ok. this was a very strange interpretation of the classic story. i dont think they were justified in putting "bram stoker's" in the title because while there were a lot of references to the book, there seemed to be more that were not. i realize that i have not read the entirety of the novel yet, but as far as im aware, the director added a lot into this film. for example the addition of sexuality into the plot. while i do believe this is an important theme to look at with vampires, as they have become a sort of sexual manifestation of evil, this is not something that really appears to have come out in the book. additionally, the whole relationship between winona ryder's character and dracula was completely made up as was the whole pre-story about him being an ancient warrior. i did not see how any of the things that they added were at all relevant to the plot. nonetheless, i feel that it was a good film for us to have watched as it gave us a completely new look on vampires that we have not yet had a chance to see in this class.
I thought this was very strange. Yes, there was a lot of creative license taken with the back story. I thought it was interesting though, if anything. It would have been nice if we could understand what they were saying the whole time, I know Dracula was not a very clear speaker. The three brides freaked me out a little bit but i guess Dracula needed something for the centuries between his wife's death and her reincarnation (if that is even what it was?).
ReplyDeleteI don't get why she remembered all that stuff about her jumping off a cliff. She was also just fine with it, but some people are not bothered by past lives suddenly being remembered i guess.
I definitely liked Nosferatu better, and if we hadn't seen it first i don't know that any of us would have had an idea of the plot of Bram Stoker's Dracula.