Dracula (TV Mini Series) The Dark Compass (2020) User Reviews

Poor.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 4/10 · 5 January 2020]

I loved part one, I loved part two, this was shocking. The appeal of the first two came from the presence of gothic horror, this lacked it, and suffered as a consequence. I knew after the reveal in part two that this was going to miss the mark, and it did, badly. The recycling of actors didn't work for me, and even Bang was dumbed down. The modern setting simply didn't work, but the pair seemed to suffer the same fate as they did in the last series of Sherlock, it was simply too clever by half.

Such a disappointment. 4/10

The third episode!

[kennypg-30619 · 4/10 · 3 January 2020]

Why make two excellent episodes then ruin them with this!

Huh!?

[Hitchcoc · 4/10 · 5 January 2020]

Well, we come to the end. I was wrong. I thought this would drag on into another three episodes a year from now. One of the problems is that I never understood the rules these characters were living by. What exactly are the Count's weaknesses? What exactly was the point of the young girl? How does anyone know anything about anything? Dracula shows up over a hundred years later and involves himself in current technology. He even calls his lawyer on a cell phone. And his lawyer: Renfield. He was the old fly eater from the Lugosi version. I have to admit that there are lots of blood jokes and verbal byplay throughout. It's just so fragmented and, I have to say, stupid in the last couple minutes. Oh, well, I'm glad it didn't take ten episodes to get to the point.

An awful waste

[patrick-413 · 2/10 · 5 January 2020]

The first episode of this series was nearly a masterpiece. The set-up, the characters, the production design, the story - perfect! The second episode, while a little disjointed, was a very clever idea and provided a lot of moody tension and chills.

The third episode goes off the rails completely. The characters are all idiots, the plot is nonsense, and it sets up a series that is FAR, FAR less interesting that the first episode in every single way. When they expected me to believe that a super-well-funded, possibly quasi-governmental organization employs NO lawyers or data-security experts AND was willing to give up their entire century-long plan immediately on the say-so of one random Solicitor, I was done. And in fact every new character and plot-line they introduced in episode 3 was either stupid, boring or - in most cases - both.

One instructive thing about this is that it shows how a good actor can breathe life into a well-written part, then flounder when the script stinks. This has never been more apparent than when Dolly Wells is spectacular as the brilliant Sister Agatha in the first two episodes, and then is forced to play the insipidly modern-day Van Helsing. There was nothing she could have done to save that part.

What a shame. They had a really great show in the palm of their hands and threw it away.

Worst finale of the century

[keejchen · 1/10 · 6 January 2020]

So many great ideas and a beautiful setup to a faithful re-imagining of Bram Stoker's Dracula. Flushed down the drain by an attempt to make Dracula modern and for the young.

Watch the first two episodes and turn it off when the ship sinks, figuratively and litterally.

Horrible Ending to this great adaptation

[jon_anderson77 · 3 January 2020]

What a shame episode 3 wasn't in the same league as the first two. Really didnt enjoy any of it. My girlfriend was so annoyed by the change in direction that she abandoned half way through and left the room in outrage. I persevered hoping it turned things around with a clever ending. It didn't and I was left feeling robbed of 90 mins. If the plan is to continue this with a 2nd series I'm afraid I wont be tuning in and I think I wont be alone in that decision. Episode 3 was a stake through the heart for this version of Dracula. What a pity

Poor finale

[mjb301086 · 6/10 · 4 January 2020]

I didn't hate it but compared to the 1st 2 episodes it was poor

The final instalment ruins what was almost perfect

[boophillips · 3/10 · 4 January 2020]

Episodes 1 & 2 were fantastic. They unfolded slowly and were layered. Characterisation was strong, dialogue was sharp and the acting was superb. I was equally terrified and entertained.

I wasn't put off by the twist of Dracula walking into the modern age 123 years later. I thought that could be an original twist....but the episode was shambolic and worst of all, utterly boring. Plot points were introduced then abandoned, massive gaping holes in logic appeared, time was spent on minor and pointless characters, the pace was all over the place, some of the acting was truly heinous (sorry LM but you actually sounded like you'd had a stroke at one point) and the end was rushed, non sensical and then ended up in a sex scene nobody wanted. WHAT HAPPENED??!

So utterly disappointed, what a missed opportunity.

You're complaining about this???!!!

[lewispigntruffle · 10/10 · 7 January 2020]

After the amazing performances and the incredible reimaginging of the dracula story; people are complaining about how this ended??? Keep it coming! If this is how the BBC want to start the year then I'm all for it! This was a character piece. Granted, the third part wasn't as good as the first BUT MY GOD!!! If I could get a few episodes of ANYTHING once per year as good as this then it's worth the tv licence alone!! The performances were outstanding. CLAES BANG gave one of the most charismatic performances I've seen and I cant praise dolly wells enough. Say what you want.......we need more of this

Oh man the JUST failed to land the ending..

