Gerard's portrayal of Dracula was indeed sexy through and through, but I don't see this as being ridiculous or untrue for how a writer might envision their vampires.
It is true that Bram Stoker's Dracula was not at all attractive or charming to the degree that we see in movies today. But that does not mean that the franchise, or character rather, has been lost.
In my opinion if you have a good thing, in this case the character, it is completely acceptable to expound on that character and their storylines in order to develop them and continue the story. How many times would you have Dracula or Nosferatu remade over and over again with only some special effects to boast as the reason to rerelease it?
The character of Dracula did lure his victims, mind controlled or not, for some this may be a stretch, so why not make it more natural?; he could then lure or captivate his victims by way of seduction or being charming, his presence alone could enslave the weak minded or easily manipulated.
All the more reason we see such an evolution making these creatures attractive, not in their true form but in their assumed appearances; would you enter the house or say get into bed with a pale, withered, and hairy creature with no personality or human characteristics?
To put my point in another more typical perspective; you dated a girl once who you adored, she was everything you ever wanted in a girl. At some point the relationship is over and you move on, would you want every girl there after to be like the first, or last? No, you would be looking for a girl with all the same qualities you valued and this time with those that were missing in the last relationship.
Therefore you can't blame anyone or say that it's not true to the original if the writer chooses to embelish or accentuate, perhaps even modernize certain aspects of the story/character. So long as they stay true to the original with respect to the general principles of the creation, the rest is up to them, like it or not. I think you'd find that what they are actually doing is trying to revitalize or extend this story beyond it's initial limitations.
This does not mean that every vampire movie made, or book written, is gold; but it does mean that these people are most likely fans of the original work as much as you and they decided to try and be creative with the subject. Can you say as much?
What this movie did is offer a plausible backstory and origin to the mysterious realm of vampires; in my opinion it's very interesting, for once you get an origin that you can relate to religion and christ.
You can now imagine how such a dark and deviant curse, not so much a monster, came from that day, and his subsequent desire to proliferate his existence and the character's hate/weakness to sacred artifacts. I felt this was a brilliant conception of the story, the movie itself was not the best, due in part to the actors and this being more of a horror than drama the story deserved.
Wes Craven is brilliant and most of his work speaks for itself, are they ground breaking? Not always, but he does know how to spook the audience and deliver a truly disturbing story like no other.
reply
share