Dracschick's review of new PBS Dracula: The good, the bad and the ugly or (with spoilers)
simply just what a big mess. Yep, didn't like it. Though not for the reasons that I thought I wouldn't like it. Ya see, I cheated and read blogs of others who saw the movie so I knew what would happen. But, I didn't actually see the movie so some things that were previously described bothered me a little less. And some, bothered me a little more.
A couple of things to start out with. Some people had a problem with the actors being/looking young. But I dunno, they're around the ages that they're suppose to be so they physically look OK to me. Well, except for Dracula (Warren) but I'll get to him. Lucy, Arthur and van Helsing physically looked good but the actor who played Seward looked and acted the best IMO. Though I wasn't a fan of how they changed the story (will get to that in a minute), I did like how his role fit into the changed story. He did a very nice job and should be commended for it. So yeah, a 'nice job' goes out to him. If only everyone else fit just as good. The one character (besides Dracula) that 'bothered' me was Mina. The actress played the role as very flat and lifeless. Next to Lucy who looked beautiful without looking trashy, Mina seemed rather...plain. And in most stories, Dracula is attracted toward Mina so there must be something attractive about the character. But in this version, it was difficult to see just why Dracula would be attracted to her. Mina should be different than Lucy (maybe less carefree, more serious because Mina is a working person and from a 'lower class' than Lucy is from). However, both women can be portrayed as having their 'sexy' moments. Sorry, but I did not see it here.
What I did like though was that Lucy was not potrayed as having any slutty/whorish/extremely loose qualities. I did think it was nice that Lucy wanted to make love to her husband, Arthur and rightfully felt deprived because she couldn't. And therefore, the Lucy character was able to be portrayed as sexy without having to be portrayed as slutty/vulgar. As an aside here, as I was watching the movie, I was thinking how the Lucy character is related to the Mary Magdelene character of the Bible. Both characters are portrayed sometimes as being vulgar/slutty when actually neither is. I don't see Lucy as such and Bible scholars are arguing that Mary Magdelene has been unjustly cast as a prostitute in the bible readings. So, Lucy vs. Mary Magdelene as two characters often unjustly portrayed. Sounds like an interesting paper to me:)Sorry if I offended anyone but I can get academicy in my analysis. Again, no offense was intended. It's just how I think.
Now, before I do the summary of the story, a word about Dracula. Actually, I don't mind a younger Dracula. I hated the story of the movie "Dracula 2000" but I did like the 1891 scenes with Gerry (seen as mostly extra footage on DVD). It was nice to see a younger version of Dracula on screen rather than just seeing an older man playing Dracula. It brought to my mind a more sexy, more passionate Dracula which is a part of what I write. Though I don't see Gerry as my character. But, watching him as Dracula one could see why the women would give their immortal soul up so easily:)
Marc Warren is a handsome actor but was made up in this role to look like Jekyll and Hyde. Instead of turning into Dracula, I expected him to turn into Hyde. Maybe it was Frank Wildhorn's Dracula musical than ruined me but that's how Hyde looked in it (like Warren's Dracula) and for some reason, I couldn't get it out of my head. I just kept going "ooo, look, it's hyde" everytime I saw Warren.
So, what is changed with the story? Lots of it. Basically, the story is that Arthur who is engaged to marry Lucy, has a father who dies of syphillis early on in the show. The doctor tells Arthur that his mother contracted the disease (she knew she had it and killed herself because of it) but that before she died, she gave birth to Arthur. And the disease was passed along. Arthur now has syphillis (he has a large red spot starting on his chest that he keeps looking at) and cannot have sexual relations with Lucy since he will give her the disease. Also, Arthur's father dies raving, insane and disfigured (signs of late stage syphillis) and the dr. tells Arthur that that's what will happen to him as well.
Arthur's troubled by the news and talks with a shadowy Mr. Singleton to arrange to have Jonathan Harker go to Transylvania to bring back the cure for his disease, i.e., Dracula. Singleton is an odd character because he is an OC and really wrecks the story. If this were fanfic, I'd have labeled him "Gary Stu" because he plays an important role (head of Coven and has house where Dracula stays)and everybody looks at him as being a powerful person (even Dracula shows him a bit of respect) but the character IMO mucks up the story more (again, Singleton runs a sect of devil worshippers who worship the devil and the undead)and doesn't serve a good purpose. Anyway, after Arthur contacts this important Mr. singleton, Singleton contacts Hawkins and Hawkins tells Harker to go to Transylvania. In Transylvania, Harker goes to the castle and there is where some Coppola influences take over. Dracula is elderly looking and becomes obsessed with Harker's picture of Mina. There are no vampire ladies so it is suggested that Dracula slowly feasts on Haker. And then, yep, he kills him. Which is sad and I didn't like. But, what I DID really think was neat was that Dracula borrowed Harker's clothes and put them on (this is in Stoker book, not the killing of Harker, but of Dracula taking Harker's clothes). Yep, that was cool. What's even neater is that when Dracula's ship lands at Whitby through um..vampire power(Lucy, Mina and Arthur go to Whitby--Arthur wants to keep women away from Dracula whose ship is suppose to land in London)Mina sees Dracula among the tombstones and thinks it's her dead husband at first because Dracula is wearing Harker's clothes. Mina knows that her husband is dead because he was listed on ship's log and supposedly everyone died on the ship.
