Vampires have experienced an amazing narrative makeover in the last century or so. When Bram Stoker's "Dracula" was first published in 1897, the count and his fellow undead were considered the ultimate bogeymen. They transformed into wolves, mist, or bats. They sucked the blood from their victims. And if you got bit, you would become one of them, damned for all eternity. Now, 100-plus years later, vampires are badass heroes (or at least anti-heroes). In works like "True Blood," "Twilight," and "Vampire Diaries," bloodsuckers are the good guys. They're strong, sexy, and best of all, they get to live forever, young and pretty until the end of days. What modern American wouldn't want to be a vampire?

It's fascinating, then, to get reacquainted with the original fangster via Geva's current production of "Dracula." The show features solid acting and some nifty tricks of stage magic, and adequately relays one of the most enduring horror stories in literary history, as Steven Dietz's adaptation adheres fairly closely to Stoker's original script. But hewing so rigorously to the original source material saddles the play with some major weaknesses.

The story is split between Victorian-era London and Transylvania, where Count Dracula has invited British solicitor Jonathan Harker to finalize a real-estate purchase in London. Back home, Harker's fianc�, Mina Murray, is dealing with strange happenings with her friend, Lucy, who is besieged by odd dreams, marks on her neck, and serious health problems. Lucy's paramour, Dr. John Seward, cannot solve Lucy's medical mystery, and so he calls on the help of his former mentor, Professor Abraham Van Helsing, who immediately recognizes the signs of a vampire attack. After Jonathan returns home, safe but nearly driven insane by his time in Castle Dracula, the quartet slowly pieces together the truth about the count, and tries to stop him from sinking his fangs into the teeming masses of his new home in England.

If you're a theatergoer who has never read Stoker's novel (and no, seeing the 1992 Francis Ford Coppola film version doesn't count - it's different), I recommend reading the playwright's note from Dietz included in the Geva program. In it, Dietz explains the jumpy narrative of the show, which is based on the epistolary structure of the book. The story is cobbled together from the viewpoints of many different characters, none of them grasping the full picture until it's too late. Dietz's note helps to put things into context, and underlines some of the subtext of the story.

But the first act is still laborious in parts, and laden with melodramatic dialogue. Director Peter Amster does his best to build the tension - there's a great moment with Dracula emerging from his coffin, and Harker's unwanted snuggle time with the vampire brides is both smart and sexy. (The sound work by composer Gregg Coffin and sound designer Todd Mack Reischman is the most consistently effective and creepy element of the play.) Conversely, Act II feels rushed, as the characters face off against Drac in London, and then everyone zips across Europe in a matter of seconds, speaking directly to the audience to explain what is happening. The climactic sequence features more fun stage tricks, but it lacks tension, and very little of the play ever approaches scary.

Although the material itself is problematic, the actors make the best of it. As Lucy, Jennifer Joan Thompson is flirty and fun at first, and believably seductive and creepy after her transformation. Lee Stark's Mina is a model Victorian heroine, smart, tough, but also vulnerable. Tom McElroy has to work through some of the play's most troublesome dialogue as Van Helsing, and Jason Bradley and Erik Hellman are solid in the relatively unflashy roles of Harker and Seward, respectively.

Rochester audiences may recognize Wade McCollum as the Emcee from Geva's 2008 production of "Cabaret." Here he plays the title character, and he infuses Dracula with a more menacing version of the lithe sensuality he brought to the Kit Kat Club. At first, his ancient, withered Dracula can barely contain his desperation to escape to the flesh-filled streets of London. Once he arrives and is reenergized, he's practically cool as a cucumber, more amused by his adversaries than aggressively fighting against them. There are moments where that chill fa�ade cracks, and McCollum erupts in an almost bestial fury. Overall, it's a more restrained performance than you would normally associate with one of the great scenery-chewing characters of literature.

If you're looking for over-the-top, you'll find it with Dietrich Gray's portrayal of Renfield. The show does a poor job of explaining Renfield; he's a madman in an asylum who has a connection to Dracula, but it would seem to predate Dracula even arriving in London. In any event, Renfield is nuts, and Gray plays him almost totally for macabre laughs, providing the show with some much-needed energy. There is nothing subtle in Gray's performance, but he's entertaining. So it's probably no coincidence that the playwright chose to open the show with Renfield, who offers a baffling prelude in which he identifies himself as a fictional creation of Bram Stoker.

The playwright's respect for the original author and work is appreciated. But given the massive changes in social mores and narratives between Stoker's time and ours, I can't help but think that taking certain liberties with the script as a whole might have given the show a bit more life.

"Dracula"

Through November 13

Geva Theatre Center, 75 Woodbury Blvd.

$25+ | 232-4382, gevatheatre.org