Bram Stoker''s Dracula
On the advice of the last DL thread about this, I just finished watching the movie. (I've read the book already.)
Maybe it's me but I didn't see the greatness many said it had.
Don't get me wrong, I thought it was ok, but just that, ok. I did love Hopkins Van Helsing, but from all I read here, I truly expected more from this movie.
So school me, what did I not see that I should have?
|by Devils Concubine||reply 51||03/02/2013|
You didn't see that it was utter shit?%0D %0D Oh my god, it was so horrible.%0D %0D I can't believe you thought it was any good. Or that you believed anyone who said it was great.%0D
|by Devils Concubine||reply 1||07/31/2010|
It's one of the funniest movies ever made, OP.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 2||07/31/2010|
All the effects were done IN CAMERA. No CGI. Probably one of the last great special effects films made using "classic" techniques. It is a beautifully shot film with a great musical score. Besides all this, the acting was atrocious. It's too bad they didn't have an isolated score for this film. The music and the visuals are entertaining enough.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 3||07/31/2010|
We had a long thread on this movie that was here a couple months ago.
Is it gone now too?
|by Devils Concubine||reply 4||07/31/2010|
Another vampire movie that sucks. Ha.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 5||07/31/2010|
It's the best vampire movie to date, R5
|by Devils Concubine||reply 6||07/31/2010|
Oonsy, Doonsy, Doony, Ahkar! Take me away from all this....DEATH!
|by Devils Concubine||reply 7||07/31/2010|
It really is a phenomenal film, with great performances by Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins, stunning visuals and the best adaptation to date of Stoker's novel.
It brought out the themes of Stoker's novel better than any other - sexuality vs. Victorian society, religion vs. science, east vs. west, etc.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 8||07/31/2010|
Oh please, R8. It was utterly horrible, unintentionally hilarious, and just plain really bad in every way I can imagine. I can't believe I actually paid to see that movie on opening night. It's one of the few times I ever wanted my money back, as well as those two hours of my life back.%0D %0D Just a complete mis-fire in every possible way. But especially casting.%0D %0D
|by Devils Concubine||reply 9||08/01/2010|
There are no good or even decent performances in this movie, r8.
Also, if you watch it on mushrooms, there's a really weird scene with hidden ants.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 10||08/01/2010|
I see that the anti-Bram Stoker's Dracula trolls are on this thread again.
The film was brilliant - it totally revived and redefined the vampire genre and is the only one to date to win Oscars.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 11||08/01/2010|
The only reason it's not the worst vampire film ever made is the 'quality' of the opposition. It's certainly one of the worst adaptations of the original novel and was roundly pilloried on its release.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 13||08/01/2010|
No it was not, R13. It got decent reviews, won 3 Oscars, and is considered by english professors of the novel to be the best adaptation so far.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 14||08/01/2010|
Well, R14, let's start with the review in Empire, one of the UK's best known and regarded film magazines.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 15||08/01/2010|
That was one of the bad reviews, R15 - you are posting selective information.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 16||08/01/2010|
"Dracula received considerable attention upon release, being greeted with generally positive reviews from critics. Based on 44 reviews collected from notable publications by popular review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an overall approval rating of 82%."
|by Devils Concubine||reply 17||08/01/2010|
You're claim was that it got decent reviews. I was giving an example of one of the many poor reviews I read at the time. It was a film that split critics but it wasn't universally well regarded by them or by academics either at the time or through the lens of time. It was well criticised at the Dracula Film festival.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 18||08/01/2010|
It got a few bad reviews, yes, but so does almost any movie when there are hundreds of reviews out there. They're not all going to agree with each other. But the point is that the majority of the reviews were positive. You made out above that the film was basically garbage, and as demonstrated, that is not the case. It was successful critically and commercially.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 19||08/01/2010|
It's a total misfire and, as a result, unintentionally hilarious. I've watched it more times than I can count entirely because of the fact that it's one of the few movies which can reliably make me laugh and laugh hard. It's fucking horrible. And I'm grateful for that. I'm nearly laughing right now thinking of Keanu's "English accent".
