A scary thing happened on the way to the Movie Forums - Horrorcrammers

Tools    





I initially found Day disappointing coming off the heels of the bombastic action satire of Dawn but learned to appreciate it more for what it is with time. I love the opening shots of post apocalyptic Miami (?) and the climactic third act but the middle can drag a bit on rewatches.



I guess I'll be the person who expresses their love for Night above all in the trilogy. But I also am a big fan of Return of the Living Dead and It Comes at Night. I think there's a common, nuanced thing going on in the group dynamics of those movies that appeals to me more than the two other Dead movies. It might be something in the execution.



I haven’t seen ATBS yet, though I’ve heard “Malick” more than a few times when it’s come up.*

A Ghost Story is much more formally rigid than anything from Malick. Perhaps Tarkovsky?

The Old Man With A Gun certainly feels in keeping with the Arthur Penn and George Roy Hill flicks it seems to be homaging.

The Green King certainly has elements Lowery has used in the past and is possibly his most stylistically distinct, but had someone told me it was Eggers rather than Lowery, I wouldn’t have questioned it.

I would have. We have only two Eggers' movies to go off of, but there's a type of humanity to Lowery's films that I've seen (including this one) that isn't there in Eggers. His is a much harsher world. Or maybe not! Maybe he'll do a hard turn on that with The Northman that'll take me surprise on that from. But somehow I suspect he won't.



I would have. We have only two Eggers' movies to go off of, but there's a type of humanity to Lowery's films that I've seen (including this one) that isn't there in Eggers. His is a much harsher world. Or maybe not! Maybe he'll do a hard turn on that with The Northman that'll take me surprise on that from. But somehow I suspect he won't.
I’m referring more to the aesthetics, surrealism and relative period authenticity of the film, which don’t particular align with Lowery’s previous works, including Ghost Story, which wore its literal-minded interpretations of the after life on its sleeve, err, sheet.





Dracula, 1992

Dracula (Gary Oldman) is a warrior who returns home to find that his beloved wife is dead. Renouncing the church, he vows to live forever, even if it is a damned existence. Years later, Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves) is sent to Transylvania to complete some real estate transactions. This sets off a series of events in which Dracula comes to England and preys on Mina (Winona Ryder), Harker's fiance and also possibly the reincarnation of Dracula's dead wife. Mina's salvation may lie in the expertise of Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins), a man whose scientific mind and faith intertwine in his practice.

So . . . . uf.

Here's the thing: I somewhat recently read and quite enjoyed Stoker's novel. The thing that really caught me up with this film was the fact that they changed almost all of my favorite parts of the novel. This made it hard to appreciate what the film was trying to do with its interpretation of the story.

Annoyingly, I quite like almost all of the actors in this film. That even extends to Richard E Grant and Tom Waits in their supporting roles. But the gap between the characters in the novel and the interpretation in this film was just a bit too hard for me to reconcile. For example, the Van Helsing in the novel is a determined, but very gentle and compassionate man. While he doesn't exactly run around slinging one-liners, the idea that Van Helsing would glibly talk about cutting of a woman's head (repeating this idea to both the woman's fiance and her best friend) just felt wrong. His first meeting with Mina--in which he grabs her and pushes her body against his to dance with her--was straight up creepy and weird.

I also really disliked the revised take on Mina's character. In the novel, Mina is part of the team. She is logical and patient, and she bravely puts herself in danger to protect her husband and to help destroy Dracula. But here, she just slowly falls under Dracula's horny spell. Ryder is good in her role, but I straight up just hated this interpretation.

Now, setting aside my dislike for the ways that the novel was changed, I still took issue with several aspects of the film itself. The editing and flow was just . . . bad. The novel is epistolary for the most part, with letters serving as the main narration punctuated with a handful of diary entries. The film sort of keeps this conceit, but it's so choppy and randomly applied that it detracts from the film. For example, the movie is rolling along when suddenly Van Helsing introduces himself in a voice-over. Why? There are multiple storylines being juggled at once, and instead of adding energy, the movement between them just feels disorienting and (again) random. Many of these storylines never cohere in a satisfying way, especially Renfield's.

