Bram Stoker's Dracula

I am watching this On-Demand. I don't know why. For the love of Jeff, it is bad. Its like Coppola didn't even read Dracula. The movie is so very unlike the book, while at the same time trying to be the book. It is not. The opening scene shows Dracula in the 15th century, fighting Turks, seeing his dead wife, and renouncing God. This is purely made up to make the character of Dracula more human and more sympathetic. I'm sorry to say, this is not the first misstep in the retelling of this story. Dracula is not a character to be humanized, he is a character to revile. He may be the titular focus, but he is not the hero. He is purist evil, and the Gothic horror of the novel stems from the vast, complete, and uncomphrensible terror he inflicts on the characters. On a few discrepancies. The character of Renfield was not Dracula's solicitor who went crazy, he was simply a lunatic loyal to Dracula. Additionally, Jonathan did purchase all of Dracula's London properties. In fact, he doesn't even know about multiple homes until three-quarters of the way through the book. Dracula did not have a wife who he thinks is reincarnated as Mina Murray/Harker, hence giving him a motive for going to London and killing Jonathan. The class differences between Lucy Westenra and Mina Murray are non-existent in the book, because they are all from the same social class. There was nothing about "aristocracy" or "rich" people. Its a stupid invention of this film. Additionally, the overtly sexual tones of the movie are also pure fabrication. The novel is far more subtle in its eroticism. Dracula's ferocity at seeing Jonathan's blood when shaving is completely removed when he sees/touches the cross given him by the Gypsy woman. In the film, it is not. He actually freaks out more upon seeing the cross. Also, Harker openly questions and contradictions Dracula, something the pure terror he inspires should have prevented. Jonathan never outright sees a baby given to the sister vampires, only a wriggling bag, implying the contents. The subtly makes the characterization far more interesting. It is unclear early on if Jonathan Harker is confused and insane, or Dracula is in fact behind the evil. Sex with a werewolf man? Really? This movie is terrible. The wolf that escapes from the zoo coincides with Dracula's arrival. The implication is that it is in fact because of Dracula or Dracula himself in animal form. However, this atrocity implies that it happened before his arrival. Ridiculous. Also, Van Helsing is apparently the movie's narrator. WHAT!? The book has multiple narrators. Now they are drinking Absinthe. Why? No reason other than to be wrong. Fangs did not sprout in the vampire. Stoker described Dracula as having high gums, that made his incisors look like fangs. They were not additional or preternaturally long teeth, as later incarnations would have us believe. Again, poor writing in the script and faithlessness to the source material. This whole eternal love story is retarded. The novel is about the horror of unstoppable evil, not the power of love. A word about the cast. Who on earth thought Keanu Reeves, Winona Ryder, and Gary Oldman would make good actors for this movie? Its well enough, because it would have been a colossal shame to have really excellent actors wasted on such a horrendous script directed in such a boring way. Finally, and most heinously, the ending is all wrong. [Spoilers] They do not kill Dracula on the Borgo Pass, on the way home, just before nightfall. He arrives home, and breaks out of his coffin to be accompanied inside by Mina. This, while less abrupt than the novel's end, is lame and stupid and unworkable. [/Spoilers] This is a terrible movie by a director who should have known better. Coppola did the Godfather, on of the best movies of all time. I guess after such a fantastic film, nothing could live up to it, but still, its like he didn't even try. I'm sorry I have once again sat through this bastardization of my favorite novel. For shame.

Knowing

I was surprised by this movie. Roger Ebert said it was excellent, as well as some friends, so I gave it a shot. Parts a hokey, but I enjoyed it. Alex Proyas has created another very good sci-fi movie tinged with philosophy. Not all of the acting was amazing, but Cage didn't bother me as much as I feared he would. All in all, this movie was worth my time.

Wilco (The Album)

Its pretty good. Nothing mind blowing. It isn't as experimental as Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, as raw, emotional, and awesome as A Ghost is Born, or full of as many awesome licks and whatnot as Sky Blue Sky, but I like it. Keep up the good work Wilco. I'll give it a bunch more listens before I fully pass judgment on it though. It might just grow on me.

My Bloody Valentine

I can't believe I actually wanted to see this movie. Is so fucking retarded. I'm only about a third through it, and its horrid. Clearly a movie written for 3D as a gimick. Lots of shit flying toward the screen. Its rife with terrible acting, like any horror movie, but somehow worse. The quality is terrible. I can't believe I am wasting my time. Do not bother to see this movie.