Dracula: Dead, but not loving it.

jals85

It's a shame really, I wanted to like this. I was excited after watching the first trailer.

"Whats this? A new Dracula, that looks moody, dark and scary with actual horror? Sign me up."

Then I saw the second trailer, and my heart sank.

" 'Lust for life' blaring? Quips a plenty, Doctor Who esque nuns with stakes? Oh bloody hell!"

Is it a comedy? Is it a horror? Is it good?

Unfortunately it's just meh. Much like any modern adaptations these days, it's full of interesting ideas, and potential mysteries, but no real pay off or depth.

The positive things I can say about this very loosely based version of Dracula are mainly to do with the gore and special effects. Very impressive, all those involved with the make-up, (especially Harkers's corpse like visage) and CGI transformations (The wolf to man sequence was stunning) need to be applauded, maybe even a TV BAFTA nod. You can see where the money went.

Ghouls in a box, how very 'Hellsing' of you.

Interesting take on the Classic lore too, and Claes Bang was obviously having a wail of a time chewing all that scenery.

However, it's constant attempts to subvert expectations by mystery baiting, and introducing interesting ideas, only to have a limp reveal or just got absolutely no where was the real nail in the coffin for me.

Okay, so the castle was built as a prison, interesting idea. But if it were, why can Dracula leave? What was the point? Other than to have Harker running around like a loon and save money on the set design.

Also, what's with all the sun worshipping? I thought I had stepped into a Dark Souls parody for a second. Do you even praise the sun Dracula?

Super boo for bringing up the possibility of Dracula actually seducing a lonely and soon to be wed Harker, only to sweep that interesting twist a way with nary a thought.

The brides! What a disappointment! Weird and creepy certainly, and nice to see the Baby from 'Trainspotting' get work again, but it went nowhere. I know the Brides are a bit old hat, but damnit I demand some form vampuric temptress!

Also Mina's reveal also fell flat. Did the writers and director really think we wouldn't clock the nun sitting beside sister Agatha was Mina all along after a those flashbacks? I must confess I feel a little insulted guys.

Speaking of Agatha, how throughly unlikeable. Her dialogue was just off from. The word go. Overly smug and condescending, clearly a hangover from 'Sherlock'. The scene of her taunting the count went on far too long, and was pretty groan worthy, and not for the full moon of Dracula. Oh and are was a Helsing? Saw that coming a mile off.

And Dracula, well, as I said earlier, Claes Bang was obviously enjoying the role, and evokes a lot of the old Hammer aesthetic. However, the vamp has more lines than a fisherman and feels as threatening as Del Boy. It's a real shame, because you could really see him taking hold of a more serious, less glib version of the count this version has gone for.

It's a very loose adaption, hardly Dracula at all. Really, they've certainly butchered most of the original main characters at this point. And whilst I know the same old retelling gets boring after while, the old adage rings true with this one. If ain't broke, don't fix it.

It's not as bad as most people will have you believe, but it's certainly not perfect. If you are willing to let go and view it in the same campy vain as 'Van Helsing', and enjoy the splendid gorey set pieces then there is joy to be had.

But if you were expecting something a bit more adult, something more faithful to the original then you will be sorely disappointed.

Passable fluff with excellent sfx, but little soul.

score 3/10

jals85 2 January 2020

Reprint: https://www.imdb.com/review/rw5375479/