So, once Dracula is at Whitby, he is invited to dine with Mina and Lucy (who does the inviting when she meets him with Mina among the tombstones). Arthur arrives home (with Gary Stu, um, Singleton, who's in all the crucial scenes though he's a madeup character) and knows enough about Dracula to realize that Dracula poses a threat to the women. Dracula has the best line here when he says to Arthur that he comes where he's wanted/invited in. Arthur says something like "I didn't invite you". And Dracula very smoothly responds that he 'did not come for Arthur'. Very nice like cause you know that Dracula means he came to give the women a taste of sexual freedom.
And that Dracula does in a very sexy and scary scene with Lucy. Arthur sleeps by Lucy's side fully dressed (their marriage is still unconsummated due to the syphillis problem) and so Dracula appears under the sheets ala Coppola and Dracula and Lucy have some vampire sexy. Next to a sleeping Arthur. Very disturbing and well done scene.
Unforunately, that's as good as this Dracula movie ever gets. Well, except for Arthur pounding a stake into a very human looking Lucy. You know, it is important for vampires to not look too 'out there'. As someone who sympathizes with the vampire's POV, it does make a psychological difference to the viewer that Lucy doesn't look to bad. Because one stops and thinks "Whoa, he really is killing her". Which Arthur does with the help of van Helsing.
And how does van Helsing enter this very odd Dracula movie? He's found in the devil worshipper's cellar by Seward. Has been kept for years by the cult. Is sort of derranged at first. Which doesn't bother me cause I never thought van Helsing had all his marbles in the first place. But soon, later, he's shaven, given new clothes and appears in a scene (this is after Lucy dies)with Arthur and Seward, all fit, healthy and charging to go kill some vampires. When a scene before he was locked babbling in a filthy dungeon. I dunno, I didn't like all of this but then, this fits with the other things that didn't work in the movie.
OK, so Lucy gets staked by Arthur and then, Mina gets a little bit of attention from Dracula. And I'm thinking "OK, let's see more of this" cause as you know I'm a diehard Dracula/Mina fan. But, by this time, it's 10 pm and there's only another 1/2 hour in the show. And so, everything from then on moves very unsatisfactorially at warp speed as if the writer realized that he only had 30 minutes left and had to tell the rest of the story. So, yeah, many things happen. Very quickly. No blood exchange between Mina and Dracula. Sad for us Dracula/Mina fans but also, I think, another important thing left out of the story.
And then, there's the very ambiguous ending which I won't go into except to say that yep, Arthur dies (and as any writer reading thus far knows he has to since he basically 'sent' Harker with the help of Stu..um Singleton to Dracula's castle knowing it was a one way trip. Bad, bad character. You don't kill, even indirectly other characters if you want to live to see the end of the movie. And so, Arthur doesn't but I won't tell you how he meets his maker. And who kills him.
So, who lives to see the end of this very confused movie. Well, it ends IMO, like my flist buddy, eremon_lass 's fanfic stories. Yep, it is hinted at that Seward and Mina will end up together with a little matchmaking by van Helsing. And then, there's the ambiguousness of the ending. Which is odd because um, it's not like that there's going to be a Dracula 2. Well, I wouldn't mind one, just not this version. Because all in all, while this movie did have a few good points, it had odd characters that didn't make sense(still don't like Singleton), odd subplots (worshipping the vampire/devil) and was overall a mix of things that didn't work. If the writer was my student, I would have given him the script back and said "I like x, y and z but you really gotta rework most of this to have a good logical, cohesive movie". Unfortunately, I'd give this Dracula adaptation about 1 and 1/2 out of 4 stars. A few good ideas but overall, not a movie with a definitive message or one that delivers either romance, horror or any mix of any of the genres really well. A shame IMO. I was looking forward to this Dracula. In more competent hands, it could have been a much better show.
