Dracula Book Review | Book VS. Movie (some spoilers)

Share it with your friends Like

Thanks! Share it with your friends!


Hi Bookland 🙂 This video may be choppy. My whole point of it was in the movie they made Mina out to be some weak love obsessed girl when in the book she is a strong minded and influential part of the entire group. Without this strong female character pushing for the men to take charge and seek out and kill Dracula more people would have died before the end. Not only was Mina the driving force but she was also the “secretary” if you will that managed to collect all the information on Dracula.

My goodreads review: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/952067750?book_show_action=false

Find me here:
Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/17703155-melissa-chung


Scombs 654 says:

I watched the 1931 movie before I read the book. Not faithful at all, but still love the movie and the book.

Navneet Singh says:

Can you help me with a school essay comparing the book and the movie?

Where.am.I says:

I just wanna know how you hold it up for 5 mins without moving

Trawma77 says:

just red the book and also was dissapointed with the movie… but I guess the old saying book is always better than the movie is true.

Twitch Stitches says:

I totally agree with everything you said!

Dustin Caldwell says:

I just read the book recently and loved it. However for all it's differences I still really enjoy the 1994 film, although I am dubious about the Mina/Dracula love story. I think it's a great film but the book is far better. Also I think the film does a good job of condensing the longer parts of the novel.

Fer de la Cruz says:

Like you, I watched the movie before I read the book. While the movie´s visually enjoyable, indeed Mina Harker´s merits are turned into the soap-opera-like “he´s-a-jerk-but-I-love-him” cliché.
In addition to this, the movie lacks any of the innovative techniques of Bram Stoker´s masterpiece. His collage-like narrative is quite effective. As you mention, this is done by means of letters, diaries… even newspaper clips and the voice of Dr. Jack Seward, recorded in wax cylinders of the phonograph he used in the mental hospital to keep a log for every patient. Eight decades after its publication, this same technique is used by Fred Pohl´s in his 1977 classic “Gateway.”
Speaking of science fiction, the screen writer of Bram Stoker´s “Dracula” also adapted Carl Sagan´s 1985 “Contact” for the 1997 movie, in which Dr. Ellie Arroway´s deciphering of the message in Π is omitted. Are we to conclude that Mr. James B. Hart is simply not much of a feminist?

HPCthulhu2011 says:

I watched the movie when it was still in the movie theaters more than 20 years ago and I remember that night while walking home from the theater. I happened to walk past a girl that I liked on a bridge and I wanted her to tag along with me. It was great to be young and have all kinds of energy, and Dracula is a must read. They did the Ford Coppola movie quite well, it had the look and feel of the old movie reel, but the vampire, although not weak, it might have been a bit more powerful, but actually it was a great movie. Everyone did a good job. I liked every character. Bram Stoker's writing is still very readable. People have wrecked horror for me however; some of the modern writers or organizers. I used to enjoy it. A person can empathize with a vampire because it is supposed to be a complex character. Yes some of the antagonists do show a form of leadership while there is also a more personal type of main character, that shares more of their feelings or thoughts with the reader. Than some authority figure who could examine unusual cases, might look for crimes and point a finger. Did even that person really believe in what they claimed was true?

Mat C says:

Yeah, sounds interesting. I'm with you regarding Iclandic folklore, but, I should read the Authors Cut first. As far as movie versions, they all have that stupid love thing with Dracula and Mina. So annoying, what other horror film has that slush, ever? My favourite version is the first one; Nosferatu (1922). Yeah, its old, and can be long-winded too, but its sooooo creepy. I did'nt even find Coppola's film spooky tbh. But still some love connection in 1922 also! Worth a look though, lights down, stay with it….Here's the link ;D:


Mat C says:

I got mine last year but, it's still on my to-do's list to read, had a sneek peek though;) And this October the Iclandic edition, also from 1901, is comming out in English for the first time. Credited to Stoker but largely re-written by the translator and based in Iceland and around Icelandic folklore. I have it on pre-order, its called Powers of Darkness: The Lost Version of Dracula;)= Dracula indulgance, lol!

Mat C says:

Hey, if you found the book long-winded, Stoker re-wrote it in 1901 and shortend it down. Its more or less forgotten about today, but was republished in 2005 its called Dracula: The Definitive Author's Cut if you want to revisit it. Maybe you can do a revised review of the revised version one day?

Monika Tesznar says:

Which other differences could be seen between the book and the movie? I need to know something about his supernatural powers and weaknesses 🙂 Are there any differences? I write my bachelor thesis about it so I need many information about it

Kate Hackett Productions says:

We just started "Dracula" on our channel about a girl living her life according to different novels! We bet you'd love it – come take a look & subscribe & leave us some feedback!!! youtube.com/ClassicAliceSeries (We do TONS of books so you may love some book tube!)

N. P says:

I only recently got my hands on this book and it's way better than the movies.I think the whole romance thing was there to attract the female audience.No offense to the ladies, but the majority of you like some romance in the movies.Plus,for some weird reason,vampires are considered sexy by some chicks and the twillight saga made it even worse.In the book it says that Count Dracula had a big white mustache,a pointy nose,long finger nails and his breath smelled awful.I don't know why they tried to turn him into a lover in the movie .

Brian Mark says:

First there are many movie versions of Dracula.  I think the movie you are reviewing is Francis Ford Coppla's Bram Stoker's Dracula.  The best version of the book is the Louis Jourdan version.  Watch the 1977 BBC version.  Dracula (1977)

Penelope's Picks says:

I remember my literature professor ranting on and on about how god-awful and "pornographic" the movie adaptation of Dracula was, and how we would all fail the class if we only went off of the movie. Bahaha. While I agree, the book is so much better, I remember being disappointed that there wasn't that Nina/Dracula relationship in the original that was portrayed in the film. I just thought it was a really fun addition! Sidenote: Have you read Dracula, My Love by Syrie James? It's supposed to be a new adult take of the story that, I quote, depicts "Nina Harker's record of the shocking story of her scandalous seduction and sexual rebirth!" Can't lie, I'm very intrigued. ;P

nerdieone1 says:

Great review. We have the same edition. XD Lols.
The whole Dracula/Mina subplot is something in nearly EVERY Dracula adaptation that makes me wanna tear my hair out. It's so out of character and unneeded.

One adaption of Dracula that's really faithful to the book is BBC's 1977 version. Here's a fantastic scene from the film: Count Dracula Scene (BBC Mini-Series) (1977)

I much prefer this Mina to the 1994 version. There's no romance here.

Anna Rhodes says:

I have the same copy of Dracula! I love it it's so pretty

Write a comment