Here’s something that bugs me. When a good movie comes out, and people go around saying “The book was so much better!” Or people who don’t read—I know, I know, but there actually are such troglodytes out there—saying, when a popular book comes out, “I’ll just wait for the movie.” I am both a cinephile and a book lover, and not only do I not feel any need to compare the two storytelling mediums, I also understand that one CANNOT legitimately compare them. They are two intrinsically different. Forget apples and oranges. We’re talking zombie cucumbers and hand grenades. (I’ll let you all decide which one is which.)
Under the best circumstances, the one complements the other. Rereading J.R.R. Tolkien’s THE LORD OF THE RINGS helped me to better appreciate the movies when they came out. The same is true of the 1992 film BRAM STOKER’S DRACULA, directed by Francis Ford (“Please don’t remind me that Nicolas Cage is my nephew!”) Coppola. I saw it three times in the theater, and after my first viewing I reread the legendary novel. I enjoyed the subsequent viewings even more, and picked up on things that I had missed the first time, subtle things that are elucidated in the novel. Rather than a competition, books and film can work in tandem, and it’s a beautiful thing.
But why in the blue hell did Coppola cast Keanu-freakin’-Reeves?
I love Keanu Reeves, he’s great in most of the roles he plays, but I definitely agree with you that he did not make for a good Jonathan Harker. Who would you have cast?
Pretty much anybody else.