Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Renfield (2023) in Movies
Apr 22, 2023
Cage feels Caged-In
Sometime you are in the mood for a drama, sometimes an action flick, other times a romantic comedy.
And then there are times you just want to watch Nicholas Cage camping it up on-screen as Dracula.
If that is the mood you are in, boy do I have a movie for you.
Based (very loosely) on the character created by Bram Stoker (and the classic 1931 film starring Bela Lugosi), RENFIELD tells the tale of an over-the-top Dracula in modern times as seen through his “familiar”, Renfield.
Nicholas Hoult (Beast in the latest series of X-Men films) plays Renfield as a put-upon assistant to Dracula - kind of a comedy/horror version of the relationship of Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep in THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA - and it works (for the most part). Hoult is a winning (enough) and sympathetic presence on screen and you find yourself rooting for him in the end.
The surprising thing to me in this film is the sub-plot of Renfield finding love with a Police Office portrayed by (of all people) Awkwafina. This comedienne/actress has really grown on the BankofMarquis as a solid and dependable presence on screen and she doesn’t disappoint here. And that’s a good thing for the Renfield/Rebecca the Cop relationship ends up taking center stage during the 2nd act of this film (moving Nic Cage’s Dracula off-screen for a long stretch of time) and it works for Hoult and Awkwafina play off each other very well.
As for Cage, his Dracula is off-center, wacky, frenetic and out-of-this world. A true fish-out-of-water. But…if I’m being honest…his performance feels reigned in and it didn’t go far enough out-of-the-box and didn’t get nearly crazy enough for my tastes.
When something like that happens, one needs to look no further than the Director and Chris McKay (THE LEGO MOVIE, THE TOMORROW WAR) has a track record (at least for the BankofMarquis) of pulling his punches - and he pulls many, many punches in this film. But, he also DOESN’T pull punches at times (like in the scene where one guy gets his arms ripped off and then these arms are used as nunchucks on a bevy of bad guys). He doesn’t really know how far or how outlandish he should go. So he filters in a comedic amount of blood and gore - and then reigns Cage in. It’s an odd choice.
If you decide to watch Renfield, you already know what to expect - and for the most part you get it - except in the one spot that you really need it.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And then there are times you just want to watch Nicholas Cage camping it up on-screen as Dracula.
If that is the mood you are in, boy do I have a movie for you.
Based (very loosely) on the character created by Bram Stoker (and the classic 1931 film starring Bela Lugosi), RENFIELD tells the tale of an over-the-top Dracula in modern times as seen through his “familiar”, Renfield.
Nicholas Hoult (Beast in the latest series of X-Men films) plays Renfield as a put-upon assistant to Dracula - kind of a comedy/horror version of the relationship of Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep in THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA - and it works (for the most part). Hoult is a winning (enough) and sympathetic presence on screen and you find yourself rooting for him in the end.
The surprising thing to me in this film is the sub-plot of Renfield finding love with a Police Office portrayed by (of all people) Awkwafina. This comedienne/actress has really grown on the BankofMarquis as a solid and dependable presence on screen and she doesn’t disappoint here. And that’s a good thing for the Renfield/Rebecca the Cop relationship ends up taking center stage during the 2nd act of this film (moving Nic Cage’s Dracula off-screen for a long stretch of time) and it works for Hoult and Awkwafina play off each other very well.
As for Cage, his Dracula is off-center, wacky, frenetic and out-of-this world. A true fish-out-of-water. But…if I’m being honest…his performance feels reigned in and it didn’t go far enough out-of-the-box and didn’t get nearly crazy enough for my tastes.
When something like that happens, one needs to look no further than the Director and Chris McKay (THE LEGO MOVIE, THE TOMORROW WAR) has a track record (at least for the BankofMarquis) of pulling his punches - and he pulls many, many punches in this film. But, he also DOESN’T pull punches at times (like in the scene where one guy gets his arms ripped off and then these arms are used as nunchucks on a bevy of bad guys). He doesn’t really know how far or how outlandish he should go. So he filters in a comedic amount of blood and gore - and then reigns Cage in. It’s an odd choice.