|by Devils Concubine||reply 20||08/01/2010|
R20, you've been proven wrong. Have the grace to admit it, and move on.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 21||08/01/2010|
Proven wrong by whom? what? You're a fucking idiot. There are at least two of us in this thread currently posting who have the brain functioning to cogitate that the movie is piece of crap. And then there's you.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 22||08/01/2010|
Anyone who told you this film had anything approaching greatness was pulling your leg, OP.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 23||08/01/2010|
R22, the link above shows that the majority of critics gave the film positive reviews.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 24||08/01/2010|
The movie is most remembered by me for the hot cross bun that passes for a wig on Gary Oldman's Dracula. Or as I prefer to call it, "The Croissant."
|by Devils Concubine||reply 25||08/01/2010|
I haven't posted anything about reviews. You're a moron and the movie sucks.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 26||08/01/2010|
R22, stop insulting people just because you don't agree with them.
Did you see the link above that shows that the majority of reviews for this movie were positive?
|by Devils Concubine||reply 27||08/01/2010|
"Dracula received considerable attention upon release, being greeted with generally positive reviews from critics. Based on 44 reviews collected from notable publications by popular review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an overall approval rating of 82%.
Roger Ebert awarded the film 3/4 stars, writing: "I enjoyed the movie simply for the way it looked and felt. Production designers Dante Ferretti and Thomas Sanders have outdone themselves. The cinematographer, Michael Ballhaus, gets into the spirit so completely he always seems to light with shadows."
|by Devils Concubine||reply 28||08/01/2010|
"The film was a notable box office hit, grossing $82,522,790 domestically and $133,339,902 overseas for a total worldwide gross of $215,862,692, making it the most commercially successful adaptation of the novel to date."
"The film won three Academy Awards, Best Costume Design (Eiko Ishioka), Best Sound Effects Editing (Tom C. McCarthy, David E. Stone) and Best Makeup (Greg Cannom, Mich%C3%83%C2%A8le Burke, Matthew W. Mungle) and was nominated for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration"
|by Devils Concubine||reply 29||08/01/2010|
You're obviously the Bad Taste troll. Why don't you pull up a Jodie Foster thread or start another on the delights of congee. Anyone who has seen this movie who doesn't suffer from brain damage knows it's dreadful.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 30||08/01/2010|
But all that still doesn't erase the fact that the movie was a stinker, R29. As another poster said, Reeves was horrible, I actually cringed when he spoke his first lines. Hell, I had more depth playing Smokey the Bear in 6th grade. If I hadn't read the book, I'd wonder who the heck Quinn was because as it was, the movie just threw him in there. Oldman was good but his elder Dracula was just freaky with the bun head. All that costume and makeup design yet a centuries old beast has nails as white as if he just got then French manicured? It was just too many little things added up that made the whole so awfully bad, in my opinion.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 31||08/01/2010|
R30, you haven't provided any evidence to back up your assertions. Saying "It's terrible and everyone knows it", does not cut it.
I have provided the following to demonstrate that it is a good movie:
1. The majority of reviews of it are good and it has a positive rating at Rotten Tomatoes
2. It won 3 Academy Awards
3. It is the most successful box office for a Dracula movie
Do you have any comparable opposing evidence? Because so far you have been owned!
