Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
The Problem with Dracula (2020)
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 05. 2020
- So there was this new BBC Dracula and I watched it and it made me think about Dracula in general...
So... here are my thoughts.
DON'T CLICK HERE: / @filmeye
Clips Used:
- (1922) Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror - F. W. Murnau, Film Arts Guild
- (1931) Dracula - Tod Browning, Universal Pictures
- (1958) Dracula - Terence Fisher, Rank Film Distributors
- (1977) Count Dracula - Philip Saville, BBC
- (1992) Bram Stoker’s Dracula - Francis Ford Coppola, Columbia Pictures
- Sherlock: The Great Game - Paul McGuigan, BBC
- Dracula: The Rules of the Beast - Jonny Campbell, BBC
- Dracula: Blood Vessel - Damon Thomas, BBC
- Dracula: The Dark Compass - Paul McGuigan, BBC
Music:
- Creature from the Black Lagoon - Henry Mancini, Hans J. Slater, Herman Stein
- Swan Lake - Tchaikovsky
I haven't watched the show, but this was very well researched and your editing skills are superb, you got a future here brother!
Thank you so much! It means a lot to hear that!
In all honesty, I watched it last weekend and LOVED it. I'm now watching reviews on youtube and looking to get an audiobook on Audible. Give the 1st 10 minutes a shot... it's immensely entertaining.
*Spoilers*
I never did understand why the showrunners and writers decided to skip to the modern day setting at the end of episode 2. Episode 1 and 2 had the right mix of dark humour and horror and I loved the tone. Then as soon as it skipped to modern day, the characters just seemed bland and the story itself felt like it had to build the foundations of the new setting all over again. Maybe they always intended on making it one series, but I wonder why they didn't end season 1 with him washing up ashore modern day England and then pick up s2 from there.
Agreed, the new setting simply doesn't gel as well with the rest of the show. It should have either done so in a second season, or in my opinion, not done so at all. It would have made Van Helsing's character more consistent considering she's reincarnated (I think?) in the latter half of the last episode. It just feels messy.
I couldn’t agree more. The tone of the first two episodes was absolutely delightful, and the sets, costuming, and effects were friggin stellar. Not to mention that Claes Bang’s and Dolly Wells’ performances were some of my favorite I’d seen a long, long time. But then when they shifted to the modern day and tried to explain away iconic vampire mythos the way they did, it took everything that made the show so awesome.
the series lost my intrest when the female helsing asked harcker about his sex life with dracula
I agree, when I rewatch I don't even bother with the last episode.
I'll be honest, seeing the tease of the modern era at the end of episode 2 actually made me really happy and excited. I was like "Oh, this is really different! They could do so much with Dracula in the modern era!" And then they did...nothing.
I adored it when it was a period peace. Modern day just complete ruined it for me.
My problem with episode 3 is that it has too much going on. Each of the plot elements in episode 3 could have served an entire episode on their own. Instead they're all crammed in and not enough time is given to any of them. So you end up having interesting elements that are completely pointless. (Like the Harkers secret society who investigate monsters and capture Dracula who essentially disappears from the plot once Dracula gets released.)
really bad
My biggest problem with the third ep is the butchering of Lucy Westenra's character. I could see what they were going for with like a "what if dracula existed in modern day? How would he take advantage of that?" but jesus it did not fit the rest of the series. It felt like I was watching a completely different adaptation of dracula. I think it is such a harsh shock because it comes after two absolutely stunning episodes.
I really liked the payoff with Van Helsing, you can see in their interactions that for the first time he actually cares about someone. His relationship with Lucy was terrible to watch. But watching him realise the old Van Helsing was in her blood, and not wanting her death to hurt. That was the payoff for the series for me. It was really a beautiful moment. It was a true moment of character growth seeing a fundamental part about him change. It felt so cheapened by the relationship he had with lucy. He seemed in love with lucy, he was going to live with her for eternity, he still found her beautiful after they burned her.. and he wasn't sad when she died. He seemed like, annoyed? What was even the point of her character? He didn't grow from that relationship at all. The love he had for humans was not created by lucy so why even push this thing of pretending he cares about her? We already have a character that has taught him he can care about human life and human suffering. He literally kills himself so Van Helsing doesn't suffer in her death.
