Faithful to novel ??!!

Rating: Null/10 (24 October 2008)

After reading all the objections about this movie compared to Bram Stoker's book it must be remembered his novel was a compilation from many different sources anyway. Stoker created Dracula from a hodgepodge of ideas, superstitions, and history, so there's nothing really sacred about it. Except his name. All the other Dracula films lack a convincing reason for his existence. A false message was actually sent of Vlad death by the Turks. I thought it reasonable how this was worked into the film, and gives us a foundation for why Dracula is the way he is. Where else could he have come from? Like the chicken or the egg dilemma, there has to be a 'first' vampire or source, and this is as good as any.
I still love the 1931 movie and think Bella is great . . .but the range of characters Oldham portrays in this version is much closer than other actors have done. In my opinion. What deviations and differences there are between movie and book are simply because of the two mediums. I commented to a friend how War of the Worlds would have been so much better if it followed the book.
Silly me. How could it? Observations and impressions are hard to impossible, capturing on film. Each have their merits, and both can be enjoyed, if we keep that in mind. I don't recall any movie being faithful to it's literary parent.