Sorry if I don't get around to read everyone tonight. Life is crazy and I'm terribly busy. I'll be better later in the week, I promise:)
Take care all,
Chris
A couple of things to start out with. Some people had a problem with the actors being/looking young. But I dunno, they're around the ages that they're suppose to be so they physically look OK to me. Well, except for Dracula (Warren) but I'll get to him. Lucy, Arthur and van Helsing physically looked good but the actor who played Seward looked and acted the best IMO. Though I wasn't a fan of how they changed the story (will get to that in a minute), I did like how his role fit into the changed story. He did a very nice job and should be commended for it. So yeah, a 'nice job' goes out to him. If only everyone else fit just as good. The one character (besides Dracula) that 'bothered' me was Mina. The actress played the role as very flat and lifeless. Next to Lucy who looked beautiful without looking trashy, Mina seemed rather...plain. And in most stories, Dracula is attracted toward Mina so there must be something attractive about the character. But in this version, it was difficult to see just why Dracula would be attracted to her. Mina should be different than Lucy (maybe less carefree, more serious because Mina is a working person and from a 'lower class' than Lucy is from). However, both women can be portrayed as having their 'sexy' moments. Sorry, but I did not see it here.
What I did like though was that Lucy was not potrayed as having any slutty/whorish/extremely loose qualities. I did think it was nice that Lucy wanted to make love to her husband, Arthur and rightfully felt deprived because she couldn't. And therefore, the Lucy character was able to be portrayed as sexy without having to be portrayed as slutty/vulgar. As an aside here, as I was watching the movie, I was thinking how the Lucy character is related to the Mary Magdelene character of the Bible. Both characters are portrayed sometimes as being vulgar/slutty when actually neither is. I don't see Lucy as such and Bible scholars are arguing that Mary Magdelene has been unjustly cast as a prostitute in the bible readings. So, Lucy vs. Mary Magdelene as two characters often unjustly portrayed. Sounds like an interesting paper to me:)Sorry if I offended anyone but I can get academicy in my analysis. Again, no offense was intended. It's just how I think.
Now, before I do the summary of the story, a word about Dracula. Actually, I don't mind a younger Dracula. I hated the story of the movie "Dracula 2000" but I did like the 1891 scenes with Gerry (seen as mostly extra footage on DVD). It was nice to see a younger version of Dracula on screen rather than just seeing an older man playing Dracula. It brought to my mind a more sexy, more passionate Dracula which is a part of what I write. Though I don't see Gerry as my character. But, watching him as Dracula one could see why the women would give their immortal soul up so easily:)
Marc Warren is a handsome actor but was made up in this role to look like Jekyll and Hyde. Instead of turning into Dracula, I expected him to turn into Hyde. Maybe it was Frank Wildhorn's Dracula musical than ruined me but that's how Hyde looked in it (like Warren's Dracula) and for some reason, I couldn't get it out of my head. I just kept going "ooo, look, it's hyde" everytime I saw Warren.
So, what is changed with the story? Lots of it. Basically, the story is that Arthur who is engaged to marry Lucy, has a father who dies of syphillis early on in the show. The doctor tells Arthur that his mother contracted the disease (she knew she had it and killed herself because of it) but that before she died, she gave birth to Arthur. And the disease was passed along. Arthur now has syphillis (he has a large red spot starting on his chest that he keeps looking at) and cannot have sexual relations with Lucy since he will give her the disease. Also, Arthur's father dies raving, insane and disfigured (signs of late stage syphillis) and the dr. tells Arthur that that's what will happen to him as well.
Arthur's troubled by the news and talks with a shadowy Mr. Singleton to arrange to have Jonathan Harker go to Transylvania to bring back the cure for his disease, i.e., Dracula. Singleton is an odd character because he is an OC and really wrecks the story. If this were fanfic, I'd have labeled him "Gary Stu" because he plays an important role (head of Coven and has house where Dracula stays)and everybody looks at him as being a powerful person (even Dracula shows him a bit of respect) but the character IMO mucks up the story more (again, Singleton runs a sect of devil worshippers who worship the devil and the undead)and doesn't serve a good purpose. Anyway, after Arthur contacts this important Mr. singleton, Singleton contacts Hawkins and Hawkins tells Harker to go to Transylvania. In Transylvania, Harker goes to the castle and there is where some Coppola influences take over. Dracula is elderly looking and becomes obsessed with Harker's picture of Mina. There are no vampire ladies so it is suggested that Dracula slowly feasts on Haker. And then, yep, he kills him. Which is sad and I didn't like. But, what I DID really think was neat was that Dracula borrowed Harker's clothes and put them on (this is in Stoker book, not the killing of Harker, but of Dracula taking Harker's clothes). Yep, that was cool. What's even neater is that when Dracula's ship lands at Whitby through um..vampire power(Lucy, Mina and Arthur go to Whitby--Arthur wants to keep women away from Dracula whose ship is suppose to land in London)Mina sees Dracula among the tombstones and thinks it's her dead husband at first because Dracula is wearing Harker's clothes. Mina knows that her husband is dead because he was listed on ship's log and supposedly everyone died on the ship.