Lucy's entire existence didn't contribute to the development of any of the characters at all. Terrible 3 ep overall, good ending however. After lucy dies and Dracula and Van Helsing talk it was good. It feels like they just shoved her character in there because she is in the book.
1. episode - amazing
2. episode - wow
3. episode - ??????!!!!🥴🥴😬🤔🤔😤😳
My favorite Dracula has to be the castlevania anime one. He's such a compelling character sometimes you forget he's the main villain
Castlevania (both the game and the anime) only draws from the gothic aesthetic without the aura of mystery that comes in the book so it's not a faithful adaptation but it is fucking awesome.
I didn't like him at all. Too sympathetic, he's suppose to be evil itself.
Dracula is a slow-burn. You can't adapt that off of page.
why do they always make dracula die in the sun anyway when that wasnt a thing in the book? i blame nosferatu.
😍🧛🏻♂️🩸🥀🤤
I see no problem with episodes 1-2
I agree though it would have been better if they kept it in 1800’s
Though not 100% faithful, my favourite adaptations of Dracula include the 1933 Bela Lugosi version and the 1958 Sir Christopher Lee version with the music of the former standing out as an iconic score for a horror icon. I like Francis Ford Coppola’s version but the performances from Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves were pretty bad. The Netflix version looks interesting but it is not a priority to binge watch at least for me but another great video as always!
Thank you so much for enjoying my video! I'm glad you liked it.
Question: What music are you referring to in the 1931 version? As far as I can tell, the only score is Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake during the credits, and pretty much no other music in the rest of the film. It in fact rather detracted from my experience the first time I watched it.
Film Eye That was what I was referring to. I love the music. It has a blend of romance, mystery and creepiness to it. Pardon my mistake with the year 1933 instead of 1931. Whoops!
I would add 1977 😍
The 1978 BBC Dracula with Luis Jourdan was the most faithful adaptation ever! I've seen it more than a dozen times and its fangtastic!
Amazed you like Sherlock, dont you feel it ultimately has the same issue as this, that there is no payoff for the questions posed?
Not really tbh. Sherlock's final episode had a couple of disappointing conclusions but the rest of the show maintained such a high bar of quality that I can forgive it. Dracula unfortunately only has these three episodes.
@@FilmEye"Sherlock's final episode had a couple of disappointing conclusions "
I take it you did not know about Sherlock Holmes before you saw Moffat's "adaptation"? Because if you enjoy the original Sherlock Holmes there cannot be a way that you are not severely disappointed by how Moffat handled it, ie: Sherlock not doing any detective work at all, ever, and like Dracula everything just sets up a good episode that never comes.
It's a shame, as I feel like Claes Bang gave off such a great vibe for the role
FWIW, I actually thought Dracula: Dead and Loving It had its moments lol
this is so well researched and put together, i really love this even if some of our ideas don’t align! thank you for putting out such a great video. ❤️ (it’s also always great to find someone who loves dracula by stoker as much as i do!)
Thank you so much! I'm glad you enjoyed it!
I would personally say that while the casting is spot on, in the period piece portion it's sabotaged by large inconsistencies, in the atmosphere. It starts out really strong, but drops the ball around the moment Harker knocks on the door and only gets worse from there. At least for me the key elements are Harker slowly peeling away at the Count's facade(nonexistent in 2020 version) and the count directly taking advantage of the character's reasonable science centered perspective, in order to avoid discovery, because once the characters collect irrefutable evidence from Lucy's tomb and Harker's journal Dracula is dispatched pretty swiftly. (Also i know this is in retrospective, but a story about a disease spred through people's negligence seems pretty topical xD )
Ep.3 Seemed liek it took more from Helsing Ultimate than Dracula.
honestly the soundtrack was the only good thing about episode 3, the music is so beautiful that it tricked me into thinking I had enjoyed the whole episode when in reality I had literally only enjoyed the last 6 minutes
Glad I'm not the only one..I kept replaying the last 6 minutes. The score was beautiful so was the visuals. He actually scarificed himself for someone.