[lastReq · 6/10 · 4 January 2020]

First I've no gripe with the story line or especially how it ended... BUT this should have been two separate episodes adding another episode to fully flesh out the characters and story line and that last scene would have been at least 40 mins to an hour just to itself where we really get Dracula's story visualized and fleshed out fully to make the doc's insight into him more impactful and given the two ?or well three ??? characters if you see my meaning shared the blood you could easily have made that part of the story and made Dracula's decision not seemed so rushed and the doc and his story not seemed so 'oh crap we have 5 mins of time left lets just cram in our ending' which is how it came of too me... Lucy's story line had a lot more potential and her ending also had a lot more to add to the weight of the narrative if you'd had more time with it...or maby had it as the cliff hanger to another episode where you really get into all the revelations about Dracula's motivations like I said above.... sigh good ideas but really seems this was at least a 4 episode series that got cut and crammed into a 3 episode one

So gutted

[testtube2000 · 3/10 · 4 January 2020]

Watched the first 2 and absolutely loved them, it was like the one of the best adaptations of Dracula I'd ever seen.. in fact I gave them 9/10.. I was waiting for ep 3 with baited breathe to be forced into a poor episode of Doctor Who. Honestly, what the hell happened?? I'm actually really disappointed, and quite angry and has added to the fun of January..

Fantastic Ending!

[glueShoe · 10/10 · 6 January 2020]

What's with all the hate?! It's a fantastic dialog, levity, and a highly creative retelling. The ending is perfect. *** SPOILERS ***

It seems to me many didn't get the entire re-imagining of what a Vampire actually is. Is it "evil" which means there is "good" and therefore God, which is what Sister Agatha was struggling with and what led her down the path of investigating the source of the Vampire's weaknesses only to find they were more like phobias established over centuries as well as deep psychological conflict about the fear of death and the shame felt and their cowardice at the crucifixion.

So, if not a Heaven/Hell, and Supernatural Good/Evil what then is a Vampire? If all the myths surrounding them are wrong, and simply phobias of the Count then what is the source of their power? I think it was very directly hinted at when they were loading the Count's soil onto the ship and made it a point to spend a little time on mentioning that it was basically boxes of "mold", and who would want boxes of "mold"? Well, Sister Agatha had already alluded to a non-supernatural connection too wrt her investigations. However, unfortunately, they didn't strongly connect the dots and perhaps left that a bit too loosely defined, though I thought it was one of the best ideas of the show and a wonderfully creative re-imagining of the Vampire origin. And, a potential explanation of the Vampires abilities: strength, speed, immortality, nigh indestructibility, etc, which is not supernatural in origin, some kind of "parasitic" or "symbiotic" organism (the "mold" reference) which needs blood to feed on, etc, and I actually even thought they might connect the "mold" reference to the Vampire's aversion to sunlight but that turned out to simply be a phobia. Some opportunities lost with these ideas I suppose.

Overall, great series and a wonderfully clever retelling of Dracula. Watch it and give it a chance. It's much better than these troll reviews would have you believe.

Ideas are creative, but delivery needs improvement

[nyenyez · 7/10 · 7 January 2020]

I was prepared for major disappointment after seeing the terrible reviews, but I have to say, I was actually pleasantly surprised. The plot is however filled with holes and over-complication, while giving a really simplistic outcome - something not unusual to those who are connoisseurs of Moffat's style. Kudos to the creativity though, setting Dracula up for the 21st century was actually fun and I believe that if given more episodes (or running time, or even setting the period to a different season of the series), the plot could have been pleasantly, more deeply developed. For the cons: the acting is superb (shout out to Dolly Wells as well, she nailed playing two characters at once), the show looks beautiful, the ideas are there and the adaptation feels satisfying (by that I mean 21st century Dracula is true to his "younger" self). The negatives: The gore still feels like it's forced only so that the show can look edgy, newly introduced characters (apart from Zoe) are hard to associate with, some things are not even slightly explained. Maybe it's the habit of the letdown of Moffat's previous final outcomes that made me not hate the episode and I might have been just expecting the worst, but for the first viewing, I'll be in the minority group of those who were satisfied.

Unnecessary finale. Could've end it on 2

[linasharar · 3/10 · 5 January 2020]

The only excuse i would think of is producer running out of budget and quickly wrapped up with loads of nonsense and random events like the young girl; why being her in if there was no point ? What was that all about? I think he just needed to prolong the episode by making us watch a young playful girl taking selfies then die!!! Before he kills the count.. i cannot think of any other reason to that unnecessary finale.. could've just killed the count on episode two.

The Dark Compass

[Prismark10 · 3/10 · 4 January 2020]

The overnight ratings for Dracula has been like a stake in the heart. The catch up figures need to be really good if Dracula rises from the grave.

Unfortunately, the third and final episode was bit of a disaster. I have no issues with a reimagining. It is just that Moffat/Gattis has run out of their box of tricks with Sherlock and Doctor Who.

I noticed Paul McGuigan who was involved in directing the early Sherlock stories, directed the finale. If only he had a decent script.

We end up with Dracula in the present day. He meets up with another Van Helsing and an institute which frankly is none too bright. I was not convinced a lawyer could walk into this institute and drag Dracula away without any resistance.

I was also bored with the Lucy Westenra subplot. Two middle aged men thinking how young people live. As for the ending, I yawned and shrug my shoulders.

What the hell was that !!!!