The visuals and costuming were probably what I liked most about the film. There's a deliberate excess to it all that I found really charming, such as Lucy laying in her room and a virtual explosion of blood erupting on both sides of her bed. I enjoyed Lucy's absurd, bridal burial outfit. Some of the effects were fun, such as Dracula's man-bat form.

Ultimately, though, the film's sex-crazed take on the story just didn't work for me. Around the fourth scene with Lucy suffering from that old ailment Perpetual-Orgasm-With-One-Boob-Out, I was just kind of over it. I didn't find anything particularly compelling about the attempted eroticism. Sex and death is a classic combo, but I didn't feel that the film was actually saying anything about it. And a lot of that is probably down to the lack of character development. For example, if we get a better sense of Lucy's relationship with her fiance, it adds some tension to her fatalistic sexual entrapment. Despite the 2 hour plus runtime, only Dracula himself gets any depth.

Not sorry I watched it or anything, but definitely not an enjoyable interpretation of the story.




The Adventure Starts Here!
Plus, of course, there is that dreadful accent by Keanu Reeves. I mean, I like him in a LOT of stuff, but he just cannot pull off that accent at all.



Plus, of course, there is that dreadful accent by Keanu Reeves. I mean, I like him in a LOT of stuff, but he just cannot pull off that accent at all.
People talk about the accent so much that I was very prepared for it.

But in the end, it was like 11th on my list of things that irked me about the film.



I love Coppola’s Dracula but it’s almost entirely due to the gobsmacking technical veracity of the film. That 99% of the effects are done in camera using tricks that date back to the silent era, is simply a stunning feat.

As an adaptation of a novel with nothing but unfaithful takes on the story, I’d still rank it fairly high compared to others, including but not limited to the Universal slog by Tod Browning. I appreciated the perpetual horniness of the film as another element of garishness.

It’s a chaotic mess but the chaotic mess of a notoriously crazy auteur exercising everything he’s learned about filmmaking. Enjoyment will highly depend on how much you appreciate such a thing.

It’s crazy to me that a film this idiosyncratic was made as a financially safe bet by Coppola to save his studio, even to the point that Keanu was only cast because investors didn’t think Johnny Depp was good looking enough.



I love Coppola’s Dracula but it’s almost entirely due to the gobsmacking technical veracity of the film. That 99% of the effects are done in camera using tricks that date back to the silent era, is simply a stunning feat.
Yeah, but a lot of it also looks . . . not good.

Don't get me wrong, some of it was really cool. But other elements called way too much attention to themselves: the peacock feather morphing into a train tunnel, or eyes appearing superimposed over the image on screen when a character is referenced. Too often, the effects didn't feel like they were in service of the story--they were just in service of being on-screen. And two hours is just too long for that. Especially when Van Helsing has somehow learned to teleport.



I'm a bad person as I haven't actually read the novel, but I understand Jess Franco's Count Dracula is a pretty faithful adaptation? It's also probably his most chaste movie that I've seen (read: no nudity unlike most of his better known films). I found it a little too sedate to like all that much (not for those reasons I assure you; jeez, I should have sequenced this paragraph better), but I think Jinnistan is a fan so I will happily let him argue in its favour.



I think Jinnistan is a fan so I will happily let him argue in its favour.
Klaus Kinski falling out a window is the funniest thing he's ever done.



The only real sore spot of Coppola's Dracula, for me, is that it's not quite as horny as Lair of the White Worm.



As part of the 2021 Film Challenge, I intend to go through Coppola's filmography later this year, and I'm looking forward to revisiting Dracula which I last watched probably 25 years ago. As a staunch supporter of the "style over substance" approach, even I spent most of the film rolling my eyes at what I found to be empty flourishes. (Blood dripping across the screen is one example I've retained.) I was admittedly an Edgelord Art Major at the time, so I'm curious to see how my opinion has changed, if at all.

