@@parallaxnick637 Gary Oldman is a great friend of Christ Roberts and he agreed to participate in Squadron 42 alongside Mark Hamill, Gillian Anderson and Henry Cavill. To know if he did a good performance is a matter of waiting, not guessing.
Even Drexel the pimp in true Romance, Commissioner Gordon, Bad guy in The Professional, you don't even realize it's him unless someone calls attention to it.
Yeah. Just like in the book...Actually, they pulled that out of their ass. Not that I'd mind, but keep the author's name out of the title, when the movie bares little resemblance to the book
@@jonathancunningham8739I don't remember the book ever saying that Mina was Dracula's wife reincarnated. It's been a while since I read it but I don't remember that at all.
None of the Elisabeta/Mina silliness was in the book; it's typical Hollywood horseshit. Mina was nothing more than a young woman who caught Drac's attention. Pretty good movie, but calling it "Bram Stoker's Dracula" is not only misleading, but an insult to Stoker as well.
Hi Cassie, one of the reasons this movie has such an odd aesthetic is because it pays tribute to a style of theater from the 19th century called "grand guginol". That theater style emphasizes over the top violence, horror and sadism. It's one of the reasons the movie's visual style is so lush and supersaturated.
I love that Coppola used old movie and stage tricks to create optical illusions rather than modern (for the early 90s) technology- it feels so much more effective, and more dreamlike...I could watch it again and again. And it's the only movie I own on that short-lived "Superbit" format for the same reason. (wtf was superbit, anyway??)
@Jessica I completely agree with you. The effects are stunning. I’m not a fan of most cgi, practical effects take so much more imagination and skill to pull off.
@@lewstone5430 I'm a huge practical effects nerd, I would rather watch a less immersive practical illusion that doesn't work 100% than plastic, artificial-looking cgi. I don't mind knowing that something is obviously a "magic trick" (as Tom Savini called them) as long as my eyes can see that something is happening in that space, in that air and light.
Yes!! I love how his shadow knocks over that carved dragon looking candle stand next to Mina's photograph just an inch or two before his hand reaches rhe locket. Those subtle little details are what make this film such a masterpiece.
With Mina kissing a bloody, disfigured, monstrous Dracula, Cassie says, " You still into this, Mina?" That was freaking hilarious. My favorite Cassie-ism.
The deal with Dracula is he has a lot of powers in the novel. He can transform into rats, bats, and that wolf, but it also seems that there's in between forms. Those I think are used to show how monstrous he really is. As to the age issues, when you see him in his castle with Keanu, he hasn't feed a lot in a long time, so it ages him a LOT. By the time he reaches London he has eaten an entire large ship of men, which rejuvenates him.
It’s cool that they attempt a little to portray his various appearances as their described,something the other movies never did. The visuals still aren’t that accurate to the book but I like that show him alternate in appearance
MY favorite line in the original movie. In this one i think Gary actually butchered it. He was actually super drunk in that scene lol. He is my favorite Dracula in cinema besides that line though. Also since Coppola was going all out and staying mostly faithful to the novel. he should not have cut the scene where Dracula orders the wolves to kill and eat the mother of the baby he kidnapped and fed to his brides.
The nudity was about the corrupting influence Dracula had, and overall the suppression of sexuality in Victorian times, and the whole "foreigners stealing and corrupting our women". Lucy gets taken first, because thematically, she's more open about her sexuality which makes her more susceptible to Dracula's pelvic sorcery. Edit: Plus, don't be too hard on Keanu, guys. He'd just got off doing like 3-4 movies back to back and was exhausted. He didn't really wanna do it, and his performance suffered cause of it.
I am also suspicious of FFCs direction of Keanu. Keanu never had a lot of range in his acting, but actors want some direction usually and I feel like ffc said just stand there K.
That whole line is the reason that Gary Oldman took the part in the movie; he just read it in the script and he was like “FUCK YES, FRANCIS; THIS ONE LINE IS WORTH IT.”
Practical isn't infallible. There are plenty of films with terrible practical effects, and just as many with great CGI effects. Don't be that "CGI bad" guy.
@@YodatheHobbit The video on this reaction is not how it supposed to look. For some reason her version / settings made it too dark. Lot of black crush and missing shadow details. I would suggest you to check it again on calibrated system to see how it supposed to look.
Fun fact, the voyage of the ship Demeter that carried Dracula & the coffins to London takes up one chapter of the book. Back in 2002, someone wrote a screenplay called "Last Voyage Of The Demeter" which takes that chapter and expands it into its own feature film. After over 15 years in development hell, they finally shot the movie this year. Sadly, it won't be released until January 2023.
The entirety of Dracula's choice at the beginning has to be understood in context for a person to understand why this is still considered a love story. Dracula rode out to almost certain death in defense of The Faith. Not only is he not rewarded for his defense of the faith in the face of seemingly overwhelming odds, he instead loses the woman he truly loves. Then they inform him that because she committed suicide she is damned to hell for eternity. He will not even see her in the afterlife. What began as disbelief and sorrow turns to rage and despair. So he chooses damnation himself, renounces God and essentially swears allegiance to Satan because then he could join her in hell. Probably held in high regard once he's there. (I've gotta imagine Dracula in hell would be looked upon like "that's how it's done boys and girls. That's how it's done") And to make sure of it he blasphemes the cross and takes an unnatural and evil existence. What comes next are merely the consequences which are tragic, creepy, often disgusting and evil. But all of it is because Dracula could not accept never seeing Elizabeta again. The lengths a guy will go to, ya know?
The movie kinda did Mina dirty. In the book, she is very capable and remains ever faithful to Jonathan. She finds Dracula to be a monster, helping the group track Dracula after being attacked by him and never willingly succumbs to him. The love story was invented for the film.
I think it would have been more interesting if they had left it alone. Let Dracula pursue her and let her be true to Jonathan. As it was, the love story didn’t do much for me anyway
I dragged my family to see this in theaters when I was a teen, and had just read Bram Stoker beforehand. What always stands out most to me is how they did Dracula’s independently-moving shadow.
I always assumed that the shadows were an afterthought since he seems to be looking right at them, but never reacts to any of them. It seemed like something they decided to add in post production, rather than something that was planned from the start.
@@lurkerrekrul The reason I believe they were definitely planned is because, if they were an afterthought, it seems highly unlikely his shadow would be centered in frame in so many of the shots. One can tell quite early on the shadow's movements are slightly delayed and both not in sync with Dracula's own movements, which really adds to the creepy factor.
@@gluuuuue I just find it strange that Harker looks right at several of the shadows (at least in the direction they would be) and never reacts in the slightest. You'd think a shadow moving independently from the person casting it, would merit at least a puzzled look, but there's no reaction from him at all.
@@lurkerrekrul Ahh, well 1) Jonathan doesn't see both Dracula and his shadow at the same time because he's standing in between them by relative positions in the scene-the one instance when he does look directly at Dracula's shadow @6:08, Jonathan turns back and is momentarily puzzled having expected Dracula to be standing where he originally was, to the left of the frame, only to hear him suddenly behind him on the right, and he's slightly confused. At 6:22, they are both within Jonathan's line of sight, but standing roughly in the same place, they're mostly moving in sync, but not so, by the tiniest bit, and Jonathan looks directly at the shadow and seems to notice something slightly unusual about that. 2) The level of digital effects commonly available and used in post today didn't really start to become viable until the later '90s, and most of these began with virtual crowds, eg. the bugs in Starship Troopers (1997), and orcs/armies in LotR (2001), or with Spider-Man (2002). Dracula's various shadow scenes, the ones listed above and at @5:10, show no indications of chroma-keying (bluescreen/greenscreen compositing), which would have been the only sorts of post effects available at the time for altering the background. CG effects at this time looked extremely obviously computer generated, eg. The Lawnmower Man (also 1992). But 3) another way to tell is how the shadow scenes intentionally have the mostly white map in the background, almost like a movie projector screen, and the scene is lit almost singularly with a strong light source far off to the left of the camera and closer to it or possibly even behind it (with very little other light, probably off reflectors, to give their faces and figures some form). This allows both Oldman's and Reeves's actual shadows to land somewhere off to the right of the scene off-camera, while the performer for Dracula's shadow is off-camera to the left. Notice Jonathan Harker's own shadow is never visible on the background map of London.
32:12 " I thaught Dracula is supposed to be handsome, not old..." - NOOOO, pop culture totally ruined vampires for me... Gary Oldman was probably the best after Max Schreck (Nosferatu).
I thought Anders Hoves (Subspecies) version of Radu was great. Took much from Nosferatu. For me, best vampire book series is Brian Lumleys "Necroscope."
@@JnEricsonx For probably the past 20years. His books have been optioned for some company to make a movie on them. I think now the only reason the option was paid for was to keep them from being made into a movie. IF they did a series on his books it would work better. There is about 20 books in the series.
@@theriomrasputin8233 I think I read up to the one where the Necroscope became a vampire himself. It's been probably 20 years plus since I read any of them.
@@JnEricsonx Yeah. I recently passed all my books over to a friend as I had read them a few times and the older books were harder to locate. I began reading the books back in the late 80's. Harry does become a vamp, if I recall correctly. The story branches off a couple times and different people take on the role of the Necrocope, while Harry is still always around in various ways.
To me this is the best Dracula movie by far. It is a work of art in every aspect. The music is out of this world as well. Great love/horror story. After this film, I am sure no one should try to make another Dracula movie because this one cannot be beaten artisticly.
You hit the nail on the head, friend! This is absolutely the best Dracula movie in my opinion as well. I understand why it wouldn’t be everyone’s cup of tea though.
Mina is the reincarnated soul of Dracula's wife Elizabeta. That's why they are drawn to each other. The movie uses a lot of old school effects also, that's what they mean by artistic.
I have loved horror movies since I was a little kid in the 70's so to find someone who doesn't know the Dracula origin story shocks me. This version is about as close as you get to the book but of course there are differences to make the movie more exciting. The book "Dracula: The Undead" written by Dacre Stoker (great grand-nephew of Bram Stoker) & Ian Holt picks up the original Dracula story 25 years later. A great read!
I suppose vampires have gone through a huge change since the time of Stoker. Dracula was evil incarnate. These days they glitter and and go to the prom. If Vampire Academy is the only thing she's seen I could forgive her ignorance of traditional vampire history.
There's an entire subculture of people who ask and answer this question regularly, inspired by the Marquis de Sade and his writings. The relationship between the mind and body can be an interesting one to explore... 🤘🦇🎃
One thing I really like in it is how vampire's limitations and weaknesses are played with. Both Dracula and humans are constantly trying to outsmart each other, instead of it being just a story of supernatural good and evil fighting through supernatural means.
Only if the epistolary style appeals to you. I found it quite a slog to get through. I understand that it can be used to create mystery and tension in the story, but found the constant narrator, style and subject changes off-putting. I really don't see the advantage over using a basic 3rd person perspective. I still think it is a must read, if only from a historical point of view.
@@current9300 That's because the story is not about good and evil, it's about the sexual repression of the Victorians and how that didn't even work, because people were still screwing each other willy-nilly and were spreading Syphilis all over the place. Oh, and Bram Stoker was an Irish Catholic, so bad conscience comes into play, too. Just like Buffy the Vampire Slayer wasn't a show about good people vs. evil vampires, but about the horrors of growing up and going to an American high school.
I did it when I was a kid. I spend my holidays at my grandma's house. There was a library and I've read a lot of books. Dracula was one of them. I read it in bed in the night. That was in previous millenium.
I live not far from Whitby, where Dracula's ship comes to England in the novel, and where Lucy is seduced and bitten. It's amazing to stand by the Abbey and picture the scene. It's a very atmospheric town, Bram Stoker was inspired to write the book while staying there on holiday. It's a wonderful story, and I think the film is very close in feel to the novel, even if some aspects are changed. A must read book, and a great reaction vid, thanks Cassie!
It is a love story…a beautifully dark love story. He crossed oceans of time to be with her then she sets him free of his curse. Also..Wojciech Kilar composed one the most beautiful soundtracks in film history !
I LOVE this movie with all its weirdness ! The score is AMAZING! The costumes design beautiful! The visuals are impressive! The portrayal of Dracula by M Oldman is unmatchable! This is the perfect time for you to watch "Interview With the Vampire" with very handsome vampires 😉 (Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Antonio Banderas, Christian Slater and Kirsten Dunst)!