The first two parts were great but the third act was awful. Dracula just doesn't translate in to modern times very well.
100% on the money here. Great analysis.
Thank you so much!
It’s interesting that Dracula being burned by the sun is brought up so much in the video when it it’s part of the subsequent mythos that was invented. It isn’t part of the novel at all. In the 1992 film Van Helsing even explicitly states that the Nosferatu can walk during the day, but it isn’t his preferred time. Vampires being destroyed by sunlight is a later invention.
That’s why I prefer the 1992 Coppola film. It’s incredibly interesting visuals are one thing, but it’s actually a 90% faithful adaptation of the novel. Having studied the novel at high school and degree level, it was interesting to see what they didn’t change. The only major addition is Mina being a reincarnation of Dracula’s wife when he was a mortal, giving him an additional motivation when he gets to London.
@KRSsven
The Coppola film is not a fateful adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula. A lot of unnecessary changes were made to characters and those changes made the characters worse. Mina who was the main character alongside Van Helsing. She was both strong and smart. The movie ruins her character and puts her in an unnecessary relationship with Dracula. The original novel was not some romance and there was no reincarnated love interest.
Actually Dracula has a lot of potential.
Since he can walk day and night according to Stokers Novel.
To make a real Dracula Horror movie, Dracula shouldn’t get so much screentime. Sure we see him in the castle, but as an old man. The castles are usually much too bright and never really scary. The bright environment often steals a lot of the horror.
Movies don’t really play with darkness.
Why are so many people scared of the dark? Because they can’t see. It doesn’t matter if they know what’s there or not.
Example: There is a rat in your apartment. You know it’s a rat running around. At daytime you aren’t scared, at best disgusted. But alone in the dark it’s completely different experience. Darkness makes small sounds appear louder, and small things appear bigger in our minds. Attention and survival mode.
A good movie doesn’t need Jumpscares, jump scares are for noobs. It needs skill to properly work with darkness and our basic instincts.
drinking blood and gaining their knowledge made me burst out laughing. I liked the first two episodes and Then third episode i turned it off...they should of kept it to 18 century. Making draculer rest in the sea....he cant pass over running water.....and draculer rapeing Harker was a bit weird.
rapeing??
its canon xD
@@comparsa1 wait what?
The third episode was so bad. I was speechless.
Just like every long-form story Moffat does, he biffed it at the end because he got too "clever" with it. He should have just played it straight, because I really liked the first two episodes. There was no need to get so Dr. Who with the last one.
People didn't get it, the series is about DESTROYING vampire, and specifically Dracula, mithology... the reason is that, in order to speak about illness and death, through those myths, you just need to break them, reduce it to ashes (no pun intended). In that sense it's completely faithful to the novel, in which Dracula was the evil incarnate, a walking sin... because inmortality it's only allowed, precisely, after dying. The Bram Stoker's book is a moralistic tale, a theological allegory about death and life after death.
But of course, in 2020 the book is appalling, you can't believe what the characters say about Dracula and what plans they have to kill him, it's like an Inquisition court. In our time, our secularized time, Dracula can't be shown as a walking blasphemy against God. And that's why the 3rd episode is set the way it's set. And that's why all the religious stuff in the 2 first episodes (which have a considerable amount of it) lost its sense in the 3rd. At least if you want to portrait a different Dracula, watched through todays eyes.
That 3rd episode is, to me, the best possible way to rebuild Dracula's character, to do something new with him.
Of course, this is appalling and shameful to Dracula's most conspicuous, conservative, rancid fans, and that's why most of them hated that 3rd episode. But to me, it was genius.
Oh I get all that, trust me. I don't have a problem with changing the lore and the interpretation. Hell, most if not all of the Dracula adaptations do so.
It's just that the payoff to the changes the series builds up is presented in a way that doesn't make it half as shocking as the show thinks it is.