So, once Dracula is at Whitby, he is invited to dine with Mina and Lucy (who does the inviting when she meets him with Mina among the tombstones). Arthur arrives home (with Gary Stu, um, Singleton, who's in all the crucial scenes though he's a madeup character) and knows enough about Dracula to realize that Dracula poses a threat to the women. Dracula has the best line here when he says to Arthur that he comes where he's wanted/invited in. Arthur says something like "I didn't invite you". And Dracula very smoothly responds that he 'did not come for Arthur'. Very nice like cause you know that Dracula means he came to give the women a taste of sexual freedom.
And that Dracula does in a very sexy and scary scene with Lucy. Arthur sleeps by Lucy's side fully dressed (their marriage is still unconsummated due to the syphillis problem) and so Dracula appears under the sheets ala Coppola and Dracula and Lucy have some vampire sexy. Next to a sleeping Arthur. Very disturbing and well done scene.
Unforunately, that's as good as this Dracula movie ever gets. Well, except for Arthur pounding a stake into a very human looking Lucy. You know, it is important for vampires to not look too 'out there'. As someone who sympathizes with the vampire's POV, it does make a psychological difference to the viewer that Lucy doesn't look to bad. Because one stops and thinks "Whoa, he really is killing her". Which Arthur does with the help of van Helsing.
And how does van Helsing enter this very odd Dracula movie? He's found in the devil worshipper's cellar by Seward. Has been kept for years by the cult. Is sort of derranged at first. Which doesn't bother me cause I never thought van Helsing had all his marbles in the first place. But soon, later, he's shaven, given new clothes and appears in a scene (this is after Lucy dies)with Arthur and Seward, all fit, healthy and charging to go kill some vampires. When a scene before he was locked babbling in a filthy dungeon. I dunno, I didn't like all of this but then, this fits with the other things that didn't work in the movie.
OK, so Lucy gets staked by Arthur and then, Mina gets a little bit of attention from Dracula. And I'm thinking "OK, let's see more of this" cause as you know I'm a diehard Dracula/Mina fan. But, by this time, it's 10 pm and there's only another 1/2 hour in the show. And so, everything from then on moves very unsatisfactorially at warp speed as if the writer realized that he only had 30 minutes left and had to tell the rest of the story. So, yeah, many things happen. Very quickly. No blood exchange between Mina and Dracula. Sad for us Dracula/Mina fans but also, I think, another important thing left out of the story.
And then, there's the very ambiguous ending which I won't go into except to say that yep, Arthur dies (and as any writer reading thus far knows he has to since he basically 'sent' Harker with the help of Stu..um Singleton to Dracula's castle knowing it was a one way trip. Bad, bad character. You don't kill, even indirectly other characters if you want to live to see the end of the movie. And so, Arthur doesn't but I won't tell you how he meets his maker. And who kills him.
So, who lives to see the end of this very confused movie. Well, it ends IMO, like my flist buddy, eremon_lass 's fanfic stories. Yep, it is hinted at that Seward and Mina will end up together with a little matchmaking by van Helsing. And then, there's the ambiguousness of the ending. Which is odd because um, it's not like that there's going to be a Dracula 2. Well, I wouldn't mind one, just not this version. Because all in all, while this movie did have a few good points, it had odd characters that didn't make sense(still don't like Singleton), odd subplots (worshipping the vampire/devil) and was overall a mix of things that didn't work. If the writer was my student, I would have given him the script back and said "I like x, y and z but you really gotta rework most of this to have a good logical, cohesive movie". Unfortunately, I'd give this Dracula adaptation about 1 and 1/2 out of 4 stars. A few good ideas but overall, not a movie with a definitive message or one that delivers either romance, horror or any mix of any of the genres really well. A shame IMO. I was looking forward to this Dracula. In more competent hands, it could have been a much better show.
Sorry if I don't get around to read everyone tonight. Life is crazy and I'm terribly busy. I'll be better later in the week, I promise:)
Take care all,
Chris