Abhorrent

Rating: 2/10 (12 July 2006)

Before I start criticising the film I should like to point out that I have read the original book and that I thought the actors portrayed their parts brilliantly. Right, now that the pleasantries are over with I can point out why this film is absolutely abhorrent and why it should be avoided at every single hurdle.
The film is ultimately about a sinister noble named Count Dracula whose passion for his apparent resurrected wife Mina/Elisabetha (Ryder) returns him to England so that he can pursue her with greater ease. Obviously there are people that try to stop him including Dr. Van Helsing (Hopkins), Dr. Seward (Richard E. Grant) and Mina's husband Jonathan (Reeves).
I read the book and I thought it was a masterpiece-it was chilling, filled with suspense, some parts were gory even softly pornographic as well as being a proper novel encompassing the horror and Gothic novel genres. The film is only about 50%-60% faithful to the narrative of the original which I found insulting. The whole Dracula-Mina love story is extremely over portrayed and frankly serves no purpose to the story apart from providing a little annoying distraction. Furthermore, there wasn't enough Van. Helsing at all. In the book he is integral at finding out that it is in fact a supernatural creature-the vampire- that is wreaking havoc on innocent victims and not purely a scientific or medical means. He doesn't appear nearly enough in the film-in fact his role seems quite minor and I found this absolutely appalling.
I have another complaint as well. This film seems to turn the chilling suspense of the novel into some kind of soft porn flick with Ryder and Frost kissing in the rain as well as what seems to be a forlorn "gang-bang" with Reeves and the Brides of Dracula. This is absolutely absurd as in the book, the three brides merely seduce Jonanthan on a chair (a chair!) and not on a bed so they can slink onto him! Also , throughout the film, Ryder falls in love with Dracula. Why?! She doesn't in the book, why does she have to do it in the film! Her role in the book is intricate, clever and positive. She is deemed as a faithful wife to Jonathan and a devoted friend to Lucy. In the film her character is drastically altered to someone who is unfaithful and seemingly uncaring to the fact that her friend has died! Why did they do this? There seems no logical reason! Finally, and this is what I find ultimately insulting, the film is entitled "Bram Stoker's Dracula". Yes, I understand that because of copyright reasons they had to rename it but is is so far from "Bram Stoker's Dracula" it might as well have been written by your next door neighbour.
I apologise to the fans of the film for my continuous rant at its awfulness but I have yet to see a decent and faithful adaptation of "Bram Stoker's Dracula". Who knows, we might get one soon. And please, if we do STICK TO THE BOOK!