juegos There’s an overwhelming amount of films about Dracula out there. As I’m reflecting on all the films I’ve seen thus far, most of them are pretty mediocre. I know when most people consider a Dracula film, the first title that usually pops in their head is Francis Ford Coppola’s interpretation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Remember it? Dracula is played by Gary Oldman and Winona Ryder features as his eternal love, Mina Harker.

Maybe I set my expectations too high when I first saw this film, but I didn’t feel anything while watching it or after it was over. Many people loved it. I suspect their opinions were swayed after seeing Francis Ford Coppola highlight as the director. (He was responsible for the Godfather’s after all.)

trabajo To be fair, the overall cinematography of this film was beautifully done – it LOOKED great. It also faithfully follows Bram Stoker’s original Dracula story. What didn’t I like about it? I felt more than a few scenes were extremely slow-moving and over-dramatized. Also, it was just such a faithful rendition of the Dracula story… nothing new or intriguing to spark my imagination. This kills me since I’m a very story-driven person.

Hence, I was so thoroughly amazed the first time I watched Dracula 2000. I immediately fell in love with the Dracula myth presented in this film and it still reigns in my heart as THE explanation of how Dracula came into being and why vampires exist. Plus, Gerard Butler lends his dark good looks for the role of Dracula. (He’s the same actor who played the Phantom in the musical film version of Phantom of the Opera, representing yet another dark tortured soul who steals my heart.)

trabajar **PROCEED WITH CAUTION: SPOILERS AHEAD**

If you saw the trailer for this film you’re probably casting distrustful eyes in my direction. I whole-heartedly agree that the trailer for this film was horrendous – to be nice. It was so bad that even though I found a clip of it on YouTube, I cannot bear to include it here. And yes overall, the film itself was nothing spectacular. It was predictable, contained some pretty cheesy dialogue at times and didn’t do justice to Butler’s acting skills. The characters (vampires and non-vampires) were pretty flat and I basically went along with the film’s superficial ride to get my vampire+blood media fix for the week. That is – until the final 20 mins or so of the film when Dracula discloses his mysterious origins… then I was hooked.

According to the film, in the ancient times Dracula was still human. That’s right, still human. Those days, he was known as Judas Iscariot. In 2000, Dracula discloses his story to his love (one he’s never shared with anyone else) that he received the ultimate punishment from God for betraying Christ – he is forced to walk the world forever with his guilt. The Judas story also explains why vampires despise silver since silver pieces were involved in the ultimate betrayal. As well, it explains why Dracula is immortal and so difficult to kill – God won’t have him. As the antagonist of Christ, it makes complete sense why Judas/Dracula is such a proponent of sin and pleasure that heaven denies. It’s a very original and ingenious continuation of the biblical story.

Dracula’s flashbacks to his Judas days lasts only 5 mins but it’s such an enlightening scene. I can’t explain it, but I felt a deep sense of fulfillment and satisfaction after I learned it. Suddenly I felt like I understood Dracula so much more and where he was coming from.

If you haven’t yet, you need to see it.

One final note, I made the mistake of watching the 2 direct-to-video sequels to this film naively thinking they would offer more insight and elaboration into the Judas story. They didn’t. This storyline was forgotten and more superficial vampire killing and blood thirst replaced it. Pity You can be published without charge. You can to republish this article in your website or blog. Please provide links Active.