I thought the movie butchered the novel. Of course, most Dracula movies do. But this one had the pretense of being the most faithful to the book, of which it was not. I'm sure it was a good movie on it's own merits, I suppose. But I just couldn't get around the Mina/Dracula thing. The love story between Mina and Dracula was preposterous, even for a fantasy film. I really don't see why this girl was worth saving from undeath. Because screwing around with the evil monster that raped/murdered her best friend and tortured/kidnapped her husband for all eternity was obviously what this dumb bitch wanted. So I say let her join her Drac's Slut Brigade. The scene where he makes her drink his blood was meant, in the novel, to be symbolic of a rape scene. It was meant to horrify, not titillate. Mina, in the book, despised the guy and wanted him dead. It made her much more sympathetic, and a much stronger character IMO.
Dracula was an evil piece of shit in the novel, so I really didn't care for the sympathetic view of him. He was a mass murdering monster in life, and glorified rapist in death so I really didn't see how or why I was supposed to have sympathy for him. Oh, right. Dead wife. I forgot.
In the book, there is a love story there. But it's between Mina and - here's the shocker - her actual husband. Not that Drac had much competition here. Reeves is awful as always when he tries to act, but John Boy is written as such a pathetic wimp(who's way too dumb to realize that his wife is just a big ol' whore) that it's impossible to get behind the guy. This is in contrast to the novel Harker, who gradually becomes a vamp-killing badass.
I mean there were some highlights I guess. It was Coppola, so it was very well directed. The mood was as perfect as you can get. The vamp sluts were hot as shit. Hopkins was perfect as Van Helsing. But other then that, I didn't really care for it. Mostly because of the false advertising. I'm still waiting for a faithful version to come out.