"Didn't know they made books like that back then." That is the Kama Sutra, an Indian book composed roughly in the 2nd century AD and first printed in English in 1883. One part romantic advice, one part sex manual, It was a sensation in Britain at the time. "That is one of the weirdest scenes I have ever witnessed." Oh, those three are a trip, aren't they? In just about every adaptation, the three nameless "Brides of Dracula" always launch the creep-factor to the stratosphere, even in the old Lugosi version. (The fact there're three of 'em implies Stoker was invoking famous mythological female trios like the Norns, the Furies, and Shakespeare's three witches.) "Is she in pain or... pleasure?" Hahahaaaa! The answer is "yes." It is, I'll admit, entertaining to watch someone so new to vampire lore that's become common knowledge through literally a hundred vampire movies. "It makes me want to watch another portrayal." It's honestly the most faithful to Bram Stoker's novel. You might try Nosferatu ('79.) I'd also recommend the TV mini-series 'Salem's Lot ('79) for a much more down-to-Earth but still very effective vampire story. If you'd like a comedy, I heartily recommend What We Do in the Shadows ('14.)
Yeah it's weird, @@hendrikscheepers4144 . The text is from The Book of a Thousand and One Nights and a Night, by Richard Francis Burton. But the illustration is very firmly in the Indian style, not Arabic. I think the prop guys were taking a license.
Wholeheartedly agree in “what we do in the shadows”! But if she’s looking for a lighthearted take on the Dracula story, specifically, I’d strongly recommend Mel Brooks’ “Dracula, dead and loving it”!
@@Corn_Pone_Flicks That was practical too, the trick is made by filming the actor in the same position wearing different stages of make up and then editing all the frames together. I believe it's called the "Karl Struss technique" and it was first done in the movie "Sh! The Octopus" from 1937. The same technique was used in LOTR the Two Towers to "de-age" King Theoden.
In addition to the old school camera tricks and effects the whole movie was filmed on sets and that's intentional, it's how they filmed the 1931 Dracula but i remember when this movie came out more than a few critics blasted the movie for it's corny fakey look, they just didn't understand that that's what Coppola was going for, i love the look of this movie.
Having read the original book a couple of times I can say that this version does follow it more closely than many others but far from perfectly (for better and for worse). The original story does form the bones of this one with a lot of that "artistic stuff" on top. If you are in need of a light hearted take, I would highly recommend "Dracula: Dead and Loving It" from Mel Brooks. It follows the original story as well but also pokes a lot of fun at this movie in particular. As a side note, it might be my favorite Mel Brooks movie after Young Frankenstein.
@@Psilocybin77 Not really, to him the time passed in an eye blink. Dracula spent centuries as a reviled monster despite having saved his country from the Turks.
I absolutely love her reactions bc it's like seeing a film I've seen many times with new eyes. I don't understand the people who complain in the comments or who give her (or other reactors) a hard time because they don't know what's going on or haven't got the gist of the plot. It's their first time seeing a film! How can we expect them to know everything about something they've never seen before? If they did, it wouldn't be as entertaining to watch.
@@ScientificallyStupid i have literally never seen the movie apart from the cuts in this video, and i still got the stuff. Saying "a person has never seen XY so you can't expect him/her to understand" is like saying "i have never seen a bottle fall, so i can't predict that gravity will bring it down to earth". Logical thinking is literally "the abstract separation of a whole into its constituent parts in order to study the parts and their relations" and apply it in new situations that contain similar "parts". The only thing one can "maybe" pardon knowledge-wise (even though it's very basic) is the sex part. Vampires are initially supposed to be creatures of the devil, thus being unpure and filled with unholy desire. This is shown by their wish for sexual desire, to be contrasted by the holiness of sexual abstinence. As long as you know that catholic priests are not allowed to have sex and that vampires are creatures of the devil you should be able to piece together the reason why vampires are portrayed that sexual. The part were she was against the love story between dracula and mina/elizabeth striked me as very odd, given her initial comments to how sad it is that dracula lost his true love, right before the scene where he turned. And then she suddenly sees him as a monster simply because he is visually unappealing and she prefers Keanu Reeves as the "husband". I guess this was caused because she didn't make the connection that Mina is supposed to be a reincarnation of Elizabeth, and thought she only looked the same with no other connections.
@@XpVersusVista BINGO.... you nailed it. Cassie is fun to watch, especially some of her over the top reactions. But she’s very sweet and innocent and fails to make a lot of connections in older movies.
@@ScientificallyStupid Also, you have to remember she is of a different generation(melinneal). This movie was released during generation X era. The generational attention span is different and the perspective and view towards this movie is like night and day in regards to how generation X vs melinneals see this movie. Movies back in the day were darker, indepth, more brooding and was moving at a slower pace but those elements gave movies of that generation more meaning. However, movies in general back in the day were more original, unique and were created by the minds of very creative individuals and individuals with a rich imagination. Milinneals can't appreciate good cinema of that old school caliber because, their attention span is very short and they have no imagination. No harm intended, I just speak truth. That's why her reaction comes to no surprise to me. Great reaction tho. 😉
One movie that I thought of that doesn't get enough attention is The Ghost and the Darkness. It has Val Kilmer and Michael Douglas in it. They are hunters who have to kill a pair of man-eating lions. It's awesome. You should totally watch it some time.
Next to Tombstone and Willow, Ghost And The Darkness is my favorite Val Kilmer role. Based off the story of John Patterson and the man-eating lions in Tsavos. If I remember correctly, you can actually see the lions at the Natural History Museum in Chicago. It does have a few inaccuracies to it, but the things that the movie does get correct are the things that are the hardest to believe, such as the scene with the sharp shooting criminals and the spring cage trap! There's a channel called History Buffs, and the host looks at movies based on true stories or events. He did an episode about Ghost, and it's really an eye opening episode that'll make you appreciate the the movie and the story behind it just that much more!
I find it interesting that you said that you wanted Mina to be all in love with Jonathan Harker and not Drac. Because that's how the book goes! You nailed it. They added the whole Mina is Drac's reincarnated lover for the movie. In the book Mina hates Drac, and when they kill him, Jonathan and Mina name their son Quincy after Quincy Morris: the Texan who died.
Oddly, they had a character who was the reincarnation of Dracula's lover and later Mina (at least Dracula thought he kept meeting her again and again) in the spoof, Love at First Bite, which was much earlier than this film.
@@LisaRummel83 Halfway through reading it for the first time. It's an interesting read, as its told fully in diaries and letters, quite a different storytelling style than I'm used to!
I know this movie gets hated in for Keanu’s whack accent but it honestly is such a gorgeous movie. The production design and costume designs are wonderful.
Alas, it's not just his accent. In truth, the only genuinely good performance comes from Gary Oldman, even Anthony Hopkins is off his game here. I expect it's more a matter of poor directing, when almost all the acting is poor. (Actually, I forgot about Tom Waits, his Renfield was excellent!)
@@STNeish Hopkins is fine. His character is supposed to be really out there. His obsession has gnawed at his sanity. I think Hopkins hamming it up a bit suits the character and tone. Also Sadie Frost acted her ass out as Lucy, i think she did amazing.
Love Gary Oldman in this. Heck, love Gary Oldman in anything, really. And like others have said .. this version is closer to the novel than the others. It's the experience. I had a hard time reading the book due to it's journal style but ya, this is it.
@@juicedabarber Ooo, great idea. It's been a while since I read the book .. finally got around to it when this movie came out. I hadn't even thought of the audio book. Thanks for the recommend!
In mythology, there's a strong connection between vampires and werewolves. In fact, in Romania/Transylvania the word "Pricolici" is a combination of the two. Vampires are said to be able to control bats, rats and wolves (as seen in this movie), and in the original Novel 'Dracula', by Bram Stoker, he is able to transform into either a big black wolf or dog. This movie took the extra step of having him transform into a more humanoid wolf form as well as a humanoid bat form, and at some points even rat looking. I recommend reading "Dracula" by Bram Stoker. It adds a lot of background info - like how the reason Van Helsing is so set against, and knowledgeable of, vampires is that his wife is currently locked in an insane asylum having been attacked and driven insane by one - possibly Dracula himself. Interestingly, in Dracula the Texan Quincy Morris, fought some South American vampire-like creatures in the past. Dracula is the subject of more films than any other fictional character except Sherlock Holmes. You should watch Universal Pictures "Dracula" (1931) staring Bela Lugosi. It's the original Dracula movie that all others are measured against. Be forewarned, the movie is very old, in black and white, and the Lugosi's acting is...Unique. Bela Lugosi was a Hungarian stage actor who worked extensively in Europe in the role of Dracula. When they decided to make it into a movie, their first choice was the very famous silent film Hollywood horror actor Lon Chaney Sr. (his son, Lon Chaney Jr. later became famous playing the original Werewolf in Universal's "The Wolf Man" - with Bela Lugosi playing the werewolf that bites Chaney). Lon Chaney Sr. developed throat cancer and died before the movie was filmed, so they went with Lugosi - who didn't speak English - he learned his lines phonetically. Between his not speaking English, his extreme accent, and his stage-actor mannerisms, just watching him eat up scenery is fun all by itself. The character Count (Count von Count) on Sesame Street is heavily based on Lugosi's Count Dracula. As is the famous Dracula accent, "I vant. To drink. Your blood!" is never actually said by Lugosi. Christopher Lee (Count Dooku/Saruman) played Dracula in 1958's "Horror of Dracula" opposite Peter Cushing (Grand Moff Tarkin) as Van Helsing. This one comes from Hammer Films and is VERY gory and overtly sexual, but good fun. Lee played Dracula in 8 movies and similar vampires in several more. Another stage actor, Frank Langella, played a "sexy vampire" in 1979's "Dracula". It's also a pretty good one. The movie "Dracula 2000" isn't great, but I recommend seeing it anyway. It offers an interesting take on Dracula's actual identity. Stoker's original novel based Count Dracula on the real life Romanian Prince Vlad III, called Dracula or Vlad Tepes (Dracula means Son of the Devil/Dragon/Serpent. Tepes means Impaler - Vlad the Impaler). In Dracula 2000, his actual identity is revealed to be Judas Iscariot. Explaining his vampiric weakness Holy Water, Silver (usually the werewolf weakness), Crosses, and the Light of the Sun/Son - bit of a stretch, but there it is.
Amazing. When she said that Dracula was the second most depicted subject in film I (a huge Sherlock Holmes fan) thought well i bet Sherlock Holmes is number one, but then I disregarded it as the childish thought of a Holmes fan and settled for Jesus 😅
This is one of the closest adaptions to Bram Stoker's original novel. Dracula is old in the beginning because he didn't drink enough human blood. The more he drinks human blood, the younger the Count gets, and the more powerful he becomes. Vampires are also shapeshifters, mostly they're famous for turning into bats or bat-like creatures. There are some instances they can turn into wolves, hence why you were confused to seeing Dracula a "werewolf" at times. His true form is that of a giant bat you see throughout. Of course, he can change into mist or even a big pile of rats. In vampire folklore, vampires can't see their reflection in the mirror. They can't, in some vampire stories, not all, even see themselves in photographs or film. You asked why they are getting naked later in the movie, and that's because this version tended to be more erotic. It is considered as an erotic horror film. There is also another erotic vampire flick in 1983 called The Hunger, which starred David Bowie, but the film lacks compared to this. Vampires are nearly immortal creatures. In most common ways to kill vampires, is to drag them into the sunlight, or run a stake to their heart, and stuff garlic into their mouths after beheading them, or stuff their coffins with garlic after your disembodied their corpse. That's the traditional way, but of course, over the years, writers find a way to walk around the folklore and change it up a bit. Nevertheless, this one, and the 1974 film, are really the closest adaptions to the original novel.
@@josephwallace202 And I'm sorry, but James Rolfe's views can't be taken too seriously, given that his knowledge of films is very limited, and this applies to films and games as well. And the fact that he's a disastrous filmmaker is confirmed by his film experiment.
@@josephwallace202 I started watching him when he started making game reviews, but after a couple of episodes it was clear that it was just about two grimaces, and really childish humour. And, of course, about shit. So no, not a fan of him. And I've seen some of his film reviews a couple of times, and it's clear that he's a man who idolizes production for the plebs, and completely misses the art itself.
The fictional Dracula is based on Prince (Voivode) Vlad III of Wallachia (in modern Romania). Vlad did have a title "Dracula" as he was in the Order of the Dragon. He ruled Wallachia in the mid to late 15th century. As Vlad "The Impaler" he would impale many thousands of his enemies (including many Turks). Outside his capital city he had the "Forest of the impaled" that supposedly terrified an invading Turkish army from further invasion.
@@NiclasLoof Bram Stoker's book, which is quite good by the way, does not mention the historical figure of Voivode Vlad III. This film does, with the opening scenes, try to make an attempt to tie the fiction character Dracula with the historical Vlad. I liked that as it got me to read about this history of the period and that region of the world.
@@NiclasLoof Wasen't Stoker more inspired by the story of Hungarian noblewoman Elizabeth Bathory who is said to have bathed in young servant girl's blood to keep her skin from aging.
I distinctly recall watching this in a theater in Philadelphia, the Winter it came out. A movie of immense charm and atmosphere, whatever a few of the performances.
I've read the original book, and this movie took some SERIOUS liberties with the story. When I watched it, I thought they had a lot of nerve calling it "Bram Stoker's" Dracula.
