Dracula in Love by Karen Essex

Dracula in Love by Karen Essex

My rating: 3 of 5 stars


I really enjoy reading this one. I liked the portrait of the characters, especially Mina whom I have to admit I never liked very much I always had a thing for Lucy. The story and especially how K.Essex told it was interesting and it adds new angles to the story of Dracula. I did also enjoy the fact that Dracula is not supposed to be the rencarnation of everything evil and wrong and immoral and that for a change humans were the bad guys. However, I didn't like the ending. Why stick to the original or why not so us some years ahead... If you read the novel you'll know that she could have satisfied us with ahappy ending eventually. You can always imagined it, but I would wish to see it written as well. If you like Dracula I think you will find this a rather interesting reading.



View all my reviews

Marc Warren, Sophia Myles, David Suchet
My rating: 1 of 5 stars

Plot Summary:
In this version the plot centers around Lord Arthur Holmwood (Dans Stevens), who after his engagement to the beautiful Lucy Westenra (Sophia Myles), discover that his father immoral, lustful life has given him syphilis (he contacted the illeness in his bieth and so did his mother who as we are informed killed herself). He neither wishes to expose Lucy to the deadly decease nor break up their engangement and so he joines a weird, obscur cult who promises that can give him a cure if he brings Dracula to England.



The latest production of Dracula is or had the potential of being a very interesting take on the very well none story of Count Dracula, but it failes miserably. I mean he had the actors, the costumes, the amazing settings and a good story, but somehow they managed to destroy everything.
I do not care that they have altered the original story. I actually though that concetrating on Arthur and Lucy was a very nice and original idea and the syphilis angle could have been great if they bothered to actually work those ideas. I mean it's like they had an idea and somewhere in the middle decided that they should have better stayed close to Bram Stoker's Dracula but they had filmed half ot the mini series and they didn't want to waste their money, so they changed the script somewhere in the middle. Usually I'd rather prefer that the movies stay close to the books, but I am not against re imagining something if you do it right.
  The one good thing about this production was Lucy (Sophia Myles). She is so beautiful and sexy that you understand why Dracula goes for her first. Her sex scene with the Count is quite hot and it has something that reminded me of good, old Hammer Horror films (and I seriously could have lived with seeing Sophia Myles naked boddy) despite the fact that I seriously didn't like Marc Warren as Dracula. Neither he is handsome nor charming and personally I don't think that he contributed anything to the part. As far as his acting is concerned it was rather bad and not at all convincing as Dracula. He was more like a thirty year old guy with anger management issues. Plus, the dirty nales were very disgusting.
  Mina, on the other hand, was pretty in a very innocent way as you expect her to be and I believe that she had a lot of potential but her time wasn't enough and her role as it was written was weak. She wasn't able to be the leading lady after Lucy's death, but in my personal opinion this happens because they have diminished her importance for both the movie and Dracula, so his sudden attention to her seems somewhat stranged and unexpected. The same thing happens with Van Helsing he doesn't quite fit this adaptation and he seems to be a stranger to the story.
  The plot was weak and a lot of things were unexplained or silly. I mean how is it possible that Arthur couldn't postpone the wedding due to Lucy's persistant, but he was able to resist the amazingly beautiful and hot Lucy, with whom is desperately in love, when she attemps to seduce him? Or how is it possible for dracula to be so fascinated with a single photo of Mina? Francis Ford Copolla's Dracula was reminded of his late wife Elizabetha and that is why he had that reaction, what is this guy's excuse. And what about Jonathan's close? Why did he take those? I mean for goodness shake he good have better ones. Was this all the writers could think for his first meeting with Mina? And what about Van Helsing? They imprisoned him but they let him live. Why? They clearly wanted dead everyone who knew about Dracula's existance and true nature, so why does he lives?
  To be fair, this is the first adaptation that portaits Lucy as something more than a frivolous flirt, but a real flesh and blodd woman whith real needs and desires and this is a good thing since I always though that Lucy was a far more interesting character than the holy, uninteresting, innocent Mina , but this is as fas as it goes. You can watch this if you have nothing better to do, but if you want a really good dracula movie you should try something else. If you like Sophia Myles as much as I do maybe you want considered it a total waste of time and if you are a costume lover you will enjoy them a lot since they are quite nice, especially women's dresses.

The Three Musketeers (2011)

My rating: 0 of 5 stars

Seriously, with this one I do not know where to start. Well, if you love the book of A.Dumas and if you where anxious to see a decente adaptation of if it DO NOT watch this movie. Absolutely not. I mean seriously I have seen bad adaptations before, but this one is way worst from anything that comes to mind.

