The obvious failings, as pointed out by my fellow comment-makers remain, are valid and will not go away. Now, as to presenting another perspective of Dracula moving to London and how he did it, well it explains it well enough. I sometimes wonder if the screenplay people, director, actors, producer and the investors READ the script before starting? I mean everything we, as an audience sees in this finished movie could have done better remains obvious, so why not correct it before the shooting? That's what bugs me! Imagine if the team brought up everything the audience sees now and said: We need to fix this or that, the movie would have taken its place with the greats. Instead, we get this? The shame of it all. Great mystery, an established creature, a willing audience, people willing to finance, and this happens? For the good news: I like a well-done, horror, sci-fi, mystery, adventure etc. Movie. If the director is on the ball, the audience can sit back and enjoy. If not, the audience has to help out. If we have to help out a lot, the movie should not have been made. This one comes close to the line in the sand. It does manage to enthrall; keep you focused and has popcorn moments. Raise the bar, and the audience will rise with you. Guys, don't do this again! But do it right the first time and I will rave and give 10 scores!