Very fun reaction! Thank you! I think you missed the fact that it is implied that Mina is the reincarnation of Elisabeta. That's why Dracula recognise her in Jonathan's photograph. That explains also why Mina could not resist Dracula's courtship. Mina and Dracula were soulmates! With those facts in mind, Dracula and Mina's relation become not only less absurd but also a lot less creepy. :)
Generation gaps are a hoot. Back in the day when this came out, I was a sophomore in college. We all thought this movie was hella romantic. I'm watching you see them meet on the street and think she should run from him and I'm like 'No, Cassie. You're watching it wrong!' lol Now granted we all thought Keanu was one of the hottest guys back then and Gary Oldman was a little known but not as a heartthrob. We all came out of the movie in love with Oldman. I have noticed from watching a lot of you reaction kids, you younger folks are super literal. But for us, if you're soulmate turns into a pile of rats it's kinda like 'welp, sh*t happens'. I think the movie's sumptuous. A feast for the eyes. The score really brings the feels. And Oldman and Ryder's chemistry was fire. I mean, I dunno. Different strokes for different folks I guess. I'm sure someone else will tell you but Keanu and Winona might be married all these years because that was a real priest. It's not like either of them married anyone else either.
I think there was definite room to make the relationship ambiguous and Dracula more seductive, or a tragic villain, but it really still bothers me how Coppola humanised him in order to sell a "love" plot that it was all counter to the story (and as the last scene shows, doesnt make any sense). Dracula could be "hot" but he IS still a monster. Also, the'"chemistry" between Winona and Oldman was all in your head, LOL, cause they kind of hated eachother throughout the shoot, mainly cause Oldman is an asshole and absolute egotist.
@@winterfell_forever They don't have to like each other as people for the actors to have on screen chemistry. Patrick Swayze and Jennifer Grey also hated each other but DIRTY DANCING is one of the biggest love stories of the 80s. I also disagree with the idea that FFC "humanized" a monster. The whole idea that you can humanize a human, again, seems to be something new to the culture. Vlad was a human and an immortal. Trying to "make sense" of a love story is the issue here. Us older folks know love doesn't make any sense. The literal kids try to figure it out. What a mess.
It's more of a fever dream art film than anything else. Visually stunning and with a fantastic score by Wojciech Kilar. Yes it's incoherent, overblown and the acting has more ham than a butchers shop, but it is certainly a unique and ambitious version of the dracula story.
In my sophomore year in high school, our literature class had us reading Dracula. This movie has its flaws, but it does try to stay faithful to the original work. The irony here is that I was a sophomore in '92, the movie hit theaters only a few months after we read the book. It was an amazing coincidence.
This is one of my favorite Vampire movies. I would also recommend people to watch the 'Nosferatu' (1922) version. There is some special about the atmosphere of that movie that I have never seen any other place
Have you ever seen, 'Shadow Of the Vampire?' It's a movie about the making of 'Nosferatu.' In it, Max Schrek is actually a vampire but Murnau tells his crew that Schreck is the ultimate method actor, appearing only in character and will only work at night.
The original novel is told through various diary entries and letters written by Jonathan and Mina, and Journal entries by Dr. Seward and newspaper articles. The shipwreck is a newspaper article as is the reports of a BLOOFER LADY stealing children in the night which was Undead Lucy Westenra.
Okay, here's the thing; Mina IS Elizabeta. Screenwriter James V Heart was inspired by the 1932 version of The Mummy, which is about Imhotep trying to reunite with the reincarnation of his deceased wife. Mina is the reincarnation of Elizabeta, because she was in eternal limbo. She and Dracula are literal soulmates. They were always fated to be together across eternity. It's that immortal love they share that saves Dracula in the end.
This is the primary reason I don't like this movie or any Dracula adaptation that repeats the reincarnated soul-mate element. In the original novel, Dracula bites Mina without her consent, she fears and hates him, so every movie that makes them soul-mates is making Mina fall in love with her essential rapist. It's gross on so many levels, especially because Dracula is knowingly infecting her with an incurable disease (if they don't kill him in time).
@@averyfineloafer It's really not that deep. Your analogy only works if Mina fell in love with the novel's version of Dracula. But this Dracula is almost nothing like that character, so I fail to see the issue. This version of Dracula did give Mina a choice and she chose to be with him. This version of Mina wants to be with Dracula. Also, it's fiction, so it's not hurting anybody.
@@jackcinephile7554 My complaint is the butchering of original stories, completely missing the point of the original. If they’re going to change it that much, they should make up their own characters, or at least change names (have some other girl as Dracula’s reincarnated love), but they want to cash in on the famous name because it will make more money, so they keep butchering the famous stories to tell whatever story they want. Yes, this Mina wants to be with a murderer. That’s my problem. And this kind of messed up “romance” does harm people in real life because the sheer amount of unhealthy relationships depicted in fiction causes people to normalize it, on a subconscious level, and accept abuse in real life. I’ve seen many, many cases of this. Life imitates art. You can like the movie, I can dislike it, we can both move on with our lives.
@Odysseus Monte Cristo I'm not sure the world with that Hell is the same world with reincarnated lovers; it could be, but the religious underpinnings are certainly not the same.
Keanu is so beautiful! I loved him in this, accent or not. Everyone is amazing in it and it looks exquisite. Gary Oldman is l swear the greatest actor of our time❤️
For Dracula films I’d suggest “The Horror of Dracula” (1958), but for non-Dracula vampire films I’d recommend either “Interview with a Vampire” or “Near Dark.”
Yes, Interview with a Vampire is probably my favourite vampire movie out there except for this one. But I also really enjoyed the US-remake of Let Me In as one of the absolutely creepiest vampire horror movies.
As for vampire movies, before Twilight there was The Lost Boys (1987) which is a fun watch and if you want even more kid friendly The Monster Squad (1987) for a funny Halloween popcorn flick. Never heard of the Let Me In or remake but reminded me of The Lost Boys as they learn Vampires can only enter your home if you invite them in. Others I can think of are From Dusk Till Dawn (1996), Blade (1998) and Queen of the Damned (2002) which I don't remember seeing but my friend loved it. Last two I can think of right now are Underworld (2003) and Van Helsing (2004) with Mr. Logan/Wolverine.
@@jayeisenhardt1337 Queen of the damned was sadly shit. A bad adaptation of the sequel books to interview with a Vampire that rather than do the books justice, was aimed at the "hip" MTV kids crowd. Had a good soundtrack though.
If you like to read there's a sequel to this story that you might be interested in. Jonathan and Mina have a son that they named after Quincy and it's really good that goes into deep detail about Draculas past.
"I thought Dracula was supposed to be handsome". My favorite part of the novel is that Dracula is described in so many words as looking like a proud Transylvanian noble, but the characters always seem to think there is something off about his appearance that no one can seem to pin down. It makes the character that much eerier--to know that he seems normal, but also very unnormal.
Regarding the nudity and sexuality in this story: it is very purposeful. It is the essence of the Dracula character (and vampires over all). They symbolize lust,addiction,seduction and sin in general. But also love, passion and rush. Same as werewolves symbolize primal instinct, anger and desire but also freedom,sex and our ties to nature. They are all told, as monsters, from a christian perspective, that is why their salvation can only come from turning back to god. The freedom that we have with art like this, is to see all those trades not only as something bad but as something very human and as an intricate part of the human experience. That is also why Dracula is often portrayed as someone who embraces art and science instead of blind faith.
This movie version was an adaptation from Bram Stokers book. Dracula has powers beyond mortal men and can change into fog, a wolf or a bat and he has the power of mind control.
So, Cassie, as you noticed, the Dracula of this movie defies a lot of the common vampire tropes like wooden stakes and burning in sunlight. I also noticed you were confused by the werewolf imagery. The reason for all of this is that this movie sticks very closely to the original book Dracula by Bram Stoker. Dracula was one of the very first novels about a vampire, and definitely the first to become hugely popular -- back in the 19th century. It's based very heavily on actual legends and myths, and in those actual myths there is no real clear line distinguishing vampires, werewolves and witches. They all sort of blur together, and the "rules" that apply to vampires are all over the place. This is folklore, stuff people who didn't have internet, TV or radio made up around the tavern to entertain each other, and so naturally there is a lot of local variation. The myths about vampires in one town are going to be very different than those in town a hundred miles away. What we think of as the "rules of vampires" really didn't get codified until the early 20th century with the first movies about vampires. Wooden stakes, death by sunlight, etc. were all things added by the movies. For example, the idea that sunlight kills vampires? First appeared in the silent movie *Nosferatu* (1922). This movie is an interesting artifact and great launching point for discussing the work of Bram Stoker and the development of the vampire myth, but honestly, I don't think it's a very good movie. I would strongly recommend you watch Dracula (1931) with Bela Lugosi. It's the same basic story, but a lot of changes are made to make the story flow better and its far more romantic, plus its a real classic that helped define what "horror films" were for a generation. It's black and white, but you enjoyed Casablanca, so I think you'd enjoy it -- especially since horror films from that era have no gore, few jump scares, and generally rely more on story and mood. Modern horror fans find them boring, but based on your reactions to other films, I think you'd dig it.
Very well put. A bit more on the movie. Since the original book was written as a collection of letters, reports and news articles - which was a common writing style at the time - it lends itself to a more artistic interpretation. And the movie was praised at release for it's creative techniques such as film reversal, play with frame rates, theatrical lighting effects and staging etc. but unfortunately the end result is rather incoherent. Add a constantly changing appearance of Dracula, Hopkins over the top performance and that thing that Keanu at the time called an English accent and you get a pretty messy result. It was a brave attempt to do justice to the original vampire book but it collapsed under it's own weight. An interesting watch for all those reasons but not that good.
I wouldn't even say it sticks that closely to the book; it includes elements from the book that other adaptations leave out, but it still takes quite a few of its own liberties - most of them, in my opinion, unnecessary. It's very artistic, but like you said - not a very good movie. Also, wooden stakes actually were part of the old lore, but the idea wasn't to kill vampires with them; it was to pin them down in their graves so they couldn't come back and feed on people. At least, in some versions. The actual lore regarding vampires, werewolves, and so on, at least as I understand it, tended to vary by region.
Yeah, East European vampires are like the same thing with Scandanavian trolls--there is so many that I think troll is just a generic word for 'freaky monster.' Honestly, I'm waiting for a film or movie or whatnot to show vampires at their most basic--just, zombies that drink blood (and may have a penchant for attacking former family members).
Prince Charles (of the United Kingdom) a direct descendant. Charles’s great grandmother was Queen Mary (May of Teck) daughter of Francis (Duke of Teck), son of Claudine Rhedey daughter of Laszlo Rhedey son of Mihaly Rhedey, son of Maria Thoroczkay daughter of Borbala Kapy daughter of Agnes-Izabella Banffy daughter of Judit-Anna Kendeffy, daughter of Gaspar Kendeffy, son of Vanesca Kornis, daughter of Borbala Bilky daughter of Vlad Dracula, son of Vlaicu Dracula, son of Vlad Dracula IV the son of Vlad III Tepes (aka Vlad the Impaler). www.quora.com/Is-Prince-Charles-of-England-related-to-Vlad-the-Impaler?share=1
Actually there had been several successful vampire novels before Dracula, which forced Stoker to change his notions for the book. He had intended to base his vampire (female) on Erzebart Bathory, but LeFanu beat him to that, so he used Vlad Tepes instead.
These are the four other *main* takes on Dracula--there have been tons of Dracula films, but they're sequels or low budget of feature Dracula in entirely new situations.. Believe it or not, this version is actually the closest to the book. A lot of versions change, or switch names around (Possibly keep people guessing), make people related, or even remove characters altogether. (Quincy almost NEVER shows up.) Dracula (1931): The one that got it all rolling. Bela Lugosi cemented people's idea of the vampire, and he's fun to watch, but the movie is actually kind of boring. Even you might be "This isn't very scary for a Dracula movie." Horror of Dracula (1958): This is the first Hammer Studios Dracula movie. It features a young Christopher Lee (Sauruman!) as the Count. It takes a lot of liberties, but it's very fast paced and atmospheric, and Peter Cushing is the best Van Helsing. My recommendation tbh. Dracula (1978): Frank Langella is Drac here, I think if you're not exactly pleased with Mina's behavior here, you're probably going to be okay with Lucy (Who is basically Mina in this version), who doesn't even feel conflicted about her dalliance. (Though to be fair, this Jonathan is less likeable than Keanu Reeves) Noferatu the Vampyre (1979): Okay, so this is a remake of a silent film that was basically a ripoff of the Dracula novel, but now they use names from book. By far the creepiest Dracula, and it's still pretty arty (and actually tragic), but it's not quite as gratuitous. is this version.
Is there a movie that tells a fictional "behind-the-scenes" story of the original Nosferatu movie where the actor really was a vampire? A friend was trying to describe it to me but couldn't remember the title.
