Reply to Topic
Mine too. Along with The Outsiders and GF 3, it's the only FFC film i have liked since the 70's. I think i was probably the only one that had this on their 90's list, i had it at 9.
Favourite DRACULA movie?
Favourite DRACULA Movie?
31.11%
14 votes
0%
0 votes
0%
0 votes
13.33%
6 votes
4.44%
2 votes
2.22%
1 votes
6.67%
3 votes
6.67%
3 votes
37.78%
17 votes
2.22%
1 votes
45 votes. You may not vote on this poll
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I don't know how there is any other answer other than Horror of Dracula. Like, not even any competition
And I'm sure this must have been addressed but both Noseferatu films are also direct Dracula adaptations....and the winner still should be Horror of Dracula
And I'm sure this must have been addressed but both Noseferatu films are also direct Dracula adaptations....and the winner still should be Horror of Dracula
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Is there really a movie from 1973 just called Dracula? I can't find anything.
__________________
Bird Bod
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I could never get into Dracula. He is a very unsympathetic protagonist for me and his only goal is to drink people's blood and that's it, until he comes across Mina (if that is her name in all the versions, I cannot remember), and for some reason she is special, but this is never explained accept for in the 1992 version. Some people say they do not like how the backstory was changed in the 1992 version, but I figure that a backstory that is changed, is better than no explanation though.
However, if I were to pick the best one, I would say Nosferatu, which is not an option to vote so I will go with the 1979 Dracula version, but I only saw 3 of the options
.
However, if I were to pick the best one, I would say Nosferatu, which is not an option to vote so I will go with the 1979 Dracula version, but I only saw 3 of the options
.
He is a very unsympathetic protagonist for me
Bram Stoker's Dracula, by a long shot. It's so psychologically decadent, Keanu Reeves is perfect for the witless Harker and Anthony Hopkins nails the fanatic Van Helsing. Gary Oldman makes Dracula really creepy in a creepy way, not just the static European formality of Lugosi's version. I love Tom Waits as Renfield and making the vampire-ette topless enhances the Victorian pot-boiler sensuality of the whole vampire concept. It's closer to the book than most blood-sucking movies and, it's worth noting that the book was considered to be pushing the boundaries of lurid in its day.
X
User Lists
Bram Stoker's Dracula, by a long shot. It's so psychologically decadent, Keanu Reeves is perfect for the witless Harker and Anthony Hopkins nails the fanatic Van Helsing. Gary Oldman makes Dracula really creepy in a creepy way, not just the static European formality of Lugosi's version. I love Tom Waits as Renfield and making the vampire-ette topless enhances the Victorian pot-boiler sensuality of the whole vampire concept. It's closer to the book than most blood-sucking movies and, it's worth noting that the book was considered to be pushing the boundaries of lurid in its day.
Anthony Hopkins is chewing the scenery.
Gary Oldman looks like Jim Morrison in some scenes, Princess Leia's grandmother in other scenes, or a Fedaykin itching for a sandworm to ride in others.
The film leans into the bathos of the pain of Dracula, but also leans into the corniness of old vampire films with odd cartoony sequences and effects. This odd, funky, clunky, tonally scattered movie is interesting to look at, but is a tad silly, IMO.
Keanu Reeves is horrible. He is not believable as a human being let alone an Englishman in this movie.
>>>>That's the point. In the book, Harker IS clueless. He hasn't seen the movie or read the book and nobody in 19th century England believes in vampires, much less him.
Anthony Hopkins is chewing the scenery.
>>>>>And so is Van Helsing in the book, where he has to convince a group of polite English people to go out in hunt of a vampire. There's nothing rational about THAT.
Gary Oldman looks like Jim Morrison in some scenes, Princess Leia's grandmother in other scenes, or a Fedaykin itching for a sandworm to ride in others.
>>>>>Yep. Again, referring to the book, Drac takes on a bunch of forms and can do things like climb the walls. As a "human" of sorts, he's like 400 years old.
The film leans into the bathos of the pain of Dracula, but also leans into the corniness of old vampire films with odd cartoony sequences and effects. This odd, funky, clunky, tonally scattered movie is interesting to look at, but is a tad silly, IMO.
>>>>>Again, yep. The story derived from a Victorian stage show full of corny FX. Wretched excess is what it's all about.
X
User Lists
I love your deliciously contrarian take. I'm not sold, but I read them all. And as Jerry Dandridge said to Peter Vincent in Fright Night,"I found them... ...very amusing."
Wait, are you saying they picked him because he was a bad actor with a bad accent?
So, this is like that bit in Synechdoche in which Caden explains why he cast young people in the roles for his production of Death of a Salesman?
You're saying that poor Keanu was selected because he was so poorly equipped to act in that setting? If so that's a burn. That's crueler than my take.
I don't buy it, but it's an interesting theory. Do you have evidence to support your interpretation (e.g., apart from the fact that Keanu was a bad actor for most of the 90s).
Is he chewing the scenery in the book? The book is an epistolary novel, so everything is a matter of diary entries and news clippings and personal letters and so on. I don't recall Van Helsing being depicted as a goofball in these materials.
Except that looking like Morrison is anachronistic as is the DUNE armor. They didn't roll with armor made from rubber/plastic in middle ages.
I agree that this is what the film is aiming at, at least in some moments. Whether or not this was a good target is a different question.
>>>>That's the point. In the book, Harker IS clueless. He hasn't seen the movie or read the book and nobody in 19th century England believes in vampires, much less him.
So, this is like that bit in Synechdoche in which Caden explains why he cast young people in the roles for his production of Death of a Salesman?
Try to keep in mind that a young
person playing Willy Loman thinks
he's only pretending to be at the
end of a life full of despair. But
the tragedy is that we know that
you, the young actor, will end up
in this very place of desolation.
person playing Willy Loman thinks
he's only pretending to be at the
end of a life full of despair. But
the tragedy is that we know that
you, the young actor, will end up
in this very place of desolation.
You're saying that poor Keanu was selected because he was so poorly equipped to act in that setting? If so that's a burn. That's crueler than my take.
I don't buy it, but it's an interesting theory. Do you have evidence to support your interpretation (e.g., apart from the fact that Keanu was a bad actor for most of the 90s).
>>>>>And so is Van Helsing in the book, where he has to convince a group of polite English people to go out in hunt of a vampire. There's nothing rational about THAT.
>>>>>Yep. Again, referring to the book, Drac takes on a bunch of forms and can do things like climb the walls. As a "human" of sorts, he's like 400 years old.
>>>>>Again, yep. The story derived from a Victorian stage show full of corny FX. Wretched excess is what it's all about.
The 1931 Dracula is something that’s been copied and parodied so often that it’s easy to forget how effective the original was. I always remember Bela Lugosi from his washed-up B movies, but before the years of drug abuse Bela could actually bring it. Van Helsing is also great.
On the downside, Dracula absolutely drags. Too many long parlor scenes. There’s a flappy bat special effect that surely must have seemed dopey even by the standards of the time.
On the downside, Dracula absolutely drags. Too many long parlor scenes. There’s a flappy bat special effect that surely must have seemed dopey even by the standards of the time.