Should be called Dan Curtis' Dracula or The Dark Shadows of Dracula

Rating: Null/10 (16 April 2006)

This is a beautiful adaptation but it has little to do with Stoker's novel. I just finished reading it so don't even bother to argue about it. The story of the vampire's long lost love being reincarnated in Mina Harker is lifted almost directly from the main premise of each of the many incarnations of Dark Shadows - the original 60s daytime soap opera, the 1970 theatrical movie version, the 1991 revival prime-time series and the 2004 WB pilot. Francis Ford Coppola has long been on record as one of the many fans of the original series (as well as some of pop culture's most influential artists, such as Anne Rice, Stephen King and the material girl herself, Madonna).
In fact, Oldman's Dracula is the first of any of the countless film interpretations to be even vaguely "reluctant." Bram Stoker's Dracula is not even remotely vulnerable or guilt-ridden about his fate, while that remains the most distinguishable characteristic of his "Dark Shadows" vampiric counterpart, Barnabas Collins. Don't get me wrong, I don't think of this as a knock at all on either the movie or the integrity of Mr. Coppola. I assume this was an intentional homage to a pop culture phenomenon that has continued to reverberate long after its initial sensation. Indeed, while this show is mostly forgotten its legacy apparently lives on - in the novels of Ms. Rice and Mr. King, and, almost certainly, in this supremely altered retelling of the Dracula legend.
Frankly, it makes the whole thing a lot more romantic and worth watching. Christopher Lee took the Dracula-as-monster to its illogical conclusion. What's the point in trying to make it ever more bloody and violent? Vampire stories are almost never truly scary. With the exception of "Salem's Lot" (which itself owes much to "Dark Shadows"), vampire movies are mostly cheesy and uninteresting to anyone over the age of 12. It works much better as romantic and - one may argue - vaguely homo-erotic drama. Surely that has something to do with Mr. Stoker's own apparently closeted homosexuality. The idea of a love that is animalistic, compulsive and ultimately causes death - that must be hidden at all costs - is certainly Victorian in its repressive view of sexuality in general, homosexuality in particular.
Mr. Curtis simply found a way to make the character human, as was necessary to keep him as a recurring lead character in a serialized drama. Thank goodness someone else finally had the sense to take his lead.