I always thought 'Nosferatu the Vampyre' was based on Polidori's book 'The Vampyre'. Which predates and inspired Stoker's 'Dracula'. But I could be wrong. Interesting story, both Frankenstein and The Vampyre along with some very dark poetry came out of one 'Writer's Workshop' weekend at Lord Byron's Lake Geneva Chateau. Watch the movie 'Gothic' for that happy time.
@@Befuddled_Ostrich Shadow of the Vampire - it is a fictional telling of how F. W. Murnau directed and produced Nosferatu, starring Willem Defoe as Max Schreck. In Nosferatu, Schreck portrayed the part of Count Orlok.
The love story in this film, is the love between Dracula and Mina. Dracula was immortal, waiting for his beloved’s soul to reincarnate. And he found her soul born anew in England. They are soulmates, a love spanning centuries. Just because you have a crush on Keanu, don’t dismiss the true love story of the film
This version is actually relatively faithful to the novel aside from the whole romance subplot which wasn’t in the novel. My biggest complaint is that they seemed to want to have it both ways, one minute Dracula is a completely evil monster, the next minute he’s a sympathetic and tragic figure who is only trying to find his long lost love.
But that's the point. They're trying to show both. The fact that he's this monster but also this man who is looking for his long lost love. I think it makes it really interesting, it's like do you think he's a man or a monster? Do you think he can be redeemed or not? And then Gary Oldman just knocks it out of the park, he portrays it perfectly.
@@irrumnaaz He was one of the greatest mass murderers in human history, no he doesn’t deserve redemption. If they are going to show their main character doing evil things like eating a baby they need to convincingly show us why he deserves to be redeemed and they didn’t.
@@irrumnaaz: The romance between D and Mina isn't needed, the romantic element is between Jonathan and Mina. The script deviation from the novel, in this case, is detrimental to the story. Plus the dialogue sounds like a poorly written romantic novel. Dracula is a monster in the novel, without any redeeming qualities, why can't Hollywood accept that?
This Dracula movie is probably the one that stays most truthful to the book. I'm a member of the people who find that movie beautiful and romantic. IMHO other good interpretations are "Count Dracula" (1969, Christopher Lee), "Count Dracula" (1977, Louis Jourdan) and "Nosferatu The Vampyre" (1979, Frank Langella). And of course the original from 1922.
I appreciate your honest review of the movie. It's not for everyone. I guess this is what we get when the director of The Godfather takes a stab at a classic horror novel.
I always have been in Mina-Dracula’s Team. That is the true love story. Mina was the reincarnation of Elizabetha and her love always had belong to Dracula not John. What a beatiful but sad story. Dracula always has been related to bats but he also can take the form of a wolf. The OST of this movie is really a masterpiece.
@@brigidtheirish the books the book no adaptations have done the book justice if your going to play ships if it's isolated to the movie the book is irrelevant
@@brigidtheirish it's not that I don't see why try to imagine your true love being the reincarnation of an undead monster's wife and then someone telling you they have to be together because "Destiny" even though God himself forsaked them. I'm only saying you can't begin to compare this movie to the book anymore than the original nosferatu is to the book. The day someone finally does the proper adaptation is when you can compare afterall this movie's whole purpose was to be a dark love story in spite of its title
Cannot beat a movie directed by the great Francis Ford Coppola who directed The Godfather along with an outstanding cast with Sir Anthony Hopkins, Gary Oldham, Winona Ryder, Keanu Reeves, Gary Elwes, Monica Bellucci, Tom Waites and Richard E Grant.
Vampires, especially ancient ones, are one of the most powerful creatures in folklore. They are invisible in mirrors, can move with great speed, can control the weather, have hypnotic abilities, and can shapeshift into whatever they want, whenever they want (usually depicted as bats, wolves, rats, or fog). They can therefore slip through cracks between doors, for instance, or become impervious to physical attacks like bullets. They do have weaknesses or limitations in folklore, though, such as an allergic reaction to garlic, and an aversion to holy symbols. They must rest every day in the soil of the earth they were buried in; their powers are weak during the day, and so they usually sleep at daytime. They cannot cross running water under their own power. They must drink the blood of a living person (or animal) to live, and do not drink or eat regular food. Without blood they will grow old and decay; drinking blood restores them to full health. Folklore varies a bit, but generally in order to "turn" someone, that person has to also drink the vampire's blood in addition to being drained to death by the vampire himself. Sometimes just being killed by a vampire is sufficient. Folklore also varies on how they can be killed. In most stories a wooden stake to the heart is sufficient. In older stories they must also then be beheaded, the mouth stuffed with garlic and turned upside-down in the coffin, and then the whole thing thrown into a body of running water. In some stories, they are not just weak during the day, but sunlight will burn and destroy them. This movie tends to hew towards the more classical interpretation with all the shapeshifting and so forth.
Just one thing to add. A vampire can't go into someone's home unless they are invited. Often the story will tell how they trick their victim to invite them without realizing that they do or who they are inviting.
In the original lore a vampire would visit someone multiple times before they died. A reference to a wasting disease. As an explanation why victim was wasting away. This lead to the story element of three bites. Which lends itself to building tension throughout the story.
@@Dularr yeah, I was trying not to write a book. There are lots of little wrinkles in the folklore. Like vampires being unable to resist counting things, for instance. Also being warded off by wolfsbane or wild roses. And of course all of that varies by source. Also, many cultures have similar cryptids with similar powers/abilities.
@@Gnossiene369 It was made in 1992, computer effects were mainstream in the industry at the time. Francis Coppola insisted not to use it and it was a controversial approach criticized by the producers and movie executives.
This movie was literally based on the original novel ('Dracula' by author Bram Stoker) that "invented" the modern idea of vampires and created the character known as 'Dracula". This is the original Dracula story based on that novel from the year 1897. And yes, the idea of vampires in folklore existed long before author Bram Stoker was born, however, he created the modern 'vampire' that we know today in entertainment and literature platforms.
@@catiabotelho5845- Carefully read what I wrote. I didn’t say he created the idea of ‘vampires’. I stated that he created the character called ‘Dracula’ (Count Dracula). And yes, like most authors he drew inspiration from real people. But the character known as Count Dracula was created by the author, Bram Stoker.
You should watch Dracula: Dead and Loving It. It is a more light retelling of Dracula's story, as well a parody of every single movie adaptation, including this one
Gary Oldman played Bram Stoker's dracula brilliantly as another fine english actor Christopher Lee did in the 1958 ''Dracula'' definitely worth a watch
Gary Oldman… once again making me believe he is the greatest actor of the modern age. He blends into every role he plays.
Except Star Citizen. Somehow they managed to get him to phone it in.
Reprise was Zorg
@@parallaxnick637 Gary Oldman is a great friend of Christ Roberts and he agreed to participate in Squadron 42 alongside Mark Hamill, Gillian Anderson and Henry Cavill.
To know if he did a good performance is a matter of waiting, not guessing.
He was amazing as Winston Churchill. But like you said hes great in everything.
Even Drexel the pimp in true Romance, Commissioner Gordon, Bad guy in The Professional, you don't even realize it's him unless someone calls attention to it.
"Is she in pain or pleasure?"
Yes.
As Freddie Mercury once sang "Pain is so close to pleasure....."
To clear things up, Mina was the reincarnation of Elisabeta which is why she loves Dracula and finds him familiar. They’re souls are entwined.
Yeah. Just like in the book...Actually, they pulled that out of their ass. Not that I'd mind, but keep the author's name out of the title, when the movie bares little resemblance to the book
@@ashscott6068 Whelp that is not what happened and this film is the most accurate out there.
@@jonathancunningham8739I don't remember the book ever saying that Mina was Dracula's wife reincarnated. It's been a while since I read it but I don't remember that at all.
I dont recall that Mina actually was reincarnated as Draculas love, only that he saw an uncanny likness of them.
None of the Elisabeta/Mina silliness was in the book; it's typical Hollywood horseshit. Mina was nothing more than a young woman who caught Drac's attention. Pretty good movie, but calling it "Bram Stoker's Dracula" is not only misleading, but an insult to Stoker as well.
Hi Cassie, one of the reasons this movie has such an odd aesthetic is because it pays tribute to a style of theater from the 19th century called "grand guginol". That theater style emphasizes over the top violence, horror and sadism. It's one of the reasons the movie's visual style is so lush and supersaturated.
I love that Coppola used old movie and stage tricks to create optical illusions rather than modern (for the early 90s) technology- it feels so much more effective, and more dreamlike...I could watch it again and again. And it's the only movie I own on that short-lived "Superbit" format for the same reason. (wtf was superbit, anyway??)
Dont forget the shadow play that are going on in the background through the movie. It comes and goes and are like spice to the tale.
@Jessica I completely agree with you. The effects are stunning. I’m not a fan of most cgi, practical effects take so much more imagination and skill to pull off.
@@lewstone5430 I'm a huge practical effects nerd, I would rather watch a less immersive practical illusion that doesn't work 100% than plastic, artificial-looking cgi. I don't mind knowing that something is obviously a "magic trick" (as Tom Savini called them) as long as my eyes can see that something is happening in that space, in that air and light.
Yes!! I love how his shadow knocks over that carved dragon looking
candle stand next to Mina's photograph just an inch or two before his hand reaches rhe locket.
Those subtle little details are what make this film such a masterpiece.
Its Gothic art. Not everyone's cup of tea
Real gothic, not Tim Burton's zany halfway shit.
It is Gothic art, trouble is it's just not a very good film! The overt subtext beside, I don't even think Coppola liked it.
Definitely my cup of tea. Team Dracul forever 🤘
@@DW.StrangemanThe trouble is you spelled "great film" wrong.
@@Mainzer74 I should really watch my spelling but I don't think it's shit so I had to go with bigger words which meant less than shit but not great!😀
With Mina kissing a bloody, disfigured, monstrous Dracula, Cassie says, " You still into this, Mina?" That was freaking hilarious. My favorite Cassie-ism.
The deal with Dracula is he has a lot of powers in the novel. He can transform into rats, bats, and that wolf, but it also seems that there's in between forms. Those I think are used to show how monstrous he really is. As to the age issues, when you see him in his castle with Keanu, he hasn't feed a lot in a long time, so it ages him a LOT. By the time he reaches London he has eaten an entire large ship of men, which rejuvenates him.
Also, watch the Special Features of this movie ( scenes they cut away and such ). It is very interesting.
In the novel Dracula can also transform into a mist, which is handy for entering locked rooms by wafting under the door.
@@ElliotNesterman He did that in the movie, too.
@@Zorros2ndCousinTwiceRemoved I'd forgotten that. It's been years since I've watched the film.
It’s cool that they attempt a little to portray his various appearances as their described,something the other movies never did. The visuals still aren’t that accurate to the book but I like that show him alternate in appearance
Bram Stoker's Dracula, is a purposeful descent into madness. The original Dracula could change forms, into a wolf, into a bat, or appear as human.
Or a mist.
@@757optim I couldn't remember if that came from Bram Stoker, or later from Hollywood
@@dagiel9061
Love at first Bite he turned into a doberman in others he even went to rat form, it's crazy.
He was also killed by a bowie knife, not a wooden stake.
Now we need to watch Dracula: Dead and Loving It to have a nice laugh.
Rule number one of movies: Anything with Gary Oldman is worth watching. He's just so good.
No, THIS movie proves the exception of that 'rule'.
I loved him in "The Fifth Element"
"good" is an understatement.
And when Anthony Hopkins is in it doesnt get any worser
Fifth Element was ok, but real evil he was as Stanfield in Leon the professional
"Listen to them. The children of the night. What sweet music they make." My favourite line of the movie. :)
"Music?"
I liked the whores of satan variations the best lol every one sounded like the name of an 80s hair metal band.
I liked the wh0res of satan variations the best lol every one sounded like the name of an 80s hair metal band.
MY favorite line in the original movie. In this one i think Gary actually butchered it. He was actually super drunk in that scene lol. He is my favorite Dracula in cinema besides that line though.
Also since Coppola was going all out and staying mostly faithful to the novel. he should not have cut the scene where Dracula orders the wolves to kill and eat the mother of the baby he kidnapped and fed to his brides.
In the comedy spoof Love at First Bite, the howling wolves make so much noise that Dracula days "Children of the night, shut up!" 😁
The nudity was about the corrupting influence Dracula had, and overall the suppression of sexuality in Victorian times, and the whole "foreigners stealing and corrupting our women". Lucy gets taken first, because thematically, she's more open about her sexuality which makes her more susceptible to Dracula's pelvic sorcery.
Edit: Plus, don't be too hard on Keanu, guys. He'd just got off doing like 3-4 movies back to back and was exhausted. He didn't really wanna do it, and his performance suffered cause of it.
@@dggydddy59 Right, my bad. Brain fart
It is nudity that puts vamp into vampire
I am also suspicious of FFCs direction of Keanu. Keanu never had a lot of range in his acting, but actors want some direction usually and I feel like ffc said just stand there K.