Also the switch to present day, while an interesting concept had it been done from the beginning, makes the third episode feel completely disjointed from the other two. We lose all the character development between Van Helsing and Dracula, and then the third episode has to make a convoluted reason to bring her back for the finale.
The show was really good, to be honest. You guys have to understand that the producer wanted everything to be CONDENSED. There is no sense of time, there are a lot of things happening at a very fast pace. They wanted to tell a story in just about 3 episodes. There's nothing wrong with that, you just need to learn how to adapt to it. Use your brain!
A very interesting and thought through video! As a fan of Stoker's novel, have you read The Historian? Maybe that could provide the novelty twist for a Dracula adaptation that plays on the themes of the original.
I've not read it, I'm afraid. After this video, I think I need a break from Dracula for a while. I watched 18 Dracula movies and several miniseries and documentaries for it, as well as re-read the novel... I feel sort of drained 😉
That's one of my favorite books of all time; it's what I bring to read whenever I travel lol
I would agree with you. the first two episodes were awesome, but the third episode......
As soon as I saw the 123 YEARS LATER in the third episode, I though, OH NO, THIS IS BAD
but I still watched the show about ten times. I've read the book just about the same amount of times. And I would admit, Claes Bang did a great job.
When you mentioned that Dracula is more of a presence i agreed with everything you were going to say . About time i found someone who thinks the same
The theme of Dracula is only superficially a horror novel. Bram Stoker wrote a colportage novel. That means the action is presented as newspaper clips, audio files (on wax cylinders), diary entries and so forth. There is also normal recounting from the main protagonists. The count is depicted as a nobleman from ancient times. Bram Stoker got the theme wrong in many instances. He presented Dracula as a "Szekler" whereas he meant him to be a prince of Walachia. This has several problems attached to. The szekler were a caste of people in central romania, Dracula instead was a high nobleman in Walachia, a border province between Romania and Serbia when both countries did in fact not yet exist. Transsilvania sure is a romantic name for the origin of the horror, but the historic Draculea was nowhere near of Transsilvania. Originally Stoker intended for the prince to come from Styria in Austria, another benighted province in central europe. The point is the intrusion of an age old menace into the modern world. Where it actually came from is immaterial to the core of the story, suffice it to say that it was backwards and primitive. Such a menace could only come from there, because modern England has no such excentrities. Superstition gives way to science anyway, and that is why the horror is fought with scientific methods. Like blood transfusions. Modern curative treatments to combat supernatural diseases, and they work for a time for the anemia. Enter A. van Helsing, the alter ego of the author. He says it from the outset, the strength of the vampire is that nobody wants to believe in him! This artifice saved Stokers novel and brought tension into this otherwise boring story where the author has maneuvered himself into a bad spot. The all knowing protagonist directs the cast of the male support to save Mina Harker from the monster. The end of the story is extremely lackluster and it is not helped that the corpse appeared to have facial features of peace in death. This story is not really good but it had so many themes in it that were scandalous to the mindset of the 1890ies. It therefore fascinated the people then. If you read it now it seems overly verbose, fraught with purple prose and presents a view of sexuality that was seen risque and daring in 1890, but to us it is tame and lame.
What, Dracula untold...sucks? Well Dracula is a sucker, he suckles.....and the movie is a work of art. It shows us the true power of Dracula...like never before.....what are you even talking about?!
Oldman killed it
He was wild and goofy and ridiculous and kinda stupid ... I loved every second of it
Have you actually read the whole novel or have just ran over the summary.
Cause I think a perfectly good adaptation of the novel is very easily possible with a 10 hr long movie. Obviously divided in 3-4 parts.
Somebody has to hire a producer who has the balls to sponsor it and a director who'll stick rigidly to the source material.
That's about it... I guess. 🤷🏻♂️
What age would you recommend for this? Because my English teacher (Year 10 in UK/9th grade in America) made us watch this. Idk it seemed a little intense with the gore, and in some of the scenes, a lot of us were somewhat uncomfortable.
@Donald Hysa Yup
@Donald Hysa ??