If you decide to watch Renfield, you already know what to expect - and for the most part you get it - except in the one spot that you really need it.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
An interesting take on the tale
If you take for granted that the makers of this short series have taken some liberties with the classic tale, then you will enjoy this adaptation all the more. My wife, who hasn't read the book and barely remembers the Gary Oldman film, really enjoyed this series. I, who have read and loved the book and a few prequel/sequel attempts, enjoyed it a little less. However, for what it is, it's a very clever and witty interpretation of the story.
The three episodes are largely standalone and in a different setting. The first episode we are in familiar territory with Jonathan Harker in Castle Dracula. Here the makers explored Harker's passive imprisonment and gradual blood-draining far more than in other adaptations, giving the viewer a real confused, frustrated and claustrophobic feeling. The second episode takes place on the Count's journey to the UK. Again previous adaptations have skipped over this, and the crew's gradual diminution, which was a bigger factor of the book. This is when Dracula's psychological twisting and sick sense of humour start to feature more heavily, with some good head-scratching twists.
The third episode covers Dracula's time in the UK, but not as you've ever seen before. I thought this part was brilliant, but won't give any spoilers. The main features of this part of the original story are retained (Dracula's mutual obsession with Lucy Westenra), but Dracula is now revealed like never before, with some of his weaknesses explored and exposed for what they are.
Like I say, if you can accept the liberties taken, this is a great adaptation with a really sassy Dracula.
The three episodes are largely standalone and in a different setting. The first episode we are in familiar territory with Jonathan Harker in Castle Dracula. Here the makers explored Harker's passive imprisonment and gradual blood-draining far more than in other adaptations, giving the viewer a real confused, frustrated and claustrophobic feeling. The second episode takes place on the Count's journey to the UK. Again previous adaptations have skipped over this, and the crew's gradual diminution, which was a bigger factor of the book. This is when Dracula's psychological twisting and sick sense of humour start to feature more heavily, with some good head-scratching twists.
The third episode covers Dracula's time in the UK, but not as you've ever seen before. I thought this part was brilliant, but won't give any spoilers. The main features of this part of the original story are retained (Dracula's mutual obsession with Lucy Westenra), but Dracula is now revealed like never before, with some of his weaknesses explored and exposed for what they are.
Like I say, if you can accept the liberties taken, this is a great adaptation with a really sassy Dracula.
Kristina (502 KP) rated Hunting Prince Dracula in Books
Dec 7, 2020
Kerri has done it again! Something about her writing is so addictive, I hated interrupting my reading time for work. I think I liked Hunting Prince Dracula more than I liked Stalking Jack the Ripper, which is great, because sometimes a series tends to go downhill instead of getting better. Honestly, I'm not sure which I'm enjoying more: solving mysteries with Miss Audrey Rose or watching her relationship with Thomas unfold, at an infuriatingly slow pace. I look forward to seeing what's in store for these two!
DreadpirateSmoo (95 KP) rated Betrayal at House on the Hill in Tabletop Games
Oct 11, 2021
Can be different every time you play (4 more)
Can be co-op, or competitive
Great game mechanics
Game pieces and board are well made
Nice artwork
A great evolving game
This is a great game, with multiple mechanics, almost like Cabin in the Woods (an amazing film)... Depending on what you roll and what items you pick up, depends your fate... From zombies, to Dracula and evil doppelgangers! It's great fun, and can get quite tense!
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Dracula Untold (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The latest Dracula movie attempts to honor an ancient story while adding some new spice and bringing the usual graphics flair we’ve come to expect from Hollywood, but falls short.
Dracula Untold, as the name implies, is an origin story for the pop culture father-of-all-vampires. Luke Evans bears the mantle of Prince Vlad Tepes of the Dracula Clan. (Not Count, but Prince.) What about the King, you ask? Well, they didn’t cover this, but there is no King.
Luke Evans is one of my favorite actors in Hollywood right now, and he does this role justice. The rest of the cast contributed solid performances as well, as best they could with sub par script, and poor direction. Charles Dance was a particular pleasure to witness.
This film is Gary Shore’s directorial debut, and it’s easy to see the marks of a neophyte director. Had it been in the hands of someone more experienced, it would have been a juggernaut of a Fall film. Even so, he did pretty well enough, all things considered. According to his work history, Shore was an electrician until 1998, then disappeared until 2014. This is his second film so far this year.