The best pick up line of all time - "I have crossed oceans of time to find you".
That whole line is the reason that Gary Oldman took the part in the movie; he just read it in the script and he was like “FUCK YES, FRANCIS; THIS ONE LINE IS WORTH IT.”
Yeah it’s better than “that falling from heaven line kinda old”.
This movie is STUNNING in its cinematography! NO CGI, just practical effects and amazing camera work.
Is it though? There are some scenes where I literally can't see anything.
Practical isn't infallible. There are plenty of films with terrible practical effects, and just as many with great CGI effects. Don't be that "CGI bad" guy.
I saw this when it was new at the cinemas. Very nice reference video for a good video / audio setup 👍
@@YodatheHobbit The video on this reaction is not how it supposed to look. For some reason her version / settings made it too dark. Lot of black crush and missing shadow details. I would suggest you to check it again on calibrated system to see how it supposed to look.
@@nebularain3338 If you can see that the effect is "CGI", then its shit.
Tim Burton’s sleepy hollow seems like a good next watch
Ace Venture
@@azazello1784 aah the classic where Ace ventures to the edge of the world, only to find he was home all along.. great film.
how about freddy got fingered?
yes
Winona is so beautiful in this movie, I was obsessed with her in my teens.
Fun fact, the voyage of the ship Demeter that carried Dracula & the coffins to London takes up one chapter of the book. Back in 2002, someone wrote a screenplay called "Last Voyage Of The Demeter" which takes that chapter and expands it into its own feature film. After over 15 years in development hell, they finally shot the movie this year. Sadly, it won't be released until January 2023.
Really? that sounds dope
It is the Unfilm. It waits for the time that it can finally rise from its grave and terrify the world...
Interesting - there's a BBC radio play based on the same idea, 'The Voyage of the Demeter' - it's been posted to RUclips if you're curious to hear it.
At least it will be released - looking forward to it!
wow I look forward to that :)
Cassie: "I can't wait to see Keannu Reeves again!"
Everyone who has seen the movie: ::winces::
Is the cahstle faah?
Yep.....Not his best work.
@@parallaxnick637 I love that RUclips has put a “translate to English” link under your comment.
Bludddddy Wulves! Duuude! 🤘
@@robincraft4682 still better than "Much Ado About Nothing"
The entirety of Dracula's choice at the beginning has to be understood in context for a person to understand why this is still considered a love story.
Dracula rode out to almost certain death in defense of The Faith. Not only is he not rewarded for his defense of the faith in the face of seemingly overwhelming odds, he instead loses the woman he truly loves. Then they inform him that because she committed suicide she is damned to hell for eternity. He will not even see her in the afterlife. What began as disbelief and sorrow turns to rage and despair.
So he chooses damnation himself, renounces God and essentially swears allegiance to Satan because then he could join her in hell. Probably held in high regard once he's there. (I've gotta imagine Dracula in hell would be looked upon like "that's how it's done boys and girls. That's how it's done") And to make sure of it he blasphemes the cross and takes an unnatural and evil existence.
What comes next are merely the consequences which are tragic, creepy, often disgusting and evil. But all of it is because Dracula could not accept never seeing Elizabeta again. The lengths a guy will go to, ya know?
Basically Anakin…!
Yes, that IS romantic. Siegmund is to chose a similar fate in Wagner's Ring.
Watch the animation for Castlevania. The only thing worse than pissing off a monster is pissing off a monster that tried to go good.
and that " love interest " is no where in the novel !
@@joemummerth8340 I've read the novel... You sure?
Cassie: "I don't think this will be scary"
Me remembering the jump-scare of showing 'Tuesday' on the screen in The Shining.
lmfao
That was very mean of Kubrick.
Only thing scarier would have been a 'Monday' jumpscare.
The movie kinda did Mina dirty. In the book, she is very capable and remains ever faithful to Jonathan. She finds Dracula to be a monster, helping the group track Dracula after being attacked by him and never willingly succumbs to him. The love story was invented for the film.
I think it would have been more interesting if they had left it alone. Let Dracula pursue her and let her be true to Jonathan. As it was, the love story didn’t do much for me anyway
and that is one of it´s defining features and strengths.
It does Lucy dirty, too. She's the ingenue in the original book, not a floozy.
fascinating
This movie was more ab creating a love story to make Dracula a sympathetic character. And Gary old man gives one of the best performances everb
"He turned her tears into diamonds... That's one way to get a woman." Brilliant. I also really like your "dancing with the enemy" line.
You get it. You understand. You are supposed to be creeped out and horrified by Dracula.
I dragged my family to see this in theaters when I was a teen, and had just read Bram Stoker beforehand. What always stands out most to me is how they did Dracula’s independently-moving shadow.
I always assumed that the shadows were an afterthought since he seems to be looking right at them, but never reacts to any of them. It seemed like something they decided to add in post production, rather than something that was planned from the start.
@@lurkerrekrul The reason I believe they were definitely planned is because, if they were an afterthought, it seems highly unlikely his shadow would be centered in frame in so many of the shots.
One can tell quite early on the shadow's movements are slightly delayed and both not in sync with Dracula's own movements, which really adds to the creepy factor.
@@gluuuuue I just find it strange that Harker looks right at several of the shadows (at least in the direction they would be) and never reacts in the slightest. You'd think a shadow moving independently from the person casting it, would merit at least a puzzled look, but there's no reaction from him at all.
@@lurkerrekrul Ahh, well 1) Jonathan doesn't see both Dracula and his shadow at the same time because he's standing in between them by relative positions in the scene-the one instance when he does look directly at Dracula's shadow @6:08, Jonathan turns back and is momentarily puzzled having expected Dracula to be standing where he originally was, to the left of the frame, only to hear him suddenly behind him on the right, and he's slightly confused. At 6:22, they are both within Jonathan's line of sight, but standing roughly in the same place, they're mostly moving in sync, but not so, by the tiniest bit, and Jonathan looks directly at the shadow and seems to notice something slightly unusual about that.
2) The level of digital effects commonly available and used in post today didn't really start to become viable until the later '90s, and most of these began with virtual crowds, eg. the bugs in Starship Troopers (1997), and orcs/armies in LotR (2001), or with Spider-Man (2002). Dracula's various shadow scenes, the ones listed above and at @5:10, show no indications of chroma-keying (bluescreen/greenscreen compositing), which would have been the only sorts of post effects available at the time for altering the background. CG effects at this time looked extremely obviously computer generated, eg. The Lawnmower Man (also 1992).
But 3) another way to tell is how the shadow scenes intentionally have the mostly white map in the background, almost like a movie projector screen, and the scene is lit almost singularly with a strong light source far off to the left of the camera and closer to it or possibly even behind it (with very little other light, probably off reflectors, to give their faces and figures some form). This allows both Oldman's and Reeves's actual shadows to land somewhere off to the right of the scene off-camera, while the performer for Dracula's shadow is off-camera to the left. Notice Jonathan Harker's own shadow is never visible on the background map of London.
I have crossed oceans of time to watch your review. This movie personalizes a monster; it is a love story.
32:12 " I thaught Dracula is supposed to be handsome, not old..." - NOOOO, pop culture totally ruined vampires for me... Gary Oldman was probably the best after Max Schreck (Nosferatu).
I thought Anders Hoves (Subspecies) version of Radu was great. Took much from Nosferatu.
For me, best vampire book series is Brian Lumleys "Necroscope."
@@theriomrasputin8233 I read a few of those books.
@@JnEricsonx For probably the past 20years. His books have been optioned for some company to make a movie on them.
I think now the only reason the option was paid for was to keep them from being made into a movie.
IF they did a series on his books it would work better.
There is about 20 books in the series.
@@theriomrasputin8233 I think I read up to the one where the Necroscope became a vampire himself. It's been probably 20 years plus since I read any of them.
@@JnEricsonx Yeah. I recently passed all my books over to a friend as I had read them a few times and the older books were harder to locate.
I began reading the books back in the late 80's.
Harry does become a vamp, if I recall correctly.
The story branches off a couple times and different people take on the role of the Necrocope, while Harry is still always around in various ways.
"Why is he holding his lawyer captive?"
He has a retainer.
That's my submission for dad joke of the year.
Baduum tisss!!
I LOLed
And as an Englishman, probably wearing braces.
STAAAAHHHP🤣
@@ziggystardog Braces require…some teeth.😏😆
To me this is the best Dracula movie by far. It is a work of art in every aspect. The music is out of this world as well. Great love/horror story.
After this film, I am sure no one should try to make another Dracula movie because this one cannot be beaten artisticly.
You hit the nail on the head, friend! This is absolutely the best Dracula movie in my opinion as well. I understand why it wouldn’t be everyone’s cup of tea though.
I thought so the same for years. Then i watched it with my then gd and we laughed our asses off.. I think one has to be and get into the right mood
One of my all time favorite movies. Saw it in the theater when it came out. Great memories
Dracula, just as the sun goes down: "Bring me everyone.."
Lackey: "What do you mean everyone?"
Dracula: "EVVVVVERYYYYYONNNNNNE!!!"
That just made my day.
A quite professional joke…,,
I'm proud to say I got it ✓
9:36 That scene reminds me a bit of a scene in Leon :)
Wasn't he a voice in a cgi animated movie and did a similar line? Maybe one of the Kung fu Pandas?
With 30 years reflection, the old man makeup on Dracula is damn good. It literally looks like Gary Oldman now!!! Minus the uber bouffant.
Oscar winning
Mina is the reincarnated soul of Dracula's wife Elizabeta. That's why they are drawn to each other. The movie uses a lot of old school effects also, that's what they mean by artistic.
I have loved horror movies since I was a little kid in the 70's so to find someone who doesn't know the Dracula origin story shocks me. This version is about as close as you get to the book but of course there are differences to make the movie more exciting. The book "Dracula: The Undead" written by Dacre Stoker (great grand-nephew of Bram Stoker) & Ian Holt picks up the original Dracula story 25 years later. A great read!
Same here. I'm surprised when someone knows so little of Vampire lore.
I suppose vampires have gone through a huge change since the time of Stoker. Dracula was evil incarnate. These days they glitter and and go to the prom. If Vampire Academy is the only thing she's seen I could forgive her ignorance of traditional vampire history.
Cassie: "Is she in pain or pleasure?"
Answer: Yes.
It’s such a fine line.
There's an entire subculture of people who ask and answer this question regularly, inspired by the Marquis de Sade and his writings. The relationship between the mind and body can be an interesting one to explore... 🤘🦇🎃
My favourite movie. Made with such skill.
Everyone should read the book. It is awesome.
One thing I really like in it is how vampire's limitations and weaknesses are played with. Both Dracula and humans are constantly trying to outsmart each other, instead of it being just a story of supernatural good and evil fighting through supernatural means.
Only if the epistolary style appeals to you. I found it quite a slog to get through. I understand that it can be used to create mystery and tension in the story, but found the constant narrator, style and subject changes off-putting. I really don't see the advantage over using a basic 3rd person perspective. I still think it is a must read, if only from a historical point of view.
@@current9300 That's because the story is not about good and evil, it's about the sexual repression of the Victorians and how that didn't even work, because people were still screwing each other willy-nilly and were spreading Syphilis all over the place. Oh, and Bram Stoker was an Irish Catholic, so bad conscience comes into play, too. Just like Buffy the Vampire Slayer wasn't a show about good people vs. evil vampires, but about the horrors of growing up and going to an American high school.
I did it when I was a kid. I spend my holidays at my grandma's house. There was a library and I've read a lot of books. Dracula was one of them. I read it in bed in the night. That was in previous millenium.
I live not far from Whitby, where Dracula's ship comes to England in the novel, and where Lucy is seduced and bitten. It's amazing to stand by the Abbey and picture the scene. It's a very atmospheric town, Bram Stoker was inspired to write the book while staying there on holiday. It's a wonderful story, and I think the film is very close in feel to the novel, even if some aspects are changed. A must read book, and a great reaction vid, thanks Cassie!
It is a love story…a beautifully dark love story. He crossed oceans of time to be with her then she sets him free of his curse.
Also..Wojciech Kilar composed one the most beautiful soundtracks in film history !
Absolutely agree about soundtrack. This and "The portrait of a lady" (from Wojciech Kilar too) in my opinion one of the best soundtrack in any movies
@@ОлегТаран-е8ч not to forget Annie Lennox song “Love song for a vampire “ when you see the credits in the end-
Dont know about that music , Nightwish , kiss while your lips are still red , to movie Lieksa! is amazing
I LOVE the love story in this movie. It's like an awesome story of past life regression coming to the fore when they reunite 400 years later.
I LOVE this movie with all its weirdness !
The score is AMAZING! The costumes design beautiful! The visuals are impressive! The portrayal of Dracula by M Oldman is unmatchable!
This is the perfect time for you to watch "Interview With the Vampire" with very handsome vampires 😉 (Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Antonio Banderas, Christian Slater and Kirsten Dunst)!