Why would you watch this in school. It doesn’t keep to the books very closely. It is rated to be tv 14 but I dont think thats a good idea to show it in a public school 😅🧛🏻♂️🥀🩸
I say “books” because they made reference to Dracula’s guest which was a short narrative published after the publication of the original by Bram stoker.
wasn't dracula only weakened by sunlight in the original story?
I love how you use Tchaikovsky as a BG music
The problem was Mark Gatiss
what was the name of the dracula movie shown at 2.27 mark , I have been looking for this adaptation for so long.
Really good review. I think a faithful adaptation can work, because it's never been done. If it were an HBO or Netflix series that would be amazing, with a great director; Neil Jordan, Julie Taymor, or Del Toro. Roger Deakins as cinematographer, for the script Neil Gaiman, with Fassbender as Dracula. Of course there could be some changes (Renfield could be a competent servant & psychopath?). Imagine stunning visuals of eastern Europe & London, late 19th century, actors so immersed in the story they need therapy afterwards.
DUDE WHY YOU THINK DRACULA UNTOLD SUCKED? ELABORATE
Because it's an ugly, cgi - filled mess that's clearly more focused on evoking Nolan's Batman Begins than the original Dracula story.
Luke Evans is a capable actor, but none of his talent shows in this bland and unengaging performance.
The cinematography is bland, the writing is beyond boring and even the action scenes are just boring.
I'm not against reinterpreting the Dracula story as long as it still makes Dracula scary, not the anti-hero...
@@FilmEye honestly the reinterpretation as dracula as the hero is a genious idea, and the nolan type is perfect for it, now i agree that they may have use too much cgi without the story developing itself first , but dude come on , we are on 2020, nobody scares any more with horror movies, i think this change was necessary . The other thing i could i agree with you , is that was not well executed. I give you that. And as for the story , was pretty accurate.
It definitely wasn't accurate though...
@@FilmEye it was not 100 % , but it is hollywood, do adress which part..
Well it doesn't follow the plot of the novel at all... It's trying to tell a story that's only briefly hinted at in the novel, if at all. The whole Vlad thing is a known INFLUENCE of Bram Stoker's Dracula, but it's never expressly stated in the book how he became this way.
They ruined Lucy, Mina, killed off Jonathan and even Dracula suddenly decided he wanted to die? Lame
The lead actor seemed like a poor mans version of Tom Ellis
The first two episode's were pretty good mainly because the actor playing Dracula was very good but the show has a very very very poor ending once I found out who wrote the show I understand why the guy is a hack that can't finsh a show as good as it starts which is very important to me
Well done on Dark - isn't it the BEST! I'd be interested to hear what you think about Carnival Row...So far I am a big fan as I am of everything you've said in this video list so far!
Carnival Row... I watched a couple episodes but it didn't really hook me at the time. Might give it another try later down the line.
Dont bother after ep. 2. It’s as if the director, writers and the whole film production crew quit after the 2nd show & the series was scrapped after a team of pampered 20-year old british university students took over.
This show sucked if you've read the novel. Van Helsing was annoying af and the end didnt make any sense
SPOILERS:
van helsing basically defeated dracula with "logic" and he killed himself ok?
Dracula should have just said "thanks for making me realise i dont die in sunlight" (which btw wasnt even a thing in the novel anyway) and snapped her neck, going on to live forever and kill millions of people in the future.
what movies get wrong about dracula is that they try to make him human, in the novel he is an animal working on instinct, he is an outlier that has figured out how to be a more effective vampire which is what makes him so dangerous, while other vampires are basically video game npcs just attacking victims mindlessly and goes to bed at the end of the day.
dracula, as van helsing in the novel puts it, has a baby brain. if he had the mind of an adult person he would be unstoppable and thats why they have to hurry and kill him before he teaches what he has learned to other vampires (buying real estate, being friendly to humans etc) Dracula is not a genius, he's actually quite fucking dumb in the novel, its just that at night he is basically non corporeal and no stakes or silver would hurt him so killing him would be impossible. Harker could have killed Dracula at the start but he hit Dracula's forehead instead of neck.
