Completely Inaccurate Adaptation

Rating: 1/10 (12 July 2008)

First of all, it didn't take long to realize that, if you read the book, this movie stinks. The biggest similarity between the book and the movie is the characters' names. The content itself has very little in common with the book. The book is a classy tale that makes Dracula and his background a dark mystery that is lurking somewhere in the back-story just waiting to be uncovered. I think a movie that did just this would be very interesting and intriguing. Oh, nay, nay. This movie makes up some love story that makes Dracula some victim of an over-anguished heart.
Secondly, the book was TASTEFUL. There was very little sexuality in the book. The movie couldn't wait to take its clothes off and throw some breasts. Lucy begins as some immature girl who can't wait to talk about sex and carnal pleasures. Mina is the same way. In the book, Lucy was a smart and behaved young adult, as were the rest of the characters. The movie just didn't make the characters into those mature individuals that they should be.
Lastly, the movie is NOT accurate to the time period. How often, I wonder did young females walk around scantily clad in the nineteenth century. I would guess not much. I know the book didn't really describe the clothing as such.
If one were to read the book, perhaps he/she would see the difference. I certainly can. If Bram Stoker were to see this, I don't think that he would be pleased with the adaptation. If you're going to associate the film with that particular book, perhaps you should make the film like the book. I rest my case.