"Didn't know they made books like that back then."
That is the Kama Sutra, an Indian book composed roughly in the 2nd century AD and first printed in English in 1883. One part romantic advice, one part sex manual, It was a sensation in Britain at the time.
"That is one of the weirdest scenes I have ever witnessed."
Oh, those three are a trip, aren't they? In just about every adaptation, the three nameless "Brides of Dracula" always launch the creep-factor to the stratosphere, even in the old Lugosi version. (The fact there're three of 'em implies Stoker was invoking famous mythological female trios like the Norns, the Furies, and Shakespeare's three witches.)
"Is she in pain or... pleasure?"
Hahahaaaa! The answer is "yes." It is, I'll admit, entertaining to watch someone so new to vampire lore that's become common knowledge through literally a hundred vampire movies.
"It makes me want to watch another portrayal."
It's honestly the most faithful to Bram Stoker's novel. You might try Nosferatu ('79.) I'd also recommend the TV mini-series 'Salem's Lot ('79) for a much more down-to-Earth but still very effective vampire story. If you'd like a comedy, I heartily recommend What We Do in the Shadows ('14.)
Yeah it's weird, @@hendrikscheepers4144 . The text is from The Book of a Thousand and One Nights and a Night, by Richard Francis Burton. But the illustration is very firmly in the Indian style, not Arabic. I think the prop guys were taking a license.
One of the "brides" was Persephone from Matrix
what we do in the shadows tv series is so funny.
Wholeheartedly agree in “what we do in the shadows”! But if she’s looking for a lighthearted take on the Dracula story, specifically, I’d strongly recommend Mel Brooks’ “Dracula, dead and loving it”!
And of course Ann Rice's Interview With A Vampire. Neil Jordan did a very good job on that adaptation.
I still can’t believe that all the effects in this movie were practically or by film trickery, no CGI, no digital effects, no green scenes.
Well, except for the morph used to de-age Dracula in the final scene.
The scene where bat-form Dracul turned into rats was amazing. I was like, "how did they do that??"
@@Corn_Pone_Flicks That was practical too, the trick is made by filming the actor in the same position wearing different stages of make up and then editing all the frames together. I believe it's called the "Karl Struss technique" and it was first done in the movie "Sh! The Octopus" from 1937. The same technique was used in LOTR the Two Towers to "de-age" King Theoden.
In addition to the old school camera tricks and effects the whole movie was filmed on sets and that's intentional, it's how they filmed the 1931 Dracula but i remember when this movie came out more than a few critics blasted the movie for it's corny fakey look, they just didn't understand that that's what Coppola was going for, i love the look of this movie.
The only composite effect is the blue flame. Everything else is done in camera.
Having read the original book a couple of times I can say that this version does follow it more closely than many others but far from perfectly (for better and for worse). The original story does form the bones of this one with a lot of that "artistic stuff" on top.
If you are in need of a light hearted take, I would highly recommend "Dracula: Dead and Loving It" from Mel Brooks. It follows the original story as well but also pokes a lot of fun at this movie in particular. As a side note, it might be my favorite Mel Brooks movie after Young Frankenstein.
The biggest difference between the two I think is that in the book...there was NO romance between Mina and Dracula...at all.
@@domidium Very true.
Gary Oldman was drawn to the role by the line, "I have crossed OCEANS of time to find you..."
It’s quite a line..
Kyle Reese did the same thing.
@@Psilocybin77 Not really, to him the time passed in an eye blink.
Dracula spent centuries as a reviled monster despite having saved his country from the Turks.
That line actually hurts me to hear, in a primal way.
@@stephenlackey5852 especially when Oldman says it that way, to IMO the most beautiful actress of the 90s generation.
“Why do they always want to get naked?” Cassie never fails to say something that kills me…
I absolutely love her reactions bc it's like seeing a film I've seen many times with new eyes. I don't understand the people who complain in the comments or who give her (or other reactors) a hard time because they don't know what's going on or haven't got the gist of the plot. It's their first time seeing a film! How can we expect them to know everything about something they've never seen before? If they did, it wouldn't be as entertaining to watch.
Jessica absolutely.
@@ScientificallyStupid i have literally never seen the movie apart from the cuts in this video, and i still got the stuff. Saying "a person has never seen XY so you can't expect him/her to understand" is like saying "i have never seen a bottle fall, so i can't predict that gravity will bring it down to earth". Logical thinking is literally "the abstract separation of a whole into its constituent parts in order to study the parts and their relations" and apply it in new situations that contain similar "parts".
The only thing one can "maybe" pardon knowledge-wise (even though it's very basic) is the sex part. Vampires are initially supposed to be creatures of the devil, thus being unpure and filled with unholy desire. This is shown by their wish for sexual desire, to be contrasted by the holiness of sexual abstinence. As long as you know that catholic priests are not allowed to have sex and that vampires are creatures of the devil you should be able to piece together the reason why vampires are portrayed that sexual.
The part were she was against the love story between dracula and mina/elizabeth striked me as very odd, given her initial comments to how sad it is that dracula lost his true love, right before the scene where he turned. And then she suddenly sees him as a monster simply because he is visually unappealing and she prefers Keanu Reeves as the "husband". I guess this was caused because she didn't make the connection that Mina is supposed to be a reincarnation of Elizabeth, and thought she only looked the same with no other connections.
@@XpVersusVista BINGO.... you nailed it. Cassie is fun to watch, especially some of her over the top reactions. But she’s very sweet and innocent and fails to make a lot of connections in older movies.
@@ScientificallyStupid Also, you have to remember she is of a different generation(melinneal). This movie was released during generation X era. The generational attention span is different and the perspective and view towards this movie is like night and day in regards to how generation X vs melinneals see this movie. Movies back in the day were darker, indepth, more brooding and was moving at a slower pace but those elements gave movies of that generation more meaning. However, movies in general back in the day were more original, unique and were created by the minds of very creative individuals and individuals with a rich imagination. Milinneals can't appreciate good cinema of that old school caliber because, their attention span is very short and they have no imagination. No harm intended, I just speak truth. That's why her reaction comes to no surprise to me. Great reaction tho. 😉
I don't think there is a more romantic version of Dracula honestly.
Love at First Bite. The version with Frank Langella is also supposed to be quite romantic, but I haven't seen it for a while.
Jack Palance played Count Dracula in a tv-movie back in the early 80’s. There was quite a romantic touch in that too.
One movie that I thought of that doesn't get enough attention is The Ghost and the Darkness. It has Val Kilmer and Michael Douglas in it. They are hunters who have to kill a pair of man-eating lions. It's awesome. You should totally watch it some time.
What's even greater is it's based on a true story !
It rules.
Next to Tombstone and Willow, Ghost And The Darkness is my favorite Val Kilmer role. Based off the story of John Patterson and the man-eating lions in Tsavos. If I remember correctly, you can actually see the lions at the Natural History Museum in Chicago. It does have a few inaccuracies to it, but the things that the movie does get correct are the things that are the hardest to believe, such as the scene with the sharp shooting criminals and the spring cage trap! There's a channel called History Buffs, and the host looks at movies based on true stories or events. He did an episode about Ghost, and it's really an eye opening episode that'll make you appreciate the the movie and the story behind it just that much more!
@@serpentisma Correct, you can see them at the History Museum in Chicago.
@@marlonpark Cool, thanks for the confirmation. It's been a while since I've seen the movie but a lot of it really stuck with me. :)
I find it interesting that you said that you wanted Mina to be all in love with Jonathan Harker and not Drac. Because that's how the book goes! You nailed it.
They added the whole Mina is Drac's reincarnated lover for the movie. In the book Mina hates Drac, and when they kill him, Jonathan and Mina name their son Quincy after Quincy Morris: the Texan who died.
Thank god. I have been meaning to read the book for years, and just haven't gotten around to it. So I'm glad the book makes more sense there. haha
Oddly, they had a character who was the reincarnation of Dracula's lover and later Mina (at least Dracula thought he kept meeting her again and again) in the spoof, Love at First Bite, which was much earlier than this film.
@@LisaRummel83 Halfway through reading it for the first time. It's an interesting read, as its told fully in diaries and letters, quite a different storytelling style than I'm used to!
Pretty neat to see Anthony Hopkins play two parts in this film. The Priest in the beginning of the film and Professor Van Helsing.
And the fact that he and Gary Oldman had to speak an old foreign language in real time. They had to be taught that.
I love that Tom Waits played Renfield.
Tom Waits has always been an underrated actor and performer. He's hilarious in most interviews too
I know this movie gets hated in for Keanu’s whack accent but it honestly is such a gorgeous movie. The production design and costume designs are wonderful.
True. Some scenes remind me of an opera .
A birthday cake with a turd on it is still a birthday cake with a turd on it..
Alas, it's not just his accent. In truth, the only genuinely good performance comes from Gary Oldman, even Anthony Hopkins is off his game here. I expect it's more a matter of poor directing, when almost all the acting is poor. (Actually, I forgot about Tom Waits, his Renfield was excellent!)
@@STNeish Hopkins is fine. His character is supposed to be really out there. His obsession has gnawed at his sanity. I think Hopkins hamming it up a bit suits the character and tone. Also Sadie Frost acted her ass out as Lucy, i think she did amazing.
@@deathtoraiden2080 Well, clearly I disagree. He's still better than ANY of the others, but even his performance is below par... for him.
Cringing at Mr. Reeves' accent in this movie is now a time-honored tradition ;D I'm glad Pop-Cassie has joined us in this!
Love Gary Oldman in this. Heck, love Gary Oldman in anything, really.
And like others have said .. this version is closer to the novel than the others. It's the experience. I had a hard time reading the book due to it's journal style but ya, this is it.
My sister is married to Gary Oldman's nephew.
He was especially brilliant in Sid and Nancy.
The audio book is captivating..a great listen
@@juicedabarber Ooo, great idea. It's been a while since I read the book .. finally got around to it when this movie came out. I hadn't even thought of the audio book. Thanks for the recommend!
The three vampire women were Dracula’s brides, his attempts at recapturing the love he felt for Elizabetha.
In mythology, there's a strong connection between vampires and werewolves. In fact, in Romania/Transylvania the word "Pricolici" is a combination of the two. Vampires are said to be able to control bats, rats and wolves (as seen in this movie), and in the original Novel 'Dracula', by Bram Stoker, he is able to transform into either a big black wolf or dog. This movie took the extra step of having him transform into a more humanoid wolf form as well as a humanoid bat form, and at some points even rat looking.
I recommend reading "Dracula" by Bram Stoker. It adds a lot of background info - like how the reason Van Helsing is so set against, and knowledgeable of, vampires is that his wife is currently locked in an insane asylum having been attacked and driven insane by one - possibly Dracula himself. Interestingly, in Dracula the Texan Quincy Morris, fought some South American vampire-like creatures in the past.
Dracula is the subject of more films than any other fictional character except Sherlock Holmes. You should watch Universal Pictures "Dracula" (1931) staring Bela Lugosi. It's the original Dracula movie that all others are measured against. Be forewarned, the movie is very old, in black and white, and the Lugosi's acting is...Unique. Bela Lugosi was a Hungarian stage actor who worked extensively in Europe in the role of Dracula. When they decided to make it into a movie, their first choice was the very famous silent film Hollywood horror actor Lon Chaney Sr. (his son, Lon Chaney Jr. later became famous playing the original Werewolf in Universal's "The Wolf Man" - with Bela Lugosi playing the werewolf that bites Chaney). Lon Chaney Sr. developed throat cancer and died before the movie was filmed, so they went with Lugosi - who didn't speak English - he learned his lines phonetically. Between his not speaking English, his extreme accent, and his stage-actor mannerisms, just watching him eat up scenery is fun all by itself. The character Count (Count von Count) on Sesame Street is heavily based on Lugosi's Count Dracula. As is the famous Dracula accent, "I vant. To drink. Your blood!" is never actually said by Lugosi.
Christopher Lee (Count Dooku/Saruman) played Dracula in 1958's "Horror of Dracula" opposite Peter Cushing (Grand Moff Tarkin) as Van Helsing. This one comes from Hammer Films and is VERY gory and overtly sexual, but good fun. Lee played Dracula in 8 movies and similar vampires in several more. Another stage actor, Frank Langella, played a "sexy vampire" in 1979's "Dracula". It's also a pretty good one. The movie "Dracula 2000" isn't great, but I recommend seeing it anyway. It offers an interesting take on Dracula's actual identity. Stoker's original novel based Count Dracula on the real life Romanian Prince Vlad III, called Dracula or Vlad Tepes (Dracula means Son of the Devil/Dragon/Serpent. Tepes means Impaler - Vlad the Impaler). In Dracula 2000, his actual identity is revealed to be Judas Iscariot. Explaining his vampiric weakness Holy Water, Silver (usually the werewolf weakness), Crosses, and the Light of the Sun/Son - bit of a stretch, but there it is.
