Blasphemy to Bram Stoker and the Victorian Era

Rating: 1/10 (30 August 2014)

I will say that this does follow the general plot of the novel more so than other Dracula movies, however in its attempt to capture a more modern audience, the movie to much from the authenticity and cultural significance of Stoker's novel. By this, I am largely criticizing the movie's over eroticism of every single woman met. The Victorian Era, as with Gothic literature, was a time when a woman's purity was highly valued and symbolized her holiness and overall good. In fact the concept a pure woman is a reoccurring theme throughout Stoker's novel and symbolizes her righteousness in God's eyes. However when a woman is infected from the vampire curse, she very quickly begins to become more promiscuous and appears lustful among other behaviors strange to her norm. However in this movie, the women are over sexualized even when not infected with the vampire curse. For instance, a minor scene occurs when Lucy and Mina make out in the rain, something that would have never ever ever been allowed during the 19th century nor happened in the book even when the women are infected with the curse!!!! Almost every woman flashes her breasts at one point or another (except Ryder of course) which had this happened in the novel, Stoker's book would have been condemned as sully trash and burned on the spot. The most sexual thing that happens in the book is when the 3 vampire sisters encounter Harker during his stay at Castle Dracula and try to kiss his neck (to suck his blood mind you) and that is interrupted by Dracual and Harker is distraught with that being a form of adultery he contemplates noting the event less his fiancé read and get jealous. There certainly never was any attempted rape or bestiality as that would've forever caused Stoker's book to be banned along with his excommunication from the literary world. Additionally Lucy seems to flash her breasts at every instance no matter who is around just for the sake of the plot.
Beyond the erotisicm of the movie, there are vast differences from the book such as Mina spending a considerable amount of time with the count long before Harker returns. Furthermore there was no romantic relationship of any kind between Dracula and Mina as this would have sullied the whole point of her purity and Stoker's symbolism/theme. Harker was never the blood feasting slave of the 3 sisters. He merely encounters them three times for a total of like 5 seconds each. Additionally he escaped before Dracula left for England and left a scar on his forehead which allowed him to always recognize Dracula in human form. Throughout the novel, Dracula only pursues Lucy until her end. It is only then, a month afterwards that he sets his sights on Mina. When Lucy is infected, she tries to kiss Arthur her Fiancé not Quincy her failed suitor, and thanks Van Helsing for stopping her to spare Arthur of the curse. Dracula's origin is somewhat altered in the movie which to this day I have yet to see a movie mention Dracula studying black magic and alchemy at the Scholomance to become the ultimate warrior and being. Van Helsing has not been searching for Dracula nor is a vampire hunter but rather a practicer of both old and new medicine and remedies and keeps an open mind. He is a symbol for the theme of the dangers of abandoning the old ways for complete acceptance of the modern era/turn of the century. Rather Van Helsing is not only pure of heart and righteousness, but also a perfect balance of preserving the old world while adopting the ways of the new world. The more I watch this movie, the more differences I see. And yes I did say that this movie does the best at following the GENERAL plot of the movie throughout, but I must also say that I ultimately find more discrepancies between the novel and movie than similarities.
I think had this movie left off the name of Bram Stoker in the title, I would have been much more accepting of the movie. In that case I would have given this maybe a 7 or 8. The acting is OK, some actors are good, others...need a lot of work. Although not in the novel, I love what is done with the shadows to show Dracula's true nature. I also approve of the writer choosing to keep more memorable quotes from the novel to serve as dialogue in the movie, even if it is exchanged between the wrong characters or at the wrong times. I will say that I am appalled that Lucy the Vampire looks like Keira Knightley version of queen of Naboo from The Phantom Menace. But alas, I cannot forgive all the movie's blemishes and insults towards Stoker's original work. You call it Bram Stoker, I expect Bram Stoker, not 50 shades of Vampire. As I write this I have just finished today rereading the entire book and it sits on my lap just in case I need to double check that I am referencing the book appropriately. I suggest that to anyone who loves Dracula and Vampires who haven't read Stoker's novel should read it. It's the classic that really propelled vampires into popular horror (although not the earliest literary piece on vampires) and is what the modern vampire is based off. It's exactly 400 pages long and is a quick read. You won't be disappointed.