Dracula Untold opens with the story of Vlad the Impaler, as told by his son. Vlad was shipped off to the Turks to become a trained and conditioned weapon. He earned his title by impaling an entire village for the Turkish army. Vlad was a deadly force on the battlefield, but they eventually allowed him to go home, where he could start a family and rule Transylvania. It is painfully obvious that the usual blood-thirsty character was meant to become a hero for this new tale.
The Turks return to take more boys, like they did him, but he refuses. This draws the Turks’ ire, and they demand retribution for the insult and insubordination. Desperate, he seeks out a monster in the mountains who was the REAL first vampire — a man who made a deal with a demon.
Vlad is granted temporary powers, paying a heavy price in the process. After this, the story really ramps up.
This film left me feeling as if something was missing. I attribute this to missing explanations, plot holes (like the lack of King), and several other missteps. Normally, I can look past plot holes. A strong enough movie will keep me from noticing them until I’m rethinking it later. In this case, they were too distracting. The music was unimpressive and not at all memorable. The one liners were forced and distracting, instead of powerful and emotional.
This movie is worth seeing if you’re a fan of vampires in general or Dracula in particular. That said, I wouldn’t advise high expectations. Great aspects were abundant, but there were just as many failings. If you feel compelled to see it, wait until you can see it at home, and save the money.
Dracula Untold, as the name implies, is an origin story for the pop culture father-of-all-vampires. Luke Evans bears the mantle of Prince Vlad Tepes of the Dracula Clan. (Not Count, but Prince.) What about the King, you ask? Well, they didn’t cover this, but there is no King.
Luke Evans is one of my favorite actors in Hollywood right now, and he does this role justice. The rest of the cast contributed solid performances as well, as best they could with sub par script, and poor direction. Charles Dance was a particular pleasure to witness.
This film is Gary Shore’s directorial debut, and it’s easy to see the marks of a neophyte director. Had it been in the hands of someone more experienced, it would have been a juggernaut of a Fall film. Even so, he did pretty well enough, all things considered. According to his work history, Shore was an electrician until 1998, then disappeared until 2014. This is his second film so far this year.
Dracula Untold opens with the story of Vlad the Impaler, as told by his son. Vlad was shipped off to the Turks to become a trained and conditioned weapon. He earned his title by impaling an entire village for the Turkish army. Vlad was a deadly force on the battlefield, but they eventually allowed him to go home, where he could start a family and rule Transylvania. It is painfully obvious that the usual blood-thirsty character was meant to become a hero for this new tale.
The Turks return to take more boys, like they did him, but he refuses. This draws the Turks’ ire, and they demand retribution for the insult and insubordination. Desperate, he seeks out a monster in the mountains who was the REAL first vampire — a man who made a deal with a demon.
Vlad is granted temporary powers, paying a heavy price in the process. After this, the story really ramps up.
This film left me feeling as if something was missing. I attribute this to missing explanations, plot holes (like the lack of King), and several other missteps. Normally, I can look past plot holes. A strong enough movie will keep me from noticing them until I’m rethinking it later. In this case, they were too distracting. The music was unimpressive and not at all memorable. The one liners were forced and distracting, instead of powerful and emotional.
This movie is worth seeing if you’re a fan of vampires in general or Dracula in particular. That said, I wouldn’t advise high expectations. Great aspects were abundant, but there were just as many failings. If you feel compelled to see it, wait until you can see it at home, and save the money.
The start of Bram Stokers biography?
And to think that I nearly gave up on this to begin with! At about 20% in, it just didn't seem to be drawing me in at all. So how pleased am I that I persevered?!!
This is a prequel to Bram Stokers Dracula, and is the story of Bram himself. It postulates that Dracula and vampires really do exist, Bram and his family had an intimate relationship with one (not like THAT!), and Dracula was written as a warning about the Undead. Well, I clearly don't know what to believe now!
The language used in this novel is a little more up to date than Bram Stokers original: it's written for the modern reader (as Bram's was at the time, I suppose), and is consequently much easier to read. This book is supposedly based on notes that Bram left behind - whether they were ideas for another book, or they were 'actual occurrences', we'll never really know.