Jesus man are you a vampire?
@@robogreek3157 No, I'm a Werewolf. I HUNT vampires! ;)
Amazing. When she said that Dracula was the second most depicted subject in film I (a huge Sherlock Holmes fan) thought well i bet Sherlock Holmes is number one, but then I disregarded it as the childish thought of a Holmes fan and settled for Jesus 😅
Van Helsing’s wife went insane after the death of her son… she was never attacked by a vampire.
"But, but Lucy... I'm British."
"And so are THESE!"
Dracula: Dead and Loving It XD
"Lucy...! Ugh huh huhh...!"
A, E, I, O, U, why? 😂😂😂
Hahaha, that's one of my favorite movies and that scene is so hilarious 😂
She's almost dead!
She's dead enough. Oh! This is - this is ghastly!
Yes, you're right. We should have put newspapers down!
"what on Earth are you doing to the furniture? I'll have you know that's my knee you're straddling'
"But in the end she would have realized her true love."
Don't you see though, that in the end she DID realize her true love?
lovesong for a vampire captures this so perfect
It was me!
Yes. A love that survived death and spanned the globe and centuries of time 😉
"I still love Jonathan, but she'd better not go back to him as plan B."😂
Classic Cassie-ism. 😂
This is one of the closest adaptions to Bram Stoker's original novel. Dracula is old in the beginning because he didn't drink enough human blood. The more he drinks human blood, the younger the Count gets, and the more powerful he becomes. Vampires are also shapeshifters, mostly they're famous for turning into bats or bat-like creatures. There are some instances they can turn into wolves, hence why you were confused to seeing Dracula a "werewolf" at times. His true form is that of a giant bat you see throughout. Of course, he can change into mist or even a big pile of rats. In vampire folklore, vampires can't see their reflection in the mirror. They can't, in some vampire stories, not all, even see themselves in photographs or film. You asked why they are getting naked later in the movie, and that's because this version tended to be more erotic. It is considered as an erotic horror film. There is also another erotic vampire flick in 1983 called The Hunger, which starred David Bowie, but the film lacks compared to this. Vampires are nearly immortal creatures. In most common ways to kill vampires, is to drag them into the sunlight, or run a stake to their heart, and stuff garlic into their mouths after beheading them, or stuff their coffins with garlic after your disembodied their corpse. That's the traditional way, but of course, over the years, writers find a way to walk around the folklore and change it up a bit. Nevertheless, this one, and the 1974 film, are really the closest adaptions to the original novel.
@@josephwallace202 Dude, this is the closest one - i read that book 3 times. And this movie bring that atmosphere to life.
@@josephwallace202 sure i saw that, its even here on YT.
@@josephwallace202 And I'm sorry, but James Rolfe's views can't be taken too seriously, given that his knowledge of films is very limited, and this applies to films and games as well. And the fact that he's a disastrous filmmaker is confirmed by his film experiment.
@@josephwallace202 I started watching him when he started making game reviews, but after a couple of episodes it was clear that it was just about two grimaces, and really childish humour. And, of course, about shit.
So no, not a fan of him.
And I've seen some of his film reviews a couple of times, and it's clear that he's a man who idolizes production for the plebs, and completely misses the art itself.
@@josephwallace202 check out Baelin's Route here on YT, what a bunch of talented people with a smaller budget than he had for his bullshit can do.
The fictional Dracula is based on Prince (Voivode) Vlad III of Wallachia (in modern Romania). Vlad did have a title "Dracula" as he was in the Order of the Dragon. He ruled Wallachia in the mid to late 15th century. As Vlad "The Impaler" he would impale many thousands of his enemies (including many Turks). Outside his capital city he had the "Forest of the impaled" that supposedly terrified an invading Turkish army from further invasion.
@@NiclasLoof Bram Stoker's book, which is quite good by the way, does not mention the historical figure of Voivode Vlad III. This film does, with the opening scenes, try to make an attempt to tie the fiction character Dracula with the historical Vlad. I liked that as it got me to read about this history of the period and that region of the world.
@@NiclasLoof Stoker's original inspiration for the story was Erzebart Bathory, but Sheridan LeFanu beat him to her.
@@NiclasLoof Wasen't Stoker more inspired by the story of Hungarian noblewoman Elizabeth Bathory who is said to have bathed in young servant girl's blood to keep her skin from aging.
I distinctly recall watching this in a theater in Philadelphia, the Winter it came out. A movie of immense charm and atmosphere, whatever a few of the performances.
This movie is closer to the novel than any other Dracula movie. James Rolfe even did a side by side by side comparison.
I've seen that video
Quiet close, Dracula doesn't die, well "destroyed", like this in the book ;)
I've read the original book, and this movie took some SERIOUS liberties with the story. When I watched it, I thought they had a lot of nerve calling it "Bram Stoker's" Dracula.
Count Dracula (1977) Yt . More closer, 👌 but still not the book :)
@@pdegan2814 Do you want to see the manager?
Gary Oldman is the bomb in this movie
Very fun reaction! Thank you! I think you missed the fact that it is implied that Mina is the reincarnation of Elisabeta. That's why Dracula recognise her in Jonathan's photograph. That explains also why Mina could not resist Dracula's courtship. Mina and Dracula were soulmates! With those facts in mind, Dracula and Mina's relation become not only less absurd but also a lot less creepy. :)
No, still creepy. :)
Generation gaps are a hoot. Back in the day when this came out, I was a sophomore in college. We all thought this movie was hella romantic. I'm watching you see them meet on the street and think she should run from him and I'm like 'No, Cassie. You're watching it wrong!' lol Now granted we all thought Keanu was one of the hottest guys back then and Gary Oldman was a little known but not as a heartthrob. We all came out of the movie in love with Oldman. I have noticed from watching a lot of you reaction kids, you younger folks are super literal. But for us, if you're soulmate turns into a pile of rats it's kinda like 'welp, sh*t happens'. I think the movie's sumptuous. A feast for the eyes. The score really brings the feels. And Oldman and Ryder's chemistry was fire. I mean, I dunno. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
I'm sure someone else will tell you but Keanu and Winona might be married all these years because that was a real priest. It's not like either of them married anyone else either.
Totally agree with you!
Yes! Like it's true love! There's no room for Jonathan.
I think there was definite room to make the relationship ambiguous and Dracula more seductive, or a tragic villain, but it really still bothers me how Coppola humanised him in order to sell a "love" plot that it was all counter to the story (and as the last scene shows, doesnt make any sense). Dracula could be "hot" but he IS still a monster. Also, the'"chemistry" between Winona and Oldman was all in your head, LOL, cause they kind of hated eachother throughout the shoot, mainly cause Oldman is an asshole and absolute egotist.
winterfell_forever Highgarden forever!
@@winterfell_forever They don't have to like each other as people for the actors to have on screen chemistry. Patrick Swayze and Jennifer Grey also hated each other but DIRTY DANCING is one of the biggest love stories of the 80s. I also disagree with the idea that FFC "humanized" a monster. The whole idea that you can humanize a human, again, seems to be something new to the culture. Vlad was a human and an immortal. Trying to "make sense" of a love story is the issue here. Us older folks know love doesn't make any sense. The literal kids try to figure it out. What a mess.
In the book, Mina's curse is lifted after Dracula is killed, and she and Jonathan have a son together (who they name Quincey).
That happens in the film, too, though it's subtle about it...after she kills Dracula, you see the burn mark disappear from her forehead.
P. N. Elrod wrote a book about Quincey Morris's travels in getting back to his friends in England after his transformation into a vampire. I liked it.
@@Corn_Pone_Flicks Didn't that happen in the book though? I've never heard the word subtlety being attached to anything about this film before.
It's more of a fever dream art film than anything else. Visually stunning and with a fantastic score by Wojciech Kilar. Yes it's incoherent, overblown and the acting has more ham than a butchers shop, but it is certainly a unique and ambitious version of the dracula story.
I can no longer watch this without thinking of Mel Brooks' Dracula: Dead and Loving It
"-But Lucy, I'm British... -So are these!" :)
Especially, back then, I unconsciously linked it with Cary Elwes in mind (Brook's Robin Hood).
"Children of the night. What a mess they make." I love Mel Brooks.
I literally just watched Ashleigh Burton react to that movie about 20 minutes ago, rofl.
For me is Wanda (Jamie Fox) and Vlad (Jim Carey) and how they accurately dress Jim as Coppola's version in the film...they both kill me😆😆😆 🦇
Excellent performance by Tom (Renfield) Waits 😊
In my sophomore year in high school, our literature class had us reading Dracula. This movie has its flaws, but it does try to stay faithful to the original work. The irony here is that I was a sophomore in '92, the movie hit theaters only a few months after we read the book. It was an amazing coincidence.
This is one of my favorite Vampire movies. I would also recommend people to watch the 'Nosferatu' (1922) version. There is some special about the atmosphere of that movie that I have never seen any other place
Have you ever seen, 'Shadow Of the Vampire?' It's a movie about the making of 'Nosferatu.' In it, Max Schrek is actually a vampire but Murnau tells his crew that Schreck is the ultimate method actor, appearing only in character and will only work at night.
Willem Dafoe is fantastic in Shadow of the Vampire. :)
Cassie: 'it's a love story, maybe?'
Dracula: 'Well yes, but actually no.'
Me: but actually, yes.
The original novel is told through various diary entries and letters written by Jonathan and Mina, and Journal entries by Dr. Seward and newspaper articles. The shipwreck is a newspaper article as is the reports of a BLOOFER LADY stealing children in the night which was Undead Lucy Westenra.
Okay, here's the thing; Mina IS Elizabeta. Screenwriter James V Heart was inspired by the 1932 version of The Mummy, which is about Imhotep trying to reunite with the reincarnation of his deceased wife. Mina is the reincarnation of Elizabeta, because she was in eternal limbo. She and Dracula are literal soulmates. They were always fated to be together across eternity. It's that immortal love they share that saves Dracula in the end.
So if he dies and she doesn't, how is he reunited with her?
This is the primary reason I don't like this movie or any Dracula adaptation that repeats the reincarnated soul-mate element. In the original novel, Dracula bites Mina without her consent, she fears and hates him, so every movie that makes them soul-mates is making Mina fall in love with her essential rapist. It's gross on so many levels, especially because Dracula is knowingly infecting her with an incurable disease (if they don't kill him in time).
@@averyfineloafer It's really not that deep. Your analogy only works if Mina fell in love with the novel's version of Dracula. But this Dracula is almost nothing like that character, so I fail to see the issue. This version of Dracula did give Mina a choice and she chose to be with him. This version of Mina wants to be with Dracula. Also, it's fiction, so it's not hurting anybody.
@@jackcinephile7554 My complaint is the butchering of original stories, completely missing the point of the original. If they’re going to change it that much, they should make up their own characters, or at least change names (have some other girl as Dracula’s reincarnated love), but they want to cash in on the famous name because it will make more money, so they keep butchering the famous stories to tell whatever story they want.
Yes, this Mina wants to be with a murderer. That’s my problem. And this kind of messed up “romance” does harm people in real life because the sheer amount of unhealthy relationships depicted in fiction causes people to normalize it, on a subconscious level, and accept abuse in real life. I’ve seen many, many cases of this. Life imitates art.
You can like the movie, I can dislike it, we can both move on with our lives.
@Odysseus Monte Cristo I'm not sure the world with that Hell is the same world with reincarnated lovers; it could be, but the religious underpinnings are certainly not the same.
Cassie: "You just turned her tears into diamonds... well, that's the way to get a woman"
Me: "Well, that's helpful"
Keanu is so beautiful! I loved him in this, accent or not. Everyone is amazing in it and it looks exquisite. Gary Oldman is l swear the greatest actor of our time❤️
This movie is a masterpiece.
For Dracula films I’d suggest “The Horror of Dracula” (1958), but for non-Dracula vampire films I’d recommend either “Interview with a Vampire” or “Near Dark.”
Yes, Interview with a Vampire is probably my favourite vampire movie out there except for this one. But I also really enjoyed the US-remake of Let Me In as one of the absolutely creepiest vampire horror movies.
As for vampire movies, before Twilight there was The Lost Boys (1987) which is a fun watch and if you want even more kid friendly The Monster Squad (1987) for a funny Halloween popcorn flick. Never heard of the Let Me In or remake but reminded me of The Lost Boys as they learn Vampires can only enter your home if you invite them in. Others I can think of are From Dusk Till Dawn (1996), Blade (1998) and Queen of the Damned (2002) which I don't remember seeing but my friend loved it. Last two I can think of right now are Underworld (2003) and Van Helsing (2004) with Mr. Logan/Wolverine.
@@jayeisenhardt1337 Queen of the damned was sadly shit. A bad adaptation of the sequel books to interview with a Vampire that rather than do the books justice, was aimed at the "hip" MTV kids crowd. Had a good soundtrack though.
