Lyft Industrial Deals Beauty Best Books of the Month STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Weekly One ft Nina Nesbitt PCB for Musical Instruments Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Tote Bags Home Gift Guide Off to College Home Gift Guide Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon MozartintheJungle MozartintheJungle MozartintheJungle  Introducing Echo Show Introducing All-New Fire HD 10 with Alexa hands-free $149.99 Kindle Oasis, unlike any Kindle you've ever held Tailgating FFII_gno

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

Showing 1-10 of 46 reviews(Verified Purchases). See all 229 reviews
on February 3, 2010
Wow! What do you say about a so-called sequel that essentially changes the entire storyline of the original classic. I don't need to go on and on. There are plenty of good Amazon reviews here (any of the one or two star reviews will do) that can give all the examples of why this is truly an awful book.

However, I think the greatest sin that Holt & Stoker commit is, as mentioned above, they essentially craft a story that turns the original on its head (who knew Dracula was an agent of good working in the service of God?) and takes arguably the greatest evil villian in all of fiction and tells us he was really a good guy. Not to mention the band of heroes from the original weren't really heroes at all. Just Disgraceful.

As if this is not all bad enough, we get twenty pages at the end of the book where the authors try and justify what they wrote. It reads like a pre-emtive strike against what they knew was coming from the critics and fans. Again, there are a lot of problems here but most annoying is the pages where they try to explain how they can reconcile vampire myths and powers with scientific explanations. Like someone trying to explain the physics behind how Superman can fly. How about this? The supernatural doesn't need scientific explanation. Dracula can turn into fog because it's a supernatural act, not mind control or whatever nonsense the authors try to explain. Do the authors really need to have it explained to them what makes horror scary?

OK. So why two stars instead of one? Two reasons. I can't take away that it is well enough written that it moves quickly and the prose/narrative is good. If they put out another horror novel, perhaps an original premise, I would certainly read it. (I suspect Holt is the primary writer, Stoker probably there to sell books).

Second, the myth of Dracula has been handled hundreds of ways by hundreds of creators and that's what makes it fun I guess. If they hadn't tried to give this book extra legitimacy by marketing it as a sequel and attaching the Stoker name to it, it could have been just another fanciful imagining of the Dracula myth.

As it is, this is no sequel. Just another bad Dracula story made all the worse by showing no respect to the original.
0Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 9, 2013
As a long-time fan of the original Dracula, I was - like most fans are - excited to hear about a sequel. However, as an avid movie fan as well, I was somewhat skeptical about the accuracy with which said sequel would be executed, as it always seems as though sequels are never as good as the original.

To be perfectly frank, this novel was the worst novel I have EVER read. From first page to last, I had the overwhelming feeling that the authors never bothered to actually read the canonical work, and merely referenced movie adaptations for how the story was supposed to go.

They also took horrific leaps and bounds with their suppositions, and every time they took it to a place that I couldn't follow. For example (spoiler alert): while it is one thing to suppose that Mina and Dracula had sex (in the canon, she is seen basically performing oral sex on him) it is another thing entirely to state that Dracula took her virginity. She was a married woman. Granted, Jonathan had been ill for the first part of their marriage, but there is no reason to believe that he wasn't able to consummate their marriage. Several research papers have gone into this very subject and all agree that Mina was not a virgin when Dracula came to her, and this was perhaps one of the reasons that she was ultimately able to help defeat him.

After reading the novel, I wanted to know more about the authors, and wasn't at all surprised to learn that Ian Holt was a screenwriter - as I stated before, it seemed as though the entire novel was based off of movies and not the original book. If that was the case (as I'm sure it is) how can we truly call this book a sequel?

It reads like more of an alternate universe sort of fanfiction, if we're going to be perfectly honest. And a bad one at that.

While I won't tell you that you shouldn't read this book, review reader, I will caution you. This book is not at all what it claims to be. The only reason I'm giving this a one-star review is I can't give it a 0.
0Comment| 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on December 15, 2009
I love the original Dracula and hoped a Stoker would respect it. No such luck. Everything is thrown into this book except a coherent story and anything of real interest. If you love the original avoid this book. It hints at a sequel, we can only hope that doesn't happen or we might have a vampire version of The Titanic.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on July 4, 2011
The good stuff first: the prose is readable, and the plot moves quickly. It's better edited than some books I've read recently, so I gave it a star for that.

