Dracula

Dracula is a story that has been done as many times as Pride and Prejudice, sometimes as a success (Bram Stoker's Dracula being a personal favourite), sometimes as a complete utter failure (Dracula 3000).

Thankfully, this version starring Jonathan Rhys Meyers is one towards the successful end of the spectrum. While most of the supporting cast are mediocre, Jonathan Harker, a character often mocked, (looking at you Keanu), here has a very different story than the original, something that was fresh and enjoyable. Oliver Jackson Cohen does a smashing job as Harker, second only to Mr. Dracul himself. Rhys Meyers plays a three-piece suit clad Dracula in this 10 episode series with grace and equal parts cunning and danger. Thomas Kretschmann as a secondary character has given Dr. Van Helsing a new outlook as well.

Overall, this is a retelling of an oft repeated story, could have been done better and yet, done better than most.

Dracula has been done more times than pretty much any other story, and it's difficult to create something new in that kind of environment. Nevertheless, this incarnation, if done well, could be an incredibly compelling series, even if only to fanatics of the original. The titular character is made substantially more complex, both with a historical back-story (ala Bram Stoker's Dracula) and the incorporation of a Count of Monte Cristo-like persona into the vampire myth.

The novel Dracula was already a polyphonous one (being told through letters of various people), and by taking select bits of the original dialogue and mixing them into a more wide-scale (but interesting) context, each character is given a chance to be shown and developed in an organic way.

It's stylish, fairly atmospheric, and the dialogue is both era-appropriate and mostly lacking in clichés. Overall, it was nice to see show creators who seemed to genuinely want to do something creative rather than just going through the motions (such as in "Agents of Shield."). Who knows if Dracula will pan out well, but it's definitely worth seeing if it does.

Have to say without reservation that I will watch both Thomas Kretschmann and Jonathan Rhys Meyers in anything they choose. I would watch them sitting and staring at a wall for an hour because I know both are talented enough to make it interesting. Pairing the two and pitting them against a shadowy shared foe should prove interesting and I'm intrigued enough to want to know more. I like the lavishness of the production value and enjoy hearing all the names familiar to the novel, though with different interpretations. The character of Renfield has certainly taken a unique twist, and oh my goodness the shining Lady Jayne definitely has some secrets, doesn't she? Throwing in Thomas Edison, Nikola Tesla and the magnetosphere doesn't hurt. Flashlights didn't exist, eh? Well, do vampires? Take it for what it is, an imaginative derivation of a tale that still enthralls. I for one will keep watching, and probably re-watching to catch what I miss.

Some reviewers obviously disliked this show. Yes, there is a lot of historical sloppiness such as flashlights before the dry cell and incandescent electric bulb were invented (Google "history of flashlight"), or the use of dry ice at the opera (dry ice was invented, but not in widespread use as their was no commercial manufacturing or distribution yet), how Jonathan Rhys Myers (Dracula) can mimic an American accent (presumably without having been there) are all flaws, however these nuances shouldn't ruin the total viewing experience, and I don't think they did.

This show is a completely new approach to the Dracula story--it would seem the only thing in common with previous versions is that Dracula is a powerful vampire who shuns daylight. Other than that, pretty much everything about the story seems to be original. There are familiar characters like Renfield and Van Helsing, however in this story they are completely different than in past depictions, with totally different motives and purpose in Dracula's life.

I'll give it a couple of more episodes to see if it thumbs up or down, but it wasn't too bad for a series premiere, just a little sloppy.

UPDATE: Episode 2 Well despite the rant trying to say my facts are wrong and the writer's are correct (just Google to see for yourself), Episode 2 came forward with the same sloppiness. The storyline carried on, but the story is already getting tired. Same old Dracula where for some reason, he kills in the middle of the street, makes a bloody mess, then looks up and growls before continuing his meal. Grrrr?

An actress uses a quotation written in 2008, "The Devil you know...." Time travel? The fencing scene has the actors wearing modern, lightweight fencing masks and modern form-fitting suits... These consistent flaws aside, its been revealed (by obviously a writer of the show) that Dracula's American accent will be explained, as prequel episodes are forthcoming.

Having read other reviews, I was half expecting that I would be disappointed. However, I am glad to say that I was far from disappointed. This really has the makings of a great series. Yes, it strays far from the original and well known story, but it keeps the premise. It is this very difference that makes it great viewing. I am surprised it has not been done sooner. Full marks to the writers and producer for showing great vision. It has a great story, excellent script, fantastic settings and brilliant acting. The naysayers, need to remember that this is entertainment, and not a historical documentary/drama. I think it will appeal to a wide selection of viewers across all age ranges. I for one, look forward to watching it unfold. I recommend it highly as an hour well spent.