If it's crap ... We'll tell you
As most of you can tell from my profile picture. I am a fan of Dracula. Dracula is one of my all-time favorite books. I’ve loved the story since freshmen year of high school. I got the honor of playing Harker last month in Dracula. So obviously I love watching movies about Dracula. Well some of them at least. I’m looking at you Dracula 2000. So what is my favorite Dracula movie? It is not the classic 1932 film. It is Bram Stokers Dracula
I love Bram Stokers Dracula! It is actually one of my all-time favorite movies. I think it is a great adaptation of the book. It doesn’t pull a Hobbit and put about every single page that was in the book into the movie. But it doesn’t pull a Harry Potter or Hunger Games and leave out big details from the book. It is a perfect balance in my opinion.
I won’t give you the full story, but I’ll give you the load down. It’s the typical Dracula story. A business man named Jonathan Harker, played by Keanu Reeves Goes to Transylvania to do business with Count Dracula. As in the book Harker is kept there against his will and sees how messed up Dracula actually is. The story also has to deal the Dracula wanting Harker’s wife to be Mina Murray who he thinks is the reincarnation of his dead lover.
Gary Oldman as Dracula was perfect casting. He plays Dracula with a thick accent and plays it good. They kept Dracula character true to the book. Dracula may be evil, but his reasons of wanting Mina are kind of justify. He loved her past life to death and just wants her back. Oldman is hands down the best Dracula and I don't see anybody besting him anytime soon. Why Oldman didn't a Oscar nomination is beyond me. They also keep Renfield’s and Van Helsing’s character true to the book. Even though Helsing is a little over the top. But Hopkin's still gives a good performance. Now let’s look at the elephant in the room, Keanu Reeves. There are two types of people in this world. People who think Reeve’s is a terrible actor or people who think he’s good when given the right role. Now I wouldn’t say we were terrible as Harker, but he wouldn’t be my first choice. He did a okay enough job to make it acceptable.
I really don’t have any problems with the movie besides a few hiccups. I think this movie is a little underrated. I feel that people tend to stray away from this movie because of Keanu Reeves. I wish more people would give the movie a chance. I think for the next Dracula movie they make, they should make it how this was made. An adaptation of the book, that stays true to its roots. So please can Eli Roth not direct the next one. He'll just destroy the source material.
So have you seen the movie? Do you agree that the movie is underrated? Comment and tell me.
Hey dude, personally I don't think Bram Stoker's Dracula is underrated, most of the people I've spoken to about it love that movie as I do, in fact I'd say it's the best version of Dracula ever made. Period.
There's so much to say about the film, I read the book many years ago and pretty much the day I finished the book I got my hands on a newly released VHS copy of this film and watched it as soon as possible and was pleasantly surprised by how faithful to the book the film was. This film gets many details correct that previous versions get wrong in a clumsy way; for example, Gary Oldman does a straight up Romanian accent whereas most actors to play the role just imitated Bela Lugosi's performance! Dracula turns into a wolf, fog and all sorts of weird and wonderful shit as in the book.
Many people I know who are unnecessarily pedantic about the film don't like the fact that Dracula is in love with Mina Harker or how it's not in the book (it isn't he's stalking her, but there's no mention that he loves her) but the secret to making a good film adaptation is to add to the material without taking anything away from it and this works well here.
Then one of my favorite aspects of the film is the fact that all the effects were done in camera without any greenscreen! I could talk all day about this movie, it's one of my favorites!
Alot of people I know have ethier never heard of it or hate it.
Bram Stoker's Dracula (or Love never dies) is such a good movie. It sticks close to the book in some parts and becomes wildly different in others, but tbh I don't think that's a bad thing?
Bad Stuff: Keanu and Anthony Hopkins were really hammy and over the top. To the point where they were almost buffoonish. Lucy was too sluttly and had that awful werewolf sex scene and Jack Seward was a junkie which I thought was quite offensive to the book.
Good Stuff; The soundtrack is hauntingly beautiful and the romance between Mina and Dracula. I know some people found issue with the romance but I loved it. the acting was great from both the leads and the romance and story line was just perfect. I personally like Dracula to be cold, detached and more of a predatory animal than a man but if they had to change Dracula into anything else i would accept a tragic romantic anti-hero. I personally hate Vampire romance but here it was done right.
Bram Stoker's Dracula is half a great movie and half a shitty movie. Mina and Dracula's scenes should be watched but you should just fast forward the rest of the movie. It's a pretty good vampire movie, not the best ; that honor for me goes to interview with the vampire.