That said, this reminds me of all those Harry Potter fanfic stories where Snape is a misunderstood hero who never really did anything bad. I know that modern readers are unlikely to accept a vision of the vampire that is as irredeemably evil as Stoker's original novel, but WOW. I really expected an "official" sequel to follow the original more closely. This says nothing of the weird attempts at meta-text by making Stoker a character.

And for all the ham-handed attempts at feminism, making Elizabeth Bathory a lesbian rapist was just an extra-special touch.
0Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on December 22, 2010
As I finished this novel, it was my wholehearted intention to immediately write a scathing review of what can only be called absolute drivel when compared to Bram Stoker's classic.

When I began browsing the reviews already in place, I realized that this would simply be more of the same.

I have read Stoker's original novel countless times, have studied it and taught it, and therefore can do nothing but state that this so-called "sequel" is a complete literary travesty.

Some reviewers have stated that it has its merits when read as a free-standing piece of literature, not necessarily as a sequel but as something of a re-working. I can only say that, in my educated opinion, this is not the case. This novel is one of the worst that I have ever forced myself to read, and I deeply regret embarking on the journey to do so.
0Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on September 21, 2015
Wasn't as good as I expected
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on October 21, 2009
A Different Stoker

I can still remember spend-the-night parties with my elementary school friends on Friday nights, all sitting in the dark watching Shock Theater. Some of the old black-and-white movies were pure camp, but Bela Lugosi's Dracula brought a slowly evolving sense of dread that I still remember to this day. It was many years later that I read the novel.

I didn't expect the blood of Bram Stoker to enter the veins of his great-grandnephew, Dacre Stoker, and direct his writing a sequel to Dracula. If he had gone with the original's format of journals and letters, I'm sure he would have immediately been labeled a copy-cat. And modern readers are far different from those living in the time of the original novel's publication. Would a simple revival of the classic have attracted today's Twilight audiences or Gary Oldham Dracula fans? Thus, Dacre Stoker and his co-author, Ian Hunt, picked up bits and pieces of all the old stories and movies, hoping to satisfy all.

The old story, locations, and characters are all here. Harker, Van Helsing, Holmwood, Seward, and Mina, the original band of Lucy's killers/saviors, have struggled with their actions for 25 years, and Mina has been carrying a torch for old Drac for all that time. From there, new story lines appear. A new female vampire has arisen with powers that will rival Dracula's. We learn that there are both good and evil vampires, a bit like Glenda the Good Witch and the Wicked Witch of the West although I really would have preferred just plain ol' evil vampires. There's the requisite blood and gore for this Hollywood movie in the making.

Be sure and read the authors' notes at the end of the book. Dacre and Ian explain their very different motives for writing this book and the various reasons for what they included or didn't include from the original. Ian states that "my greatest wish is we have created a book that is close to Bram's original gothic vision--while modernizing it at the same time." I believe they succeeded in this. As a consequence of this modernization, I feel that the original seductive evil is missing, but this novel certainly surpasses more recent writing attempts in the vampire genre, such as the vapid Twilight or the cartoonish The Strain.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on November 5, 2009
If you like the original Dracula, don't bother with this. The only thing frightening about it is how frighteningly bad it is. It completely destroys everything good about the original. Dracula is a good guy. Mina is his soul mate and becomes a vampire herself. Hell, even Van Helsing ends up a vampire. Countess Bathory is the evil lesbian vampire that must be stopped. Yeah, you read that right. Oh, she is also Jack the Ripper. Yeah, you read that right, too. Then, when it is over and you think it couldn't possibly have been any worse, the friggin' Titanic makes an appearance. Yeah, unfortunately, you read that right, too. A major disappointment to say the least.
0Comment| 7 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on December 5, 2009
This is a really good read. I didn't expect this book to be all that exciting considering that most sequels are not. However, I found the characters to be interesting and the story very compelling. I'm not done reading the book but there are some surprises here. I consider it a page turner and recommend this novel to anyone who likes this sort of subject. I consider it an easy read compared to a Anne Rice novel. If you like the Anne Rice novels but have trouble getting through them, this book is for you. Now that being said, this is a real classy book as well....
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on October 30, 2009
I was looking forward to reading a sequel to Bram Stoker's classic novel written by one of his descendants; but it's just awful; an insult to the original. Bram would NOT be amused. Neither will you if you are a fan of the orignal novel.

There have been several other sequels already; all far better than this mess. Read "Mina" or one of the others (one even has the same title!) instead; as Dacre Stoker and Ian Holt have unleashed a cliche ridden, gory mess of a novel on the public.
0Comment| 8 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse