|
Dracula Bram Stoker in 1897 Penguin Classic; 1REV edition (Feb 25 2003) |
|
Dracula Francis Ford Coppola, in 1992
|
Vampire stories attract and haunt me. I did not see the movie in theater and promptly rented it when released. The memory of the movie was vivid.
When daughter got the book, I asked to enter it to my reading queue. This one surfaced to the top recently. It has been a slow read. But I was prepared after Lord of the Rings. They are old English to me; both very good read.
After the book, I had the urge to watch the movie again. I found my memory was not vivid at all. What? Keanu Reeves was in the movie! In general, the actings were poor, but Winona was lovely.
The depature from the book is interesting. Mina became a weaker character and had an ancient love connection with Dracula. The movie has a more dramatic ending that reinforced the tag line: Love Never Dies. I cannot really recommend the movie.
Modern vampire books have since developed an order for the undead world: how vampires proliferate, their relationship with human, werewolves, sun lights, etc. The Interview with the Vampire, Underworld, and Blade series all followed that order. I am very intrigue that the original book does not really have it.
The book survived more than 100 years. It captivated me for days and reminded me the joy of fictions. The movie has faded into the obliviousness in 17 short years, except for the visual of the aged Dracula that stays vividly imprinted.
Maybe they should remake the movie. I will propose a cast to Hollywood.
Not.