The ending finally made me think...

...of how ridiculous the popular legend is with regard to the vampire Dracula's curse.

So, if you are being cursed by a higher power (the Abrahamic god in this legend) for being an evil, bloodthirsty tyrant who abuses his power, why would that same higher power make you immortal, superhumanly strong, eternally youthful in appearance, and able to shapeshift and control the weather so that you could, more effectively, continue to terrorize the innocent? If I were the one designing the curse, I would have made him blind, deaf, hunchbacked, peg-legged and immortal but still subject to the unpleasant effects of aging while having a burning hunger that could only be sated by consuming raw sewage. The whole "curse" angle seems a bit illogical, it's basically cursing a power-hungry tyrant with even greater power.

But then I did a little digging and found something pretty cool that I didn't know b/c I haven't yet read Bram Stoker's Dracula and this detail is never conveyed in any of the adaptations. In mortality, Dracula was a necromancer and he is less cursed than a product of his own power. Which takes away the tortured victim image and makes a more sinister villain.

This was a really cool movie, it just finally made me think about a major plot hole in the other Dracula movies that I never thought of so much b/c they mostly show Dracula the vampire and diminish his effectiveness as a villain by painting him as a victim.