I sure hope this book can one day be carried around in a smaller, more flexable version than the hardcover. It'd be a lot easier to pass it around and spread the word. Any plans to publish it in paperback? Ever?

A real check-your-brain-at-the-door film. I don't think I'm giving anything away when I say, If you want to kill people, you don't use flash-bang grenades.

Some surprises, though. People you assume are going to survive...don't.

FF= 0.5 (stuuuuupid but I kept watching)

I pre-ordered this - to be release May 3rd, and Amazon says it's been delayed. Anyone know what the new release date is?
-danmac

Scott Hajek asked for it, so here it is:

Let me preface this by saying that Bram Stoker's Dracula, the NOVEL, is quite probably my favorite book of all time. I have read it several times (not all that common for me these days) and each time I discover new things about it. That being said:

Love
My Love of "Bram Stoker's Dracula" lies mainly in two things: visual and aural. The score by Wojciech Kilar is simply brilliant in my opinion. It does repeat themes a few times but is overall one of the best scores I have ever heard. It is a modern version of a classical symphony. Then there is the eerily beautiful Love Song for a Vampire by Annie Lennox at the end. When I first saw the movie I thought it seemed out of place, but now I can't think of a better way to end the "album." Check out the soundtrack/score if you get the chance.

Second is the look of the movie. I think it is visually stunning. The set designs, the costumes, the color schemes, the photography.... all are beauties to behold. It is quite simply a gorgeous film.

Hate
First and foremost, this is NOT Bram Stoker's Dracula. Stoker's Dracula was NOT a love story (Tagline for the movie: Love Never Dies). It was a pure horror novel. The movie was more akin to Fred Saberhagen's Dracula, in my opinion, based on The Vampire Tape. I've read this book and enjoyed it to an extent, but it is nearly the polar opposite of Bram Stoker's work.

Next is Dracula himself. The character of Dracula was not a poor misguided soul who just wanted to be loved, as he was portrayed in the movie. He was a VAMPIRE, a killer of the highest order. There was no love in him. This may be a symptom of (as FPW said) the benevolent vampires of the 90's, etc. I couldn't handle this. Dracula is an enemy to be hated, not pitied.

Now on to the cast.... First of all, Keanu Reeves - NOT! Reeves is not the correct type of actor for this movie (regardless of what you think of his talent). I happen to like the selection of Oldman, as stated above, because of his "performance" ability. If others don't fine. I'm not going to argue. The women characters were forgettable in the movie. I tend to think that Winona Ryder was just about as wrong for the part of Mina as Reeves was for Jonathon Harker. The "secondary" characters of Seward, Holmwood, and Quincy Morris (my personal favorite) had much more important roles collectively in the book than in the movie. There was simply no emotional involvement (other than Oldman) in any of the actors' performances. For example, the scene in the book in which Van Helsing (more on that shortly) and Arthur Holmwood enter the crypt of Lucy to destroy her vampire self is a jumble of emotions: fear, love, pity, horror, sadness. I get verklempt each time I read it. In the movie, it is simply a shocking bloodfest. Unforgivable.

Lastly, Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing. Hopkins is a gifted actor whom I normally like quite a bit. In this movie he is pure rubbish, in my opinion. He exemplifies everything that is wrong with this movie. He seems placed there for comic effect, unleashing one-liners. I've read theories that Hopkins' Van Helsing is actually a vampire himself (similar to Grandpa in The Lost Boys). The disturbing thing is that I can actually see that in his performance in the movie. It is an atrocity.

This movie deserved SO MUCH MORE.


Rant over.

Jim

Despite its PC, DNC-approved storyline, my finger stayed off the FF botton. But then, just about anything with Gary Oldman will capture me.

FF Rating: 0

This wasn't bad. I'd heard a disparaging word or two about it, but I found it diverting. I give it an FF rating* of 1, which means I was engaged. Maybe because of the villains, who I found more interesting than the heroine, though the girl who played Abby was good. But why-why-why did Jennifer Garner stroll around like a model on a catwalk? (Halle Berry did the same in Catwoman.) It's so unatural and very, very hokey.

* My brand-new rating system, gauged by use of the FF button in increments of 10% of running time. If I FF'd through a tenth of the film (ie, 9 minutes of a 90-min film), its FF rating is 1. Thus, the lower the FF rating, the higher my level of engagement. (Note, I didn't say the better the film. Crap can engage me.)

This is a must see only if you're a big fan of the George Romero zombie series. While 'Land' has its moments, for instance the zombies coming out of the river and entering the city, it has huge drawbacks, like no one can here a slow, shuffling zombie until after it's on top of them and either biting them or about to. I don't want to give away the whole thing, but I thought the concept of the zombies becoming smarter was pretty cool, but I didn't really like how Romero handled it. I'd give it 2 out of 4 corpses.

Check this one out. Biggles, it involved a lawyer.....

http://www.killsometime.com/Video/video....t-Shooting

Watch it all the way through and it tells whether or not the lawyer was shot.

Got this via e-mail:

Any suggestions for a small-caliber semi-auto (.22 maybe?) pistol for close-up kills that can be fitted with a suppressor? (And not the P-98 used in ATR).