himself. I'm not sure how he gets away with some of the lines he does. It's not a straight adaptation, using the bones of the novel as a starting point for taking aspects of the story to different places, but it's all the better for that. I picked up on references to both "Sherlock" and "Dr Who" (is it too much to hope that a Victorian Nick Fury appears in a post credits scene as says that "He's putting together a team).

I do feel like this is a little longer than it needs to be, maybe sticking to that "Sherlock" format a little too rigidly. So it's a bit padded. But this is a minor complaint about a show that comes alive whenever Dracula appears (ironically) and has found an excellent foil for him in its Van Helsing.

This May be Dracula, but there are certainly different Rules to this Beast. Despite taking many a liberty with the original story I think what's been done here is actually quite entertaining in its own right. It's certainly campy but the cast know when to ham it up and when to keep it calculated without fully breaking the immersion. Claes Bang is absolute genius casting, even if you don't enjoy this reimagining his incarnation of the character has charm, wit and a ghastly sense of humour. I think for the open minded and uneducated this will be quite the spectacle but I can tell now that readers of the Bram Stoker classic will most certainly have a few words on the direction this episode and especially those that follow takes. I'm going to give 'Rules of the Beast' an 8.4/10

Great story. Suspenseful and terrifying. Well done.

Great story, acting and story. Wanted to see the next episode immediately

This version of Dracula is Gothic yet with a touch of the modern . I suppose it's meant to attract a variety of ages. It makes a big nod to Christopher Lee and Hammer House . Nice!

Unfortunately , there is humour made by Dracula which is entirely misplaced . It's corny . Instead of laughing with the character , you're laughing at him ! Dracula at that moment reminds me of David Walliams on Britain's Got Talent , desperate for a laugh. Cringeworthy!

I liked the Van Helsing being a nun but her accent is German rather than Dutch. Big let down! I do however hope her uncle emerges as the male Val Helsing as a Peter Cushing type character .

Overall , it's a brilliant production . It has the creepy vibe. It's enthralling , and exciting at times Claes Bang stamps his mark on Dracula. Shockingly , he does add a bit of a James Bond type of vibe to the character , which surprisingly works ! Claes Bang will be forever remembered of his interpretation of this great legend . He is truly remarkable and an underrated actor. Through him Dracula lives !

If anybody who lived under a rock and never heard of the story of count Dracule before and watched this episode, it would be a good introduction. to me it was a new way to look at an old and beloved story

In 1897, the English lawyer Jonathan Harker is interviewed by Sister Agatha under the supervision of another nun in a convent in Bulgaria. He tells his journey to Transylvania to meet his client Count Dracula and how Dracula rejuvenates while he decays. He also recalls how the fled from his castle. Soon the convent is attacked by the evil Dracula and the forces of evil.

"The Rules of the Beast" is an episode base on the novel by Bram Stoker with a great beginning. However the humor does not work and the episode is too long from the moment Dracula arrives at the convent. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "The Rules of the Beast"

I have no clue why some people give this a score under eight because it's perfect in every way, my favourite adaption along with the Gary old man movie.

As a kid my older brother made me watch Dracula late in the evening to frighten me. We only had a black and white television and it was the Hammer horror version, not the Bela Lugosi Universal one.

The best version of Dracula for me is the BBC production from the 1970s starring Louis Jourdan. A gem. There was also a modern opera version in the early 1990s also made by the BBC which I liked.

Now from the makers of Sherlock and Doctor Who is a new reimagination showing over three nights. The first episode establishes the rules about vampires. There is a no nonsense nun, a shell of a man, Jonathan Harker who has a strange tale to tell.

Claes Bang is creepy and scary as the Count. However the Moffat/Gatiss witticisms are both predictable and a bit of a let down when Dracula says them. John Heffernan reminds me too much of Anton Du Beke from Strictly Come Dancing. I expected him to start doing a foxtrot with Dracula.

Also the 90 minute running time was too long. I felt some of the scenes were just padding and got in the way of the pacing. It should cracked along at a 60 minutes length.

However the last 20 minutes improved a lot. By then it went all Silence of the Fangs. They really did nick a bit from The Silence of the Lambs.

Moffat and Gatiss also could not resist paying homage to past Dracula films. I spotted a portrait of Peter Cushing.

Episode 1 started out well and on a serious level, with decent effects and the proper level of creepiness, and then it descended into a bit of silliness and jokes and idiotic one liners. Why? I gave it 5, because it was still an interesting watch, yet probably not anything I will revisit again.

It is always challenging to retell an already polished story. But the writers here are Steven Moffat and Mark Gattis. It is always to a pleasure to pause the video, enjoy their dialogues for a second time and continue playing the episode. Dracula is no different. In today's world where the viewers are expecting a racy, fancy and temporarily hooking ideas, this BBC series is still holding on to what is a real TV show. I am a Doctor Who fan and any creation from Steven Moffat is a bliss to watch.

The desperation of a trapped lawyer Eased by true love of his fiancée A real masterpiece

This adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel is very different but Dracula very much is the same characters. Steven Moffat and Mark Gatis where great on Doctor who so I didn't have low expectations and was not disappointed.

Overall pretty good.

"S1 E1: Dracula 2020" 9/10.

Somebody's been watching Lucifer. Some gear change with the mood and feel of it half way through. Not great but as only three episodes will keep going.

I think they should have put one of those Hammer prefixes on this one, since it bears absolutely no resemblance to the original story. It has been decided that all the normal vampire lore will be thrown to the wolves (ha ha). We also have some pretty bizarre special effects with crude results. Faces are ripped off. Babies are eaten, on and on. Have a good stomach if you watch this.

Silly, off- beat humor and gross horror. What's not to like? The first episode has a very spooky, but self- unaware, Jonathan Harker and a light- hearted and silly Sister Agatha. We like what we've seen and will watch further episodes.

I didn't know this show existed until my friend hooked me into watching it. We both loved Sherlock, the writing in particular and with the same writers I thought we'd be in safe hands.

Yikes! Wow was I wrong.

Much cheesy humour, much of it out of place. The horror is confused and muddled. The Nun characters had me laughing (I think unintentionally) and the main love story is just... yikes.

I usually don't mind creative license with "period" dialogue... but the show keeps making reference to things like the language being spoken being incorrect... but they keep using phrases which simply would never have been used in the 1890s.

There's some interesting ideas but hopefully the next two episodes pull it together... but I'm worried by the direction from the first episode.

A dracula fan since max schreck's portrayal,overall this portrayal was in general a a faithful and interesting twist.Sister Agatha and j.harker were the most enjoyable characters as opposed to Bang who was adequate(.Most recent and best was Defoe's portrayal)l.The obliteration of the nun's was over the top, implied menace is far more effective "see Bela" as the epitome of evil.