A brilliant analysis. Great to hear from a fellow enthusiast of the book. I do agree that a faithful adaptation might not work but would love Netflix or someone big like that to try. They came close in 1992 but ruined it with the love story.
My only disagreement was with the 2020 BBC version which sucked more than anything has sucked in the history of suckyness
John Heffernan delivers an insanely great performance, regardless of the show’s MANY shortcomings. I mostly liked the first episode, and couldn’t stand the remaining.
actually when you explain it like that in 2022 the core themes of the fear of the unknown, or the fear of the old world/supernatural could almost work better since as a society we are so insanely reliant on convenience technology, modern medicines, etc. It would just have to come up with an entirely new antagonist, set of abilities/rules to bd the foil for the modern world.
instead of borrowing from the myths and legends early-mid AD europe, it could be some myths and legends of evil(spitural or physical) from a culture from thousands of years ago in another part of the world. You could have a series that had the core concepts/themes of dracula without dracula himself.
The problem was that the entire thing was a dumpster fire.
People used to say Lord of the Rings was unfilmable to be faithful to the source material. And they said it about Watchmen as well. Yet, they exist.
You only think it wouldn't work because you have an incredibly narrowminded simple view on things, and you are evidently incapable of thinking outside the box.
Coppola's movie wasn't bad for trying to be too faithful to the novel. Ironically, that movie is the mess it is BECAUSE of it's departures. If it just stayed more truthful and faithful to the novel, and if maybe we had three movies to tell it? I DO think it could have worked.
Does it require a true passionate visionary to do it? Sure, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.
I'll agree that it's not impossible to make faithful adaptations of famously difficult source material (fingers crossed that Netflix's Sandman is good), and Lord of the Rings stands as one of my all time favourite films, but it does make a lot of deviations from the text. The great thing about it is that it stays true with the core values of the story, or replaces the ones it can't adapt with powerful and relevant alternatives.
However, Watchmen is a clear example of an unfaithful adaptation in my eyes, transforming a narrative that exists to argue against the concept of superheroes, displaying them as violent rogues that play by their own rules (to a fault), into one that glorifies that violence and presents it as a virtue or something to strive for.
Obviously I'm simplifying for the sake of length, but while I enjoy aspects of Watchmen, much like I enjoy aspects of Dracula... I don't consider either a good adaptation.
@@FilmEye With Watchmen, that's because of the tone and style, not the pacing. It still shows that it could have worked, just with better directing.
And for the record, I think Coppola's movie is garbage.
the series had a very interesting and rather different start to it. although we are already familliar with the character of Count Dracula, it would be so much better if they separated an entire episode to introduce him properly and then made another which explained his origin and motives in detail. it would also be better if the series was split into multiple episodes, all devoted to one of the key elements found in each of the three episodes. i wasn't very fond of the modern day setting that took place nearing the end of ep. 2, but even so it would be better if they left that part open for a proper season 2. lastly, the entire story felt so rushed and cramped together in a way that it left little space for immersion and depth for characters and its setting. in the novel, it takes around 2 chapters for Jonathan Harker to realize that he is trapped within the castle and that the count is indeed a monster. in the series, jonathan's whole transformation and turn to madness all happen in less than 25 minutes.
Did everybody know about Dracula when Nosferatu came out? I think it's after Dracula goes pop culture that we know all, in my opinion we need a more savage depiction... wonder how this Nosferatu remake will be.
I did enjoy the first episode but having his victim dream while he feeds didn't work for me, and neither did the idea that blood holds memory, information etc that we have to learn to read..... would he think like a cow after raw steak I wonder
This Dracula's ability reminds me from anime style called genjutsu that make the victim had a sweetdream or nightmare, and the ending it just like Itachi kill Izumi. And that coming from the victim's skin it's like Orochimaru. I think Moffat is a bit of weeb🗿😂
Gary Oldman is the best film version of Dracula. But this Dracula is probably the best out of all the mediums.
For me the Episode 3 is the one that ruined it for me.
