Actually...?

Rating: 5/10 (6 November 2014)

I was really excited to see this movie and had high hopes for it. I am a fan of "true" vampire movies (none of this Twilight business - I'm talking Interview with a Vampire, Queen of the Damned etc...) It suffices to say, I was completely mislead by rave reviews and have formed my own opinion that this movie just doesn't cut it for me. In sum, here are my reasons that, despite my generally "nice" movie reviews, this film gets my lowest rating yet of 5/10:
1) Acting: Absolutely horrible. With the exception of Winona Ryder, in my humble opinion, the major actors/actresses whose reputation was used to promote this film gave some of the worst performances I've seen. Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker had this dumb, confused look on his face for the first 20 minutes of the film that I just could not deal with. Example: As he's entering Dracula's castle and he sees wild animals and a random pit of fire, he retains the same confused look on his face that he started with at the beginning of the film. Now if I was about to enter a creepy castle and saw the flames of hell spontaneously appear before me, I think I'd react a little bit more dramatically. He sees Dracula crawling up the walls for god's sake and his face is just like "Well, then...that's interesting."
Anthony Hopkins, - who I adored in Silence of the Lambs - turns into a crazed Christian fanatic. He's like the priest from the Exorcist on speed. And I'm sorry - Gary Oldman's portrayal of Dracula doesn't seduce me as much as he is hyped out to be.
2) Characterization: Now, as I mentioned, Winona Ryder's acting is tolerable. But her character, oh my god I wanted to shoot Mina. Her character makes no sense and it frustrated me so much just how wishy washy she was. I'll have to read the book to compare how she is portrayed in the book - but I have a feeling her character isn't as empty and one dimensional as this movie makes her out to be. And what of her husband, Jonathan Harker? He just seems to be okay that she basically had an affair with some random Eastern European Prince while he was away on business? He's okay with this? He doesn't put up a fight? I can't see how this can even make sense.
3) Storyline: Too many plot holes. Nothing makes sense. Yes, I know I'm supposed to give the benefit of the doubt when it comes to horror/fantasy but I just can't do it here. For example, what is the purpose of Lucy's character? Dracula travels to England to find Mina - so what's he doing trying to seduce Lucy? How does she become a target? I don't see what her role is in this movie other than providing titty action.
4) Discontinuity: Is it just me or was anyone else confused throughout the whole film (besides poor Keanu Reeves of course...)? The cuts between scenes made absolutely no sense. For someone who hasn't read the book (which I understand is written in letters and newspaper clippings so I can see why it would be cut so much) - the movie just doesn't flow. I see no character development. I don't see we go from Point A to Point B. I just don't get it.
I read some of the reviews here where users gave 1/10 and agree wholeheartedly with these reviews. But I am a little more generous, and will agree that this movie deserved the Academy Awards for costume and makeup. The setting was beautiful, and I did enjoy the costume (although Dracula's hair was admittedly very distracting). I can see why this became a cult classic, but I just don't see it being as amazing as it is being hyped up to be. On further note, I am biased as I haven't read the book and will need to do a thorough comparison to educate myself more on the matter but as for first impressions - this movie just doesn't cut it.