[mahfuzurrahman-76585 · 2/10 · 5 January 2020]

How do you fall from such high. 1st one was marvelous, second one was good but the last one was absolute garbage. At first I thought i would be mediocre but it was just awful.

Shocking but not in a frightening way

[normanemailer · 7 January 2020]

The first two episodes signalled the ending. They were pantomime but the third and final episode only served to show that there was never going to be a satisfactory dramatic conclusion. You can only abuse a classic story so much then it turns round and bites the adaptors. Crass.

An above average finale

[gk303007 · 7/10 · 4 January 2020]

I noticed through Sherlock series that the Creators wanted to capture a long horizon with a brief glimpse, that's what they tried doing in the its last episode; which as per me failed. Coming back to this finale, i imagined once episode 2 ended that Dracula will create disaster in England and then people, like Van Helsing, will defeat him. What i was wrong about that it ended up as an emotional drama rather profound action sequences.

Anyways, i still dint had much of the complaints because the ending was still same, Dracula needs to die. What else i liked in the episode, was the way the Creators plugin minute details silently which we have seen earlier in Dracula movies like his lawyer catching the fly and eating it. And of course, what I dint liked was the extended story of Lucy which at times was really boring and unintentional.

Again, don't have high expectation with the finale, for not every finale ends up like we saw in Chernobyl mini-series.

A true horror ... but not the horror I expected

[mindoscp · 2/10 · 4 January 2020]

This serie started well, I kind of liked the way they revisited Bram Stoker's Dracula.

But this 3rd episode is an absolute disaster.

I must admit that I gave it up before the ending. I haven't seen such a bad writing and episode ... EVER.

This is do awful that it almost makes Sharknado look like an Oscar movie.

What a waste of potential and what a waste of time.

Watch the first 2 episodes but skip the last one and keep an somehow positive impression.

Totally disagree with the mnajority of reviews here

[songod-95003 · 9/10 · 9 January 2020]

Ep 3 was not a let down at all. It followed exactly as it should have. Dracula did not walk along the ocean for 123 years, he was in his earth box on the ocean bottom. Once revived he proceeded to both learn and intuit this new world of 2020.

His fixation on Lucy was, well, he'd been around for 500 years and something about her fascinated him, Her willingness to embrace death? Who knows. Who cares - he found her to be a perfect bride.

Some complain the end was rushed. Maybe... would you have liked another three eps to show him become like Lee's Dracula did in the modern age of the 1970's? The head of a corporation?? Where else was there to go for the character? He'd have become a Bill Gates or an Elon Musk or whomever - and eventually got bored by all of it.

No, this ep was a perfect conclusion to the story. The only missing element was the Gothic feel of 1897. That was also something Lee complained about regarding the final two Hammer Dracula's he made - that they ruined the feel of the character by bringing him into the modern era. Other than that, a fine series.

I don't get the hate

[ayamisr · 7/10 · 15 January 2020]

I rated it 7, it's more like 6.5 stars which is solid. it's my least favorite of the three episodes but not my far and I don't hate it. most of the reviews I read point the blame to the fact that it's different which shouldn't be enough to dismiss it as bad. we have yet another colorful cast of back characters in this episode, the cat/mouse aspect in the relationship between the count and a descendant of Van Helsing takes a back step in this episode which is the biggest flaw as far as I care, otherwise this episode makes sense to me and I like it.

Why on earth...

[anders-newyork · 1/10 · 5 January 2020]

... didn't anyone stop them already when they were writing this idiotic episode? On top of it all, they managed to include the only person from Years And Years who absolutely can't act.

This series started SO well - I want Sister Agatha to be Prime Minister absolutely everywhere. Pity. Claes Bang was an excellent Dracula but I pray and hope that there will never be a sequel.

I don't get the hate.

[christianvoller · 9/10 · 4 January 2020]

I thought this was a beautiful ending to the mini series. I read some reviews before I watched and prepared myself for disappointment, but I ended up loving it. It is completely different from the first two but not inferior in my opinion. I loved this series and would recommend to anyone.

Jumbled Plot with Good Ending

[cptyukihiro · 6/10 · 10 January 2020]

So, episodes 1 and 2 were spectacular. The tale was told differently enough to keep me captivated and I absolutely adored Sister Agatha. I expected them to have a final stand off with the other characters and Mina may come back...but I was severely let down. It is a shame, too. I've watched the episode twice and I want to like it--but it is just too much of a time jump for it not to throttle me. I feel like the writers had a 6 episode outline and Netflix only gave them 3 so they had to cut all of the plot points and we are left with this. But, with that being said, I love how it ended. I love it so much in fact that I am willing to overlook the time jump. I still thought Dr Seward was under utilized but I did like him. Quincy was completely chopped, as well as the one Lucy ended up marrying in the book. All and All, I would have liked to have seen this as an actual series where Dracula and Sister Agatha keep fighting each other through the centuries with a love/hate sexual tension that is shown here. Oh well. Still, very well done.

3 stars is me being generous

[zarablue-41173 · 3/10 · 3 January 2020]

The first 2 episodes were promising. Then this episode happened. Dolly Wells was the only good thing in this episode.