A waste of time

Rating: 1/10 (25 August 2004)

I even reduced the spoiling in this, but it still is a SPOILER, I'm sorry
In my opinion, this was a really bloody movie - in both meanings of the word. My father told me it was a good film and I had to watch it (one day - maybe not before my 16th birthday, but he didn't say that). But I had to tell him that I didn't agree. I usually don't watch horror movies. I only watch them when they're about vampires. And then, it's not because I love blood and perverse ideas (there were a bit too many of them in this movie), but because I find vampires really cool. That is why I only enjoy these films when the vampires are presented in an  for me  acceptable way; and true vampire freaks possibly won't believe me when I say that I even liked "Underworld" and "Van Helsing" better than Francis Ford Coppola's version of "Dracula"  because the idea of the vampires in it just fit better with mine. I didn't read the novel by Bram Stoker, so I can't compare it to the movie; I can only say that "Dracula" was a waste of time for me, because I didn't like it at all. I didn't like the story, which was hard to understand and partly ridiculous; I didn't like Dracula and the disgusting creatures he could turn into; I didn't like the nightmare-like atmosphere in too many parts of the film, and that is for the same reason that I don't like horror movies  I'm scared easily; I didn't like the actors' performances (though Ryder and Reeves really look good, but I'm afraid that's already all), nobody could convince me; I didn't like the exaggerated erotic scenes, and it really disturbed me that Lucy and Mina always had to show their breasts. But I liked the camera tricks, for example the fading of images. Which surely doesn't make a good movie for me.