(I also remember thinking Winona and Keanu were terrible. We'll see.)
__________________
Captain's Log
My Collection



As part of the 2021 Film Challenge, I intend to go through Coppola's filmography later this year, and I'm looking forward to revisiting Dracula which I last watched probably 25 years ago. As a staunch supporter of the "style over substance" approach, even I spent most of the film rolling my eyes at what I found to be empty flourishes. (Blood dripping across the screen is one example I've retained.) I was admittedly an Edgelord Art Major at the time, so I'm curious to see how my opinion has changed, if at all.

(I also remember thinking Winona and Keanu were terrible. We'll see.)
Not sure how strictly you're defining "Coppola's" filmography, but I would suggest making room for Hammett. Wim Wenders is credited as the director but the finished product feels much closer to stuff like One From the Heart and The Cotton Club, as Coppola apparently took over and reshot most of the movie.



Not sure how strictly you're defining "Coppola's" filmography, but I would suggest making room for Hammett. Wim Wenders is credited as the director but the finished product feels much closer to stuff like One From the Heart and The Cotton Club, as Coppola apparently took over and reshot most of the movie.
Noted



Yeah, but a lot of it also looks . . . not good.

Don't get me wrong, some of it was really cool. But other elements called way too much attention to themselves: the peacock feather morphing into a train tunnel, or eyes appearing superimposed over the image on screen when a character is referenced. Too often, the effects didn't feel like they were in service of the story--they were just in service of being on-screen. And two hours is just too long for that. Especially when Van Helsing has somehow learned to teleport.
Haven't seen Coppola's Dracula yet, but I remember feeling similarly about his Rumble Fish when I watched it (even though I still liked it), so I'd imagine you'd feel the same way about it; I mean, that movie was so ridiculously overly-stylized, it made Apocalypse Now look like 3:10 To Yuma (the remake).



Coppola's Dracula is all about theatre. It's atmosphere and spectacale, it's carnival and sideshow. And it's proper hammy. Theatre hammy. Oldman and Hopkins seem to be having a private competition to see who can get the most OTT and still get it in the can. Reeves looks like he's been given the instruction "imagine Ted was a Victorian Englishman" as he does his best 'Ted wooing the maidens' voice. I actually like Ryder and Frost's performances and everyone else seems to be aware that they're not really important and had better stand out if they want anyone to notice they're there.
__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.



Yeah, but a lot of it also looks . . . not good.

Don't get me wrong, some of it was really cool. But other elements called way too much attention to themselves: the peacock feather morphing into a train tunnel, or eyes appearing superimposed over the image on screen when a character is referenced. Too often, the effects didn't feel like they were in service of the story--they were just in service of being on-screen. And two hours is just too long for that. Especially when Van Helsing has somehow learned to teleport.
I agree with you. Never understood the hype around that one.



A List of Other Things Now Bothering Me About Dracula!

1) Repressed woman going CRAZY because sex only really works if the women are repressed. But we get sexy times with Jonathan and Mina in the garden early on, and also Mina and Lucy giggling knowingly over sexually explicit paintings.

2) Van Helsing referring to Harker's time in the castle as "infidelities". Yeah, pretty sure that being held hostage and being physically and sexually assaulted isn't "infidelity."

3) What even was the point of Renfield in this movie?

4) Van Helsing teleporting. I know I already mentioned it, but seriously!

5) Of all the things in the novel that are super creepy and give the opportunity for some flair, the sea captain's sequence (an account of the boat that brings Dracula to England, in which the crew is slowly picked off and goes crazy because of something stalking them on the boat) is maybe the best. And yet it's entirely omitted here!

6) Recentering Mina's arc so that it plays into her relationship with Dracula instead of her relationship with Jonathan is admittedly an interesting take. But there's no heft to their relationship. You can't hinge a film on a question of choice between two dudes when one of those dudes is actively hypnotizing a person.

7) So many effects were used just once. Like the slow-motion voice over sequence when Dracula first arrives in England.

8) You can't milk a character death for drama if we've spent almost no time with that character, sorry.

9) So Mina and Lucy just live in big houses . . . on their own?

10) I'm sorry, I know it's iconic, but the big hair was distracting and looked very silly. There, I said it.