Bram and his family are followed from Bram's early childhood, up until well after their encounter with Dracul. It's exciting, there's loads of action, and I had some serious worries about Bram's siblings! There's loads of historical detail (potato famine in Ireland, disease, poverty) which I rather enjoyed. But it's the encounters with the vampires that I really loved. There's always going to be someone that makes the comparison to 'that' vampire series, and so I'll be the one. There IS NO comparison. These aren't nicey-nicey vampires who sparkle. These are largely speaking, evil, dark-magic-using, killing machines. Much more fun.
I think this is probably going to be a series. Which I will obviously be reading. Obviously.
Many thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for my copy of this book.
This is a prequel to Bram Stokers Dracula, and is the story of Bram himself. It postulates that Dracula and vampires really do exist, Bram and his family had an intimate relationship with one (not like THAT!), and Dracula was written as a warning about the Undead. Well, I clearly don't know what to believe now!
The language used in this novel is a little more up to date than Bram Stokers original: it's written for the modern reader (as Bram's was at the time, I suppose), and is consequently much easier to read. This book is supposedly based on notes that Bram left behind - whether they were ideas for another book, or they were 'actual occurrences', we'll never really know.
Bram and his family are followed from Bram's early childhood, up until well after their encounter with Dracul. It's exciting, there's loads of action, and I had some serious worries about Bram's siblings! There's loads of historical detail (potato famine in Ireland, disease, poverty) which I rather enjoyed. But it's the encounters with the vampires that I really loved. There's always going to be someone that makes the comparison to 'that' vampire series, and so I'll be the one. There IS NO comparison. These aren't nicey-nicey vampires who sparkle. These are largely speaking, evil, dark-magic-using, killing machines. Much more fun.
I think this is probably going to be a series. Which I will obviously be reading. Obviously.
Many thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for my copy of this book.
Barry Newman (204 KP) rated Dracula in TV
Apr 10, 2020
I missed this over Christmas so was quite chuffed to win a copy in a Smashbomb give away.
After watching all 3 episodes I have to say it takes some serious liberties with the source material (particularly in the devisive third episode) but as a whole I really enjoyed this. I am a fan of Sherlock (particularly the early episodes) so I liked what the team did here. The look is suitably gothic with a nice stream of dark humour running through. The production values and special effects were also quite impressive for a beeb production. I had never heard of Claes Bang before this but I have to say he was a brilliant bit of casting as Dracula.. charismatic and brooding.
Allot of people seem to hate episode 3 bringing Dracula to the present day but I personally found that episode allot of fun and an improvement over the slightly slow 2nd episode. (The first was the best by far though)
Overall though the series isn't quite something that will be regarded as a classic in years to come but I had fun watching it and will certainly recommend it.
After watching all 3 episodes I have to say it takes some serious liberties with the source material (particularly in the devisive third episode) but as a whole I really enjoyed this. I am a fan of Sherlock (particularly the early episodes) so I liked what the team did here. The look is suitably gothic with a nice stream of dark humour running through. The production values and special effects were also quite impressive for a beeb production. I had never heard of Claes Bang before this but I have to say he was a brilliant bit of casting as Dracula.. charismatic and brooding.
Allot of people seem to hate episode 3 bringing Dracula to the present day but I personally found that episode allot of fun and an improvement over the slightly slow 2nd episode. (The first was the best by far though)
Overall though the series isn't quite something that will be regarded as a classic in years to come but I had fun watching it and will certainly recommend it.
Christina Ricci recommended Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) in Movies (curated)
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Dracula in Books
Oct 2, 2020
Dracula by Bram Stoker is the ultimate horror classic of all times. This is where it all started. A tale about a creature that feeds on the blood to survive, but also a tale of friendship and love, described and presented in a way we rarely have a privilege to see these days.
If Vampire Diaries, Vampire Academy, Twilight and the Sookie Stackhouse series pop to your mind when you first think of vampires, this book might feel extremely slow to your taste. However, if you want to experience the real horror and the building tension through many diary entries - you will enjoy this book completely.