If you haven't seen the movie you should be wondering what is wrong with it. Well let's start with the title. Why is it called "The three musketeers" I have absolutely no idea. Not only the plot and the characters have nothing in common with the story of Dumas -nothing but the names of course- but the whole idea of the musketeers and France at this era has been utterly changed and tranformed into something alien and kitsch.

Apart from the fact that they used the popularity of Duma's novel to sell tickets, this movie is very but on it's one. The plot is too loose, the story is not interesting enough, the characters are non-existant, neither bad nor good. Neither villans nor heroes. D'Artagnan is a cocky highschool boy who believes himself to be handsome and brave, the three musketeers are handsome and do some decent sword fighting but the writer or the director didn't bother to exploit their chemistry and do something nice with them and their friendship.

As far as the plot -which plot?- is concerned, well I couldn't make much sense of it and I often wondered if they actually had a script or if they were just running wild in the set. However if they did have a script they should have burned it and read Dumas novel so they would know that Milady was the arch-enemy of the musketeers and never ever worked with them and she was also Athos wife, before he ever consedered being a musketeer. That the affair between the Queen and the Duke of Buckingham was a fact and one of the things that make the story of the musketeers so interesting and that the fleur-de-lis which was branded on Milady's shoulder is essential and absolutely nessesary for understanding her character and for making this story a really good one.

And Milady, ohhh my all time favorite femme fatal. One of the best villains ever writen, charming, full of mystery and sorprises, resourceful and capable of manipulating her way out of almost every possible difficulty. My eternal beauty. My angel with heart of stone. An iconic figure has been turned into nothing. I have been searching all night to find another interpration of a character as bad as this one and seriously nothing comes to mind. I mean even Uma Therman's Poison Ivy is a masterpiece compared to this atrocity. I mean Milla's Milady couldn't even be a comic. Such a waste, such a pity. I mean seriously with Milla's beautiful face they could have done great things with the character but allas they converted her into a trushy red-headed bitch who for some mysterious reason she has Nio's ability to duck bullet's.

Seriously, this is a bad movie, as bad as it can possible be. For our cinema's sake let's hope it cannot be any worst.

DO NOT watch it. Forget it ever happened.

Camelot (2011)

My rating: 3.5 of 5 stars

Since I am a huge fan of the Arthurian saga, I am always on the look out for new adaptations of the myth. So as you can imagine I was very much excited about this show when I first heard it was coming out, but I am afraid that I was rather dissapointed because I did have much higher expectations.

 "You are not made of Kings, boy!"

Fist of all, I honestly did not like Jamie Campbell Bower as King Arthur. I mean seriously apart from the fact that he is a blonde, scrawny feminine male lead the boy cannot act. Seriously. He like empty of air and blood walking around trying to pretend that he is the one and future King. I totally found myself wishing Morgan -Eva Green- will kick his pathetic, blonde ass.

On the other hand Morgan was an amazing excellent choice. Eva Green brings something really new and fresh in the role of Morgan Pendargon and although you can see how seriously wrong she is about Igraine you can totally understand why and feel for her. I mean she was just a little girl whose mother was murdered by her own barbarian father and was send away in a nunery. Can you rwally blame her for hating Igraine? I definately cannot. She is a very human, kick ass, amazingly impressive Igraine. All she has to do is walk in the room and your blood is freezing! I did like her voice and how she spoke her lines and that extra edge which she puts in every word and how she drugs her voice. I do wish we had a little more information about what was going on on that nunery of hers and maybe just maybe a few flashbacks.

Now, Tamsin Egerton is very beautiful. So beautiful, I am feeling sorry that I did not like her Guinevere. I did not found her acting good and sometimes she looked like she was bored, but then again with that Arthur why she wouldn't be. I did not think there was chemistry between her and Arthur, but I did like her with Leontes and I have to admit that she was more alive with him. Another think is that I keep wondering how the writers where excactly planning to continue the story and lead her to meet the love of her life Lancelot without her being a total floozy that makes a habbit of cheating her husband. However I did like the way the built the story and how the distinction between how things really happened and how the legend of  King Arthur says they did. An excellent example is how the story of the Lady of the Lake and the sword in the stone was created.

Merlin and Igraine were interesting characters and well-portraited and there story was really worth watching and I do wish they had more screen time.

I actually enjoyed Camelot because I did like the way it told the story and because of the kick ass Morgan, but it could have been such a better show if they haven't miscasted Arthur and it would have been such a welcome surprise if I actually didn't wish Morgan to have it all, the Pedragon castle, Camelot, the crown and Guinivere so that she can show the little brat how things are done!