Because the book is boring as hell(except when Harkers in the castle)....and modern adaptations are necessary,otherwise you're just re-telling the exact same story.
third episode was kinda meh, what redeemed it for me was that nice ending
episode 3 wasn't great but i think converting to modern day was the best way to wrap the series up because it meant they had lots of ways to tie loose ends. if they hadnt i think they would've had to continue with way more episodes set in the same time period which could've become tedious
Wait. Why do you think Dracula Untold sucks?
all the walls of Nosferatu tells the story :
he was a warlord who found an army of Nosferatu > come to find out he was not the original but the one with a sir-name >
vampires were once servant to humanity like the Nefelum before the fall > they blamed A hybrid human none as lilith as there creature her fall scattered the vampires + the unarmed > Dracula picked up the moniker because he seen something " the last fall in the knew world his death didn't separate the vampire people but United them in belief < and the sequel That Never Was began> raising Dracula from the dead or keeping his memory alive
minnie none pure bloods stepped in to insure the legacy of the vampire species as humans
3ed chapter the dopamine discovery and the sickness that plagues them all
the need for purity in condemnation and continuity
all came with war units and armys the son of the
dragons > Vlood carried Vladimir's scepter into battle against a more influential enemy > industrial science and the debunked church with out god they were voided
and the Christian Church was separated half on the hunt for extinction of the opposed > dopamine was now the most powerful "resource" for everyone not living forever but too be high > drugs of the 70s and 80s killed the zombie virus and made something much more settled the power of resistance. to all temptations but the opposite left tainted blood leaving vampires to starvation.
thank you for reading
The only problem was his teeth and they didn't make another season.
I saw this maybe last year and I hated it the more it went on. I'm glad it wasn't long or I might have dropped it altogether.
This essay would get at best a C+ in my Adaptation Theory class. And everyone's bitter reaction to the third episode's 'contemporization' is so incredibly ironic and astounding!
Oh so you’re one of those “I’m giving you a low grade because I disagree with your valid opinions” type of teacher. Literally the cancer of academia.
who cares if the book and tv series are close? they are different. the tv show owes nothing to the book. it is it's own work of art and stands alone. if you want to say one is better than another, fair, but the tv show is not bad just bc it's not like the book
Exactly right about the 3rd episode , loved the first 2 , but Dracula has no place in the modern era IMO
to me christopher lee is the best dracula
This channel is going places.
Thank you so much!
Dracula one of my favorite super heroes alongside Chucky
I just noticed Americans don’t pronounce the letter “t” when it’s inside a word. It’s always a “d”sound
Weird...
I'm not American though 😁
@@FilmEye I notice a lot of Americans say “impordent” Etc. Your not American? Canadian?
Nope!
I'm not a native English speaker
@@FilmEye you don’t sound British or any other uk accent. You sound American
@@paulcolbourne5555 I'm not British either! Though I do currently live in the UK.
I was born in Spain!
The effects were ok, the woke garbo overload tho
Uploader you should try watching Castlevania anime
Black lucy is the worst of this series
thanks hollywood for making fake vampires !
The original Dracula by B.S. is a long boring story. The movie 1994 was better. But the series 2020 is a perfection
The 2013 Dracula TV show is so much better then this shit. I only watched the first episode of this three episode travesty, and was immediately pissed and stopped watching.
Lucy looked like Oprah
its ok
Would have worked better as an adaption of Draculas Guest?
This guy knows his Dracula... Maybe?
@@FilmEye You callin me a bloke?
Apologies. No offense intended. "This here is one wise in the ways of Dracula"
Nice video
I watched it netflix dracula is utter trash
This adaptation was cringingly right on with all the Woke boxes ticked.
Just typical of the BBC today.
Ghastly.
Too many stupid choices made by the characters. Mina inviting Johnny in, gay guy closes the curtains and instead of opening the curtains again he grabs a cross to hold it to Dracula.. And than the deaf girl just stands there and instead of opening the curtains she grabs the poison and drinks it🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️.. And episode 3 sucks from start till finish