|by Devils Concubine||reply 32||08/01/2010|
"the movie was a stinker"
You're entitled to your opinion, but you have to acknowledge that the majority of reviews disagree with that assessment, and the proof was posted above.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 33||08/01/2010|
No one cares about your fucking reviews you psycho. It's a bad movie. Accept it and move on.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 34||08/01/2010|
R32 is trying to re-write history.%0D %0D The film was a huge disappointment. There was much pre-release excitement and expectation, it opened well but had no legs due to poor word of mouth. It might have been saved, commercially, by it's overseas box office but USD 82.5 M domestic gross isn't great, esp. since at the time it had one of the highest opening weekends for a fall opening. It didn't expand on that much.%0D %0D Winning an Oscar for costumes doesn't mean it's a great film.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 35||08/01/2010|
The costumes were gorgous. Not sure about the rest of it but that Oscar was deserved.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 36||08/01/2010|
What I've noticed about ROTTEN TOMATOES is that sometimes a review labeled as a GOOD one is not favorable review. Has anyone else noticed this? I'll read a "good" review and it turns out the critic liked a few things about a film, but overall didn't care for it.
Based on that, I would say ROTTEN TOMATOES percentage ratings are bullshit.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 37||08/01/2010|
Absolutely right, r11. Some people are just hard to please. I own this movie and make it a point to watch it every few months. Still love watching it.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 38||08/01/2010|
I don't know how anyone can think this is a good movie. Horrible casting, the worst acting ever, and every scene just LOOKED like it was done on a sound-stage, everything was so fake and claustrophobic. And the sped-up film bits were just hilarious, they were so badly done. Keanu and Winona? Please. Just awful.%0D %0D Nobody I know liked it. Though most will admit to some good visuals and costuming, those two things do not a good movie make.%0D %0D It's a laughing stock, imho. A huge mis-fire. A joke. Hell, "Fright Night" was a better vampire movie.%0D %0D
|by Devils Concubine||reply 39||08/01/2010|
Another fan of the movie here. I thought it was a beautifully lush production with some stunning set pieces (the opening is pretty insane) and a sublime score. It's also a master class in the craft of in camera filmmaking.
But I do concede it is all over the place and quite messy. And much of the acting is ham over fist. Yeah Reeves is a weak suck in it, but for me it was Hopkin's Van Helsing that is the worst. Some of his line readings were so bad they almost seemed intentionally so, like he was mocking the whole thing.
I was in film school at Columbia when it came out and a professor of mine came out with a bunch of us students to see it opening night (he smoked a fatty with us). We had a blast and were equally impressed and amused with the whole thing.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 40||08/01/2010|
"Hell, "Fright Night" was a better vampire movie. "
You say that like Fright Night is some shitty low-water mark. It was a cheeky 80s horror movie. And as such was quite well done.
Pick another reference.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 41||08/01/2010|
My point, R41, is that Fright Night was more a comedy than a horror film (though it was good as a horror film too), and even so, it was far easier to take it seriously than Bram Stoker's Dracula was.%0D %0D I could sit through Fright Night a thousand times and still enjoy it. I could barely sit through Bram Stoker's Dracula the first time... and tried a second time on cable, but it was just so awful I couldn't stand it.%0D %0D Hell, I've managed to sit through Mel Brooks' "Dracula: Dead and Loving it" three times (all on cable), and it's pretty bad. But it's better than the movie it lampoons.%0D %0D
|by Devils Concubine||reply 42||08/01/2010|
it was an incredibly stylized and beautiful film. winona and keanu were dreadful (as usual) but the film had so many other compelling elements, not even they could ruin it.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 43||08/01/2010|
Yea, R43, it was a great movie except for all the performances (rolling eyes).%0D %0D
|by Devils Concubine||reply 44||08/01/2010|
R35, you're the one trying to re-write history. It's a fact that the movie was a success, that it was well-reviewed AND that it won Oscars.
If you don't like it, fine. But don't try to pretend something that isn't true.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 46||08/01/2010|
The best vampire movie ever was House of Dark Shadows.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 48||08/01/2010|
A campy mess with horrible performances. Great costumes though. And I love the score.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 49||03/02/2013|
Check out the Frank Langella Dracula.
It was infinitely better.
The 80s produced some awful movies.
|by Devils Concubine||reply 50||03/02/2013|
In what universe do Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder read as 19th-century English aristocrats?
|by Devils Concubine||reply 51||03/02/2013|