Jeune fille by Anne Wiazemsky

Jeune fille by Anne Wiazemsky

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


In the spring of 1965 the French director Robert Bresson asked a17 year old girl, Anne Wiazemsky, to be his leading lady in his next movie "Au Hasard Balthasar".
Forty years after her first cinematographic experience Anne is wondering if  he wasever in love with her.
"Jeune Fille" is a book immensely exciting in its amazing simplicity with well portraited characters and a story as interesting as only life can write. It describes the addictive, possesive and controlling relationship between Anne and Bresson and how that changed her life for ever. Those two had a chemistry despite their age difference and they had intense feelings for each other, but it never stoped them from hearting each other at various points. Bresson had a power over Anne and although he was known for treating his actors in a possesive, authoritan way he did go over the edge with her. They were leaving in the same house, with adjoying bedrooms and he tried to control every part of her life in and out of the set and he did try to stop her from developping any king of relatioship with other members of the crew, keeping her a 'prisoner'. Anne felt strongly about Bresson and admired him deeply and strangely enough he was the reason that her sex life started. She took a lover, someone from the crew in a desperate attemp to regain a little control over her life and escape Bresson's control. Bresson grew so possessive over her that on finishing filming Au Hasard Balthasar asked her for the role of Guinivere in "Lancelot du Lac" on condition that she will never film with anyone other than him. Of course this never came to pass but its an excellent example of their relationship.
This is a book about a girl leaving her safe world and middle class family in order to enter the dazzling world of cinema and the adulthood under rather strange but also amazingly interesting circumstances. I remembered how it was when I was her age and I found myself thinking that I was ,at times, like her.

“I have been happy with you”, Anne told him.
“Me, too. Living near you has given me a great deal. . . your youth has made me young. . . Often I was your age. . . You will understand later on . . . later”
And, thus it is later Anne Wiazemsky will write one of the very best books I read this year. A pure wonder, simple but absolute. An excellent piece of literature.



View all my reviews

Crazy Ladies by Michael Lee West

This is a story about 6 unforgetable southern women- Miss Gussie; her daughters, Dorothy and Clancy Jane; Gussie's granddaughters, Violet and Bitsy; and Queenie, who had been with Miss Gussie's maid.
The book starts with a young Miss Gussie trying to calm her daughter Dorothy who has a colic and ending up killing a serial rapist in defense of herself and this is only the begining of misfortunes, tragedies, wrong desicions, misunderstandings and wrong desicions that those 6 women will make in a story takes place over 40 years, from 1932 to 1972.
The characters are well drawn and what I found really interesting is that I found a little piece of myself in every single one. While I was reading the book I tried to indentify myself with one of the characters especially Dorothy or Clancy Jane and I realised that depending the occasion I was all of them. That made them real and I ended up to really care about them. Especially poor Dorothy who was so mitreated by everyone and especially by her own mother. She was so sad and unloved thatt it was no surprise that she ended up like she did. She was a little crazy but honestly who isn't.
The story was interesting and had some unexpected turns and it was writen in a very nice style. It's woman had her own voice so you could actually see the story from everyone's point of view. Quite post-modern now that I come to think about it.
I cjoose this book because I liked the title and because the summary reminded me of "Divine secrets of the Ya Ya sisterhood" which is one of my most favorite books and it is about southern crazy ladies as well. I really liked and it was easy to read and I highly recommended to anyone who is into that short of fiction, but it didn't superpass the "Divine secrets of the Ya ya sisterhood"

Winter in Madrid

Winter in Madrid by C.J. Sansom

My rating: 2 of 5 stars


The sroty takes place after the civil war and during WW2 in Spain. The author must have done quite a research and I think he captures the atmosphere of Madrid at that period quite nicely.
This had a potential to be a really great novel.I mean there was a war, a traitor, a reluctant spy, an abused woman and a love triangle, but unfortunately it didn't live up to my expectations.The story had potentials but I didn't like the way the author painted the characters.In my opinion he was far more concentrated in the historical events so the characters of the book elude him completely. I mean I can understand why Harry turns out to be so bitter after loosing the love of his life but why he was so pathetic and indifferent in the beginingof the novel I cannot tell.And how about Barbara why was she so traumatized because some kids were teasing her about her hair? As far as I am concerned the characters were very little described/analysed and somehow they do not feel complete.They are more fragments of a personality than a whole complete person which you can love or hate. I remained indifferent to them through out the whole book. The only character that intriguided me a little was Sandy the villain of the story but then again he was not portraited as he should have been.
Another thing that bothered me is that none of the love stories was believable and I really could not warm up to any of the 2 couples of the book. Simply you cannot understand why those people love its other. Its something sudden and inexplicable and maybe that is what love is but the author failed to described it a way that will make the reader feel part of the magic that is love and being in love. It's simple something that happens in order to continue the narrative of the story.It's really a pity because I do love a nice well portraited love story.
The book on the whole was not bad it was easily read and I quite enjoyable especially for describing Spain in such hard and controversial times, but it lacked really nice, interested, well portraited characters that will make you feel about them and become part of their story



View all my reviews