Thread:AustinDR/@comment-27586321-20141103183718

Hey, this is gonna be a bit of a long rant, maybe, but I saw James Rolfe's review of Bram Stoker's Dracula. Now I have become a big fan of his movie reviews, even more than his AVGN videos. However, it seems like any time he does a review or a remake/reboot or whatever, he will simply pick the older just because it's older or because he grew up with it. It's not very objective, and he doesn't always give reasons for it or he will and they'll be weak reasons. I'm not saying he hates remakes, but he's not very fair to them. And that's wer I got to his review of the new Dracula. He complains about the backstory they gave Dracula and says they better stay close to the source material. And this is when he comes off as a bit of a hypocrite. In his John Carpenter's The Thing review, he complained about it being gory and pointed out that the original was better because it didn't need gore. Now the new one was gorry because it was more faithful to the book. And he is aware of this, yet he's bashing the film for it. NOW, he's bashing the new film for not very faithful to the book. If it didn't matter beforehand, why does it matter to him here? Did he not read the book The Thing was based on? Did he not care for it? Either way, it came off as unfair to me. And he says they shouldn't call it Bram Stoker's Dracula because of the differences, but he acknowledges that it is the most faithful adaption. Then why is he having a fit then? Now in terms of Dracula's backstory, you know I'm not a big fan at throwing tragic backstories at evil characters. And I'll admit I had mixed feelings about it at first. But I was impressed how they kept Dracula as menacing as he was while still having it, and they didn't shove it down our throats TOO much imo. And to be honest, I thought that was actually an interesting idea, making Mina his late wife. Also on a side note, I haven't read the book, so I'm going off of research. And, now what I'm about to say confirms that he merely goes with the older just because it's older, he says he doesn't like seeing films he grew up with get remade. Then he says he almost gave the film a chance, but then he saw Dracula's weird hairstyle and lost hope. He doesn't even talk about Gary Oldman's terrific performace. First off all, his hair in the shape of a heart, the one place where he can be killed. Make of that what you will. Second, even if he was joking, that was still a stupid little nitpick that didn't need to be made as a legitimate reason to hate the film. And so he complains about it being told through narratives, but acknowledges it is closer to the book so he guesses it works. THEN WHY ARE YOU COMPLAINING?!! Also, he summs it up by saying that the old one, even though it has it's flaws, it's better because it's a timeless classic. And he just leaves it at that, which REALLY confirms my points. Objectively speaking and subjectively speaking, I think the new one is VASTLY superior to the original. I'm sorry but I'm not the big on the original. I understand why it was big for it's time, but I just don't think it's aged well. The acting is ver hammy and over the top, and the pacing isn't that good in my opinion. The new may have taken liberties, but it's storyline is better, it tries to be the most faithful from what I've heard, and Gary Oldman is, imo, much scarier then Bela Lugosi. Bela wasn't bad but he tried too hard be frightening, while Oldman just naturally was to me. But what do you think? 