^Keep with it hon.. I've read them all. They get LOADS better. The first is good..the second is stellar, and the third is so-so... the fourth is great.

I hate vampires a lot, but as I read through the forum here, I understand why we differ on this point.

Anne Rice didn't write about what I'd call "vampires" nor did Underworld have anything to do with them.

See when I hear the word "vampire" I don't automatically picture the modern, romanticized version of them that Rice writes about. I'm more familiar with the older, folkloric vampires, which are just awful. Real vampires make an appearance in Interview with the Vampire (the only one in the series I've read); she calls them "revenants" which also struck me as weird, since a "revenant" is just a person who comes back (like from the store or something), but it's often used to mean a ghost, as in someone who comes back from the other side of death--an apparition. Seeing it applied to undead (as in walking corpses as opposed to bodiless spirits) was just weird from my point of view.

I guess that's why I never got into modern vampire legends. They have the name "vampire" still even though they don't really resemble vampires except for the sucking blood part. I do love stories about vampire hunters though. Dracula is awesome. Movies about it blow goats, and I don't care which ones you're talking about. The only Dracula movies I like, that I've seen, are Nosferatu just because the photography and effects are so amazing (yeah, I know it wasn't "Dracula" in the plot because of copyright, but it was totally Dracula) and Satanic Rites of Dracula with Christopher Lee because it was so awful that it's hilarious. I own it.

He was just plain wrong for the part.