What you have to do is look at this final episode with a mind that is open. and free from all other versions of DRACULA.
Well after watching part three of the BBC/NETFLIX production of an adaptation of Bram Stoker’s DRACULA I am even more confused. But it does not take a lot to do that. I was born confused, so they tell me. This series has kind of turned the Stoker novel and the Hammer and other incarnations about the vampire lord on their head literally. The final part of the series brought Dracula into the present day, as I said previously Hammer tried this with SATANIC RITES and DRACULA AD 1972, and in my opinion this did not go well. However, vampires were brought into the present day in other movies such as COUNT YORGA, LOVE AT FIRST BITE and of course BLADE. And I have to say the BBC version as realised by Gatiss and Moffat for me did evoke the Blade concept within the last episode as in modern day and slightly seedy that packs a bit of a punch, with some of its scenes set in bars and clubs which have a pulsating dance music soundtrack. But and there is always a but isn’t there, I also began to find it a little silly, especially when Gatiss entered as Dracula’s lawyer Rheinfield.
This was I thought taking it too far, and the Van Helsing thing and the Johnathan Harker foundation, what the hell was this all about. Sorry but this was just too much for me. I know we must develop and maybe add things to established stories and this is all well and good if the situations, characters and scenarios that are added improve or make things slightly interesting. This adaptation did neither in fact it become a laughingstock by around the forty-minute mark. It’s all very well bringing this iconic gothic character into the 21st century, but where do you go from here, you can’t take him back in time can you? Well hang on maybe if Dr Who is not using his oops sorry her Tardis this could come to fruition. And whilst on the subject of the Doctor, you know THE DOCTOR, how about Dolly Wells as a contender for the next time lord, just putting it out there.
Ok back to the lawyer bit, if you have Count Dracula locked up and are keeping him that way so that the world is a safer place, would you, I mean would you really let him go because a solicitor says you have to, really? I know the laws in the UK are slightly antiquated and barmy but, think about it. And if Dracula were here in this modern world would he really want to stay? I am really in a bit of a confused state now, not because of the elements of the last episode, but because I am actually enjoying watching it, it may be silly, it may not be Hammer but there are Hammer references definitely, and in this last episode too, the musical score came into its own, it was emotive and wonderfully melodic in places, especially in the closing minutes when Dracula finally walks into the sun light without disintegrating into a pile of dust, and realising finally that it was a beautiful thing.
I think the music as penned by composers David Arnold and Michael Price managed to bring out or at least show us that the Count maybe was not such a monster, adding a greater emotional atmosphere to the proceedings and showing us that this dark lord, was vulnerable and fragile like the humans he had been praying on for centuries. In fact, by the time the last episode reached its conclusion I felt a little sorry for him. There is very little doubt that there were some inventive ideas thrown in here by the writers and also ideas that led to scenarios that were thought provoking. Maybe I gave the first two episodes rather harsh and negative reviews, but with the last episode, I did warm to the Count, even if he did at times look a little like James Bond. So whats next for Gatiss and Moffat, FRANKENSTEIN? Or maybe the League of the Undead?