Yeah that's right I'm talking to you, you gross, poopyheaded pizzafaced (I live with a toddler), really bad director/writers. How in the bloody hell do you make a freakin' Dracula movie without freakin' Dracula monopolizing any and all airtime? How? HOW, I ask you?
Fellow GBOCD'ers, you're probably saying to yourself, "But self, I'm pretty sure when I watched the film, I saw Dracula." Well your self is wrong. You want to believe that the brief and random scenes you saw of him were enough. But they're not. You want to believe that the reason why his voice is so low compared to everyone else is to add mystery to the character, but it's not. I mean , the dude from That 70's Show with the mutton chops got more attention in his scenes. Sure, he does have the funnest, bestest, curliest hair in all of American cinema since the days of Shirley Temple but COME ON!
It's funny because if you look at the cover of the DVD, you can just make out that eensy weensy picture of our boy Drac waaaaaaaay back there in that "oooooh so scary and all things vampiry" red flamed background. Whoop-a-dee-doo.
I guess they wanted us to be surprised when we saw a vampire in ... gasp... a vampire film!!
Sooooo aside from the wimpy doctor that screams like my sister did when we were kids and I slammed her finger into a car door, the only thing worth seeing in this film are the scant scraps of The Gerry at the end of the film playing a tormented Dracula and the extended/deleted scenes.
In conclusion, their better be a freakin director's cut somewhere in my future.
|
