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.

I was skeptical about this show as it sounded generic. "Dracula"... really? The most famous vampire ever? But half-way through the first episode I realized this show was showing some surprising depth, not to mention top notch acting, beautiful cinematography, and a solid soundtrack. All I hear from naysayers is that this isn't Dracula according to Bram Stoker. So what? Do we want that same old stuff recycled forever? Or can we just enjoy a retelling of a famous name and not get bogged down by nitpicking?

The show is compelling thus far. Let's hope it at least gets a full season. NBC is showing some signs of life with this one, hopefully they don't ax it early like is the norm these days in network television.

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.

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.

I don't care if there is inaccurate things about this show. Or that it does not follow the typical lore of what a vamp can do etc. It is dark, it is engrossing, you feel the underlining essence of foreboding evil. Old Dracula didn't hate what he was, didn't care whom he killed. The new one is not far from that. But he wants to be a mortal man again. To have the life he had stolen when they killed his wife. But with Mina, whom he feels is his wife reborn. He doesn't just want to whisk her away as his vampire bride to Transylvania. The show is such a surprise. The cast of characters interwoven and so different from Stoker's story. Each episode doesn't rap up the story in a neat little bow by hour's end. It continues, pulling you in each time. It is a cinematic journey. I have to remind myself it's a TV show not an ongoing movie. Watch from the start or you will be lost. The lead becomes his character. Not just acts it.