It's been a while since I've read the original and I'm reading the sequel now and, quite the contrary to the reviews I've been reading, I'm really liking it. It's kind of out there and, after a while you can tell where Stoker's writing stops and the recent authors' pick up (the book is an amalgam of Stoker's own writings that were cut from the original manuscript and add-ins from Dacre Stoker, his great-grand nephew and Ian Holt, a Dracula historian, if you will) but it's still launching me through all 400-something pages of the book.
Then there's the 1991 movie. Awesome. Aside from the fact that Keanu "Ted 'Theodore' Logan" Keeves was cast as Jonathan Harker (WTF was Coppola thinking there? was there no one better to play an English solicitor? really?), it really doesn't have any flaws. I mean, Gary Oldman . . . hello? Again, it's been a while since I've read the original so I can't compare the movie to the book but I can tell you they'll both boatloads of awesome.
We have genuine horror, the vampire in all its dastardly forms and ways, and we have the tortured love angle that does not end happily. It's terrifying and engrossing and painful all at the same time. If you haven't seen it, go rent it. Now. If you haven't read it, you're not a real vampire fan until you do. So go read it. Now.
3 comments:
This is my favorite (so far) version of DRACULA, and my praise of it is frankly more lavish than your own. But I'll admit to a few more flaws, most obviously it being too crammed, too busy. Really should have been a made-for-cable miniseries and lasted four or five hours.
I tried to order it today on On Demand and it wouldn't let me. Bastards.
I was just telling my mom about the story behind dracula (Vlad Tsepes/Dracula). And Elizabeth Bathory. Crazy stuff. I really need to reread Dracula, its been awhile. I remember it just sort of taking over my brain when I read it.
Post a Comment