I am a fan of both, and I had moments where I fell in love with the detailed explanations of weather and whereabouts. But the setting of writing many polite letters to people dear to the characters also made me cringe. I suppose a cringe can’t be all bad for a horror book though?
Through many diary entries of various characters, we follow their experience with the Count Dracula. Young Jonathan Harker is sent to go to Transylvania and arrange for the apartments the Count Dracula wants to buy in London. During his stay, he faces many unusual things. Meanwhile, his fiance Mina and her friend Lucy are in London, and Lucy is facing some unusual experiences herself, when Dr. Seward arrives to help better her condition.
“How blessed are some people, whose lives have no fears, no dreads; to whom sleep is a blessing that comes nightly, and brings nothing but sweet dreams.”
I knew what I was getting into, and I believe knowing this is a classic, and not a fast-paced romance with a paranormal twist put me in the right mood from the very beginning, so I was aware of what I was going into, and I really enjoyed it!
Dracula as a character is so mysterious, so powerful, very feared and secretly admired. I both loved and hated the fact that we don’t get to really see much of him, but we have to be satisfied with what the other characters are going through. And even though, he continues to be a shadow, a fear, a thought of everything they are doing. He is always there, even when he isn’t, and it requires great skills as a writer to create that presence for a character.
The characters of Lucy and Mina were very interesting - from a time perspective. How things have changed for women in all these years. What women were doing and thinking at that time, and how different it is now. I suppose I could make all the comparisons in the world - but one thing stays true will all classic books - they leave a mark of the time they were written, and this mark always gets better as time goes by.
“It is really wonderful how much resilience there is in human nature. Let any obstructing cause, no matter what, be removed in any way - even by death - and we fly back to first principles of hope and enjoyment."
I am glad I read Dracula, and I will try to read more classics in the new year. The writing style, the past of them, they remind you to take a big breath and acknowledge many things you take for granted in today’s world. In a world of page-turners, you sometimes need a slow book that makes you think deeply.
If Vampire Diaries, Vampire Academy, Twilight and the Sookie Stackhouse series pop to your mind when you first think of vampires, this book might feel extremely slow to your taste. However, if you want to experience the real horror and the building tension through many diary entries - you will enjoy this book completely.
I am a fan of both, and I had moments where I fell in love with the detailed explanations of weather and whereabouts. But the setting of writing many polite letters to people dear to the characters also made me cringe. I suppose a cringe can’t be all bad for a horror book though?
Through many diary entries of various characters, we follow their experience with the Count Dracula. Young Jonathan Harker is sent to go to Transylvania and arrange for the apartments the Count Dracula wants to buy in London. During his stay, he faces many unusual things. Meanwhile, his fiance Mina and her friend Lucy are in London, and Lucy is facing some unusual experiences herself, when Dr. Seward arrives to help better her condition.
“How blessed are some people, whose lives have no fears, no dreads; to whom sleep is a blessing that comes nightly, and brings nothing but sweet dreams.”
I knew what I was getting into, and I believe knowing this is a classic, and not a fast-paced romance with a paranormal twist put me in the right mood from the very beginning, so I was aware of what I was going into, and I really enjoyed it!
Dracula as a character is so mysterious, so powerful, very feared and secretly admired. I both loved and hated the fact that we don’t get to really see much of him, but we have to be satisfied with what the other characters are going through. And even though, he continues to be a shadow, a fear, a thought of everything they are doing. He is always there, even when he isn’t, and it requires great skills as a writer to create that presence for a character.
The characters of Lucy and Mina were very interesting - from a time perspective. How things have changed for women in all these years. What women were doing and thinking at that time, and how different it is now. I suppose I could make all the comparisons in the world - but one thing stays true will all classic books - they leave a mark of the time they were written, and this mark always gets better as time goes by.
“It is really wonderful how much resilience there is in human nature. Let any obstructing cause, no matter what, be removed in any way - even by death - and we fly back to first principles of hope and enjoyment."
I am glad I read Dracula, and I will try to read more classics in the new year. The writing style, the past of them, they remind you to take a big breath and acknowledge many things you take for granted in today’s world. In a world of page-turners, you sometimes need a slow book that makes you think deeply.