For me it's the other way around, I like Bram Stoker's Dracula best and Interview with the Vampire as a very close second. But I own both and enjoy watching them. :)
I think that the movie is way overrated. I love the book and was so happy to see the three suiters were kept as they were written in the book (no making Seward Lucy's father), and I enjoyed when the movie stayed loyal to the book, especially the chase at the end. But I found the characters hard to like. I think we all agree on Harker being horribly miscast (or horribly performed) but Lucy and Mina's characters were so annoyingly perky and actor-British. I do love that they included Quincy Morris in this movie and not split his character with Arthur's. But my biggest dislike of the movie is a mistake most EVERY adaptation makes and that is to make Dracula a romantic figure rather than the pure pestilence and monster he was in the novel. His communion with Mina was a punishment instead of an act of love, which also enabled him to spy on his persuers. I don't think any Dracula movie captured that. In the end, I enjoy watching Bram Stoker's Dracula the way I watch Hello, Dolly!, in that I love certain aspects of it and lament the others...sort of in a 50/50 way. As a side note, I'm active in regional and community theater throughout NJ and have been trying to adapt Dracula as faithful as possible with limited sets. When I finally uncover the backstory between Holmwood and Morris (the whys on how they met) and then later Seward (again, what is The Korea? The Korea Straight? The name of a ship or an establishment like a bar or club? And why they would be there), then I'll be able to proceed. For me, the real story of Dracula is how this group of mortals are pulled together by circumstance to act against a horrible evil, and that is the story I want to see. Also one that is scary as hell. I'm doing the same with Phantom of the Opera and centering it on the relationship (pre and present) between Erik and the Daroga, which is where I find the true importance of the story (but different than the Trap-Door graphic novel). Sorry for going on like this, but I, like you, am a big Dracula fan.
I actually enjoyed reading what you wrote so no worries about going on.
The Dracula novel, like Shakespeare or Greek mythology, is subject to interpretation, it's possible that as the years will pass a new version will be made that presents Dracula as a force of pure evil rather than a misunderstood romantic figure.
Perhaps you'll be the person to do that adaptation on stage?
Sorry I missed this reply, HBR. I agree that somewhere down the line there will be more adaptations made of the original story and I am looking forward to seeing how they are. For me, as soon as I can unlock that aforementioned riddle (which is going to be like putting together a huge jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces and other puzzle pieces thrown in), I'm writing that puppy. I'd love to go more into what I have planned but I find if I write "about" something, it takes away from me "writing something". But one other thing I'm keeping in mind is to make it scary as well since the story can easily become a parlor room drama. This means alot of audience misdirection, so this will be a challenge.
Son of a...I just remembered an additional Dracula movie I have. It's a modern take on the novel, interesting but not successful, but it does concentrate nicely on the group going after Dracula and it's titled (I think) Dracula's Guest. This is why I would never pass a lie detector test when telling the truth; I'm always wondering if I left anything out.
Correction: Dracula's Curse (not Guest), staring Patrick Bergen. Again, not a good movie but an interesting updating.
It's fine. I liked reading your big comment. I enjoy feedback, because that means somone took the time and read it. If you want a good Dracula play I think the one I did is more true to the character. It's called Dracula: The Death of Nosferatu. It is different from the story. It only has Harker, Mina, Seward, Van Helsing, Renfield, and Dracula. It takes place at the mental hospital where Seward works. The set is pretty simple all you need is a day bed, a desk, and a balcony. The story does differ from the book. There is no Lucy, but Mina has some Lucy in her. Some other changes, but the play does somethings from the book. It's a nice play that does stray away from the source material. I played Harker in it and loved every minute of it. Now if you ever want to do a Frankenstein play. I suggest The Nightmare of Frankenstein. It stays true to the book. I played Creature in the play.
That's great you wrote an adaptation! Congratulations. I picked up a few other versions through amazon.com and then read a very faithful version (huge cast, though) that still added alot of flowery dialog for Dracula and retained a bit of that romance. If I can just crack that damned riddle regarding the three suitors, then I jump into writing with both feet. And I'll definitely look up Nightmare of Frankenstein, thanks. I've acted since 2006 (and once in 1977) and its great to meet another actor with similar interest in these stories. I saw the version of Frankenstein that played briefly on Broadway (I forget the author's name) and I was totally disappointed by it. It ws suppose to be the most faithful version but boy, did it take huge liberties with the story. None of the two main characters' story arcs were explored. You'll also get a kick out of this: A year ago during halloween, I picked up a cheap long black wig (for the monster (I wanted to make him exactly as described in the novel)) to kickstart my Frankenstein project. Unfortunately other things in the theater diverted my attention for a bit this past year but thanks to your posts, I'm starting to get the writing bug back.
I found NoF on the Eldridge Plays & Musicals Site. I'm interested in seeing some of their other plays. Thanks again for te recommendation.
Here is the link to that pretty faithful (but huge) Dracula play.
And these links show stills from the Brundage park Playhouse's 2006 production of Dracula. I didn't see this show (wish the heck I did though) but I was onstage with Debbie (Lucy) in The Crucible, directed by Brendan (Seward), with set design by Nola (Van Helsing) last Spring and Brundage knows how to put on a great show (if I may say so myself, our Crucible was truly kickass...nothing stagey about it, Brendan is that good a director).
Anyway, I hope you get a kick out of these.