If you like to read there's a sequel to this story that you might be interested in. Jonathan and Mina have a son that they named after Quincy and it's really good that goes into deep detail about Draculas past.
"I thought Dracula was supposed to be handsome".
My favorite part of the novel is that Dracula is described in so many words as looking like a proud Transylvanian noble, but the characters always seem to think there is something off about his appearance that no one can seem to pin down. It makes the character that much eerier--to know that he seems normal, but also very unnormal.
Maybe she should watch the first adaptation Nosferatu
Regarding the nudity and sexuality in this story: it is very purposeful. It is the essence of the Dracula character (and vampires over all). They symbolize lust,addiction,seduction and sin in general. But also love, passion and rush.
Same as werewolves symbolize primal instinct, anger and desire but also freedom,sex and our ties to nature.
They are all told, as monsters, from a christian perspective, that is why their salvation can only come from turning back to god.
The freedom that we have with art like this, is to see all those trades not only as something bad but as something very human and as an intricate part of the human experience.
That is also why Dracula is often portrayed as someone who embraces art and science instead of blind faith.
This movie version was an adaptation from Bram Stokers book. Dracula has powers beyond mortal men and can change into fog, a wolf or a bat and he has the power of mind control.
So, Cassie, as you noticed, the Dracula of this movie defies a lot of the common vampire tropes like wooden stakes and burning in sunlight. I also noticed you were confused by the werewolf imagery. The reason for all of this is that this movie sticks very closely to the original book Dracula by Bram Stoker. Dracula was one of the very first novels about a vampire, and definitely the first to become hugely popular -- back in the 19th century. It's based very heavily on actual legends and myths, and in those actual myths there is no real clear line distinguishing vampires, werewolves and witches. They all sort of blur together, and the "rules" that apply to vampires are all over the place. This is folklore, stuff people who didn't have internet, TV or radio made up around the tavern to entertain each other, and so naturally there is a lot of local variation. The myths about vampires in one town are going to be very different than those in town a hundred miles away.
What we think of as the "rules of vampires" really didn't get codified until the early 20th century with the first movies about vampires. Wooden stakes, death by sunlight, etc. were all things added by the movies. For example, the idea that sunlight kills vampires? First appeared in the silent movie *Nosferatu* (1922).
This movie is an interesting artifact and great launching point for discussing the work of Bram Stoker and the development of the vampire myth, but honestly, I don't think it's a very good movie.
I would strongly recommend you watch Dracula (1931) with Bela Lugosi. It's the same basic story, but a lot of changes are made to make the story flow better and its far more romantic, plus its a real classic that helped define what "horror films" were for a generation. It's black and white, but you enjoyed Casablanca, so I think you'd enjoy it -- especially since horror films from that era have no gore, few jump scares, and generally rely more on story and mood. Modern horror fans find them boring, but based on your reactions to other films, I think you'd dig it.
Very well put. A bit more on the movie. Since the original book was written as a collection of letters, reports and news articles - which was a common writing style at the time - it lends itself to a more artistic interpretation. And the movie was praised at release for it's creative techniques such as film reversal, play with frame rates, theatrical lighting effects and staging etc. but unfortunately the end result is rather incoherent. Add a constantly changing appearance of Dracula, Hopkins over the top performance and that thing that Keanu at the time called an English accent and you get a pretty messy result. It was a brave attempt to do justice to the original vampire book but it collapsed under it's own weight.
An interesting watch for all those reasons but not that good.
I wouldn't even say it sticks that closely to the book; it includes elements from the book that other adaptations leave out, but it still takes quite a few of its own liberties - most of them, in my opinion, unnecessary. It's very artistic, but like you said - not a very good movie.
Also, wooden stakes actually were part of the old lore, but the idea wasn't to kill vampires with them; it was to pin them down in their graves so they couldn't come back and feed on people. At least, in some versions. The actual lore regarding vampires, werewolves, and so on, at least as I understand it, tended to vary by region.
Yeah, East European vampires are like the same thing with Scandanavian trolls--there is so many that I think troll is just a generic word for 'freaky monster.' Honestly, I'm waiting for a film or movie or whatnot to show vampires at their most basic--just, zombies that drink blood (and may have a penchant for attacking former family members).
Prince Charles (of the United Kingdom) a direct descendant.
Charles’s great grandmother was Queen Mary (May of Teck)
daughter of Francis (Duke of Teck),
son of Claudine Rhedey
daughter of Laszlo Rhedey
son of Mihaly Rhedey,
son of Maria Thoroczkay
daughter of Borbala Kapy
daughter of Agnes-Izabella Banffy
daughter of Judit-Anna Kendeffy,
daughter of Gaspar Kendeffy,
son of Vanesca Kornis,
daughter of Borbala Bilky
daughter of Vlad Dracula,
son of Vlaicu Dracula,
son of Vlad Dracula IV
the son of Vlad III Tepes (aka Vlad the Impaler).
www.quora.com/Is-Prince-Charles-of-England-related-to-Vlad-the-Impaler?share=1
Actually there had been several successful vampire novels before Dracula, which forced Stoker to change his notions for the book. He had intended to base his vampire (female) on Erzebart Bathory, but LeFanu beat him to that, so he used Vlad Tepes instead.
These are the four other *main* takes on Dracula--there have been tons of Dracula films, but they're sequels or low budget of feature Dracula in entirely new situations.. Believe it or not, this version is actually the closest to the book. A lot of versions change, or switch names around (Possibly keep people guessing), make people related, or even remove characters altogether. (Quincy almost NEVER shows up.)
Dracula (1931): The one that got it all rolling. Bela Lugosi cemented people's idea of the vampire, and he's fun to watch, but the movie is actually kind of boring. Even you might be "This isn't very scary for a Dracula movie."
Horror of Dracula (1958): This is the first Hammer Studios Dracula movie. It features a young Christopher Lee (Sauruman!) as the Count. It takes a lot of liberties, but it's very fast paced and atmospheric, and Peter Cushing is the best Van Helsing. My recommendation tbh.
Dracula (1978): Frank Langella is Drac here, I think if you're not exactly pleased with Mina's behavior here, you're probably going to be okay with Lucy (Who is basically Mina in this version), who doesn't even feel conflicted about her dalliance. (Though to be fair, this Jonathan is less likeable than Keanu Reeves)
Noferatu the Vampyre (1979): Okay, so this is a remake of a silent film that was basically a ripoff of the Dracula novel, but now they use names from book. By far the creepiest Dracula, and it's still pretty arty (and actually tragic), but it's not quite as gratuitous. is this version.
Is there a movie that tells a fictional "behind-the-scenes" story of the original Nosferatu movie where the actor really was a vampire?
A friend was trying to describe it to me but couldn't remember the title.
@@Befuddled_Ostrich Yes, SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE with John Malkovich and Willam DaFoe.
I always thought 'Nosferatu the Vampyre' was based on Polidori's book 'The Vampyre'. Which predates and inspired Stoker's 'Dracula'. But I could be wrong.
Interesting story, both Frankenstein and The Vampyre along with some very dark poetry came out of one 'Writer's Workshop' weekend at Lord Byron's Lake Geneva Chateau.
Watch the movie 'Gothic' for that happy time.
@@Befuddled_Ostrich Shadow of the Vampire - it is a fictional telling of how F. W. Murnau directed and produced Nosferatu, starring Willem Defoe as Max Schreck. In Nosferatu, Schreck portrayed the part of Count Orlok.
Fictional?
Kinda thought that urban myth was an interesting one.
2:05 Dracula's based on a real life Romanian warlord nicknamed Vlad the Impaler and in this version before becoming a vampire he actually was Vlad.
The love story in this film, is the love between Dracula and Mina.
Dracula was immortal, waiting for his beloved’s soul to reincarnate. And he found her soul born anew in England.
They are soulmates, a love spanning centuries.
Just because you have a crush on Keanu, don’t dismiss the true love story of the film
Then why was he boning Lucy lmfao dumb love story.
@@youtubeistrash953 cause he is a man😂 and most men do stupid things😩
@@youtubeistrash953 She was his concubine
This version is actually relatively faithful to the novel aside from the whole romance subplot which wasn’t in the novel. My biggest complaint is that they seemed to want to have it both ways, one minute Dracula is a completely evil monster, the next minute he’s a sympathetic and tragic figure who is only trying to find his long lost love.
True! After that baby scene, we are supposed to find him romantic when he gets to London.
Plus the dialogue in those parts is so saccharine, dry and purple. And don't get me started on Reeves and Ryder's accents!
But that's the point. They're trying to show both. The fact that he's this monster but also this man who is looking for his long lost love. I think it makes it really interesting, it's like do you think he's a man or a monster? Do you think he can be redeemed or not? And then Gary Oldman just knocks it out of the park, he portrays it perfectly.
@@irrumnaaz He was one of the greatest mass murderers in human history, no he doesn’t deserve redemption. If they are going to show their main character doing evil things like eating a baby they need to convincingly show us why he deserves to be redeemed and they didn’t.
@@irrumnaaz: The romance between D and Mina isn't needed, the romantic element is between Jonathan and Mina. The script deviation from the novel, in this case, is detrimental to the story. Plus the dialogue sounds like a poorly written romantic novel. Dracula is a monster in the novel, without any redeeming qualities, why can't Hollywood accept that?
Fun fact! Out of all the adaptations this is one of the most accurate!
The score for this movie is phenomenal.
For me, the best part of the movie was when you described Sit Anthony Hopkins as "that fsssst guy"
This Dracula movie is probably the one that stays most truthful to the book. I'm a member of the people who find that movie beautiful and romantic. IMHO other good interpretations are "Count Dracula" (1969, Christopher Lee), "Count Dracula" (1977, Louis Jourdan) and "Nosferatu The Vampyre" (1979, Frank Langella). And of course the original from 1922.
I appreciate your honest review of the movie. It's not for everyone. I guess this is what we get when the director of The Godfather takes a stab at a classic horror novel.
I always have been in Mina-Dracula’s Team. That is the true love story. Mina was the reincarnation of Elizabetha and her love always had belong to Dracula not John. What a beatiful but sad story.
Dracula always has been related to bats but he also can take the form of a wolf.
The OST of this movie is really a masterpiece.
You know that's not in the book, right?
@@brigidtheirish the books the book no adaptations have done the book justice if your going to play ships if it's isolated to the movie the book is irrelevant
@@GrosvnerMcaffrey I still find the whole Mina-Dracula thing somewhere between bizarre and abhorrent.
@@brigidtheirish it's not that I don't see why try to imagine your true love being the reincarnation of an undead monster's wife and then someone telling you they have to be together because "Destiny" even though God himself forsaked them. I'm only saying you can't begin to compare this movie to the book anymore than the original nosferatu is to the book. The day someone finally does the proper adaptation is when you can compare afterall this movie's whole purpose was to be a dark love story in spite of its title
@@GrosvnerMcaffrey I eagerly await that adaptation.
Cannot beat a movie directed by the great Francis Ford Coppola who directed The Godfather along with an outstanding cast with Sir Anthony Hopkins, Gary Oldham, Winona Ryder, Keanu Reeves, Gary Elwes, Monica Bellucci, Tom Waites and Richard E Grant.
I love this movie. Really admire how much Coppola committed to filming Stoker.
Vampires, especially ancient ones, are one of the most powerful creatures in folklore. They are invisible in mirrors, can move with great speed, can control the weather, have hypnotic abilities, and can shapeshift into whatever they want, whenever they want (usually depicted as bats, wolves, rats, or fog). They can therefore slip through cracks between doors, for instance, or become impervious to physical attacks like bullets. They do have weaknesses or limitations in folklore, though, such as an allergic reaction to garlic, and an aversion to holy symbols. They must rest every day in the soil of the earth they were buried in; their powers are weak during the day, and so they usually sleep at daytime. They cannot cross running water under their own power. They must drink the blood of a living person (or animal) to live, and do not drink or eat regular food. Without blood they will grow old and decay; drinking blood restores them to full health. Folklore varies a bit, but generally in order to "turn" someone, that person has to also drink the vampire's blood in addition to being drained to death by the vampire himself. Sometimes just being killed by a vampire is sufficient. Folklore also varies on how they can be killed. In most stories a wooden stake to the heart is sufficient. In older stories they must also then be beheaded, the mouth stuffed with garlic and turned upside-down in the coffin, and then the whole thing thrown into a body of running water. In some stories, they are not just weak during the day, but sunlight will burn and destroy them. This movie tends to hew towards the more classical interpretation with all the shapeshifting and so forth.
Not to mention, Dracula in particular was trained in witchcraft by satan himself, in the book, at The Scholomance.
I wonder what Papa Dracul (Vlad II) think of his son 😂😂😂
Just one thing to add. A vampire can't go into someone's home unless they are invited. Often the story will tell how they trick their victim to invite them without realizing that they do or who they are inviting.
In the original lore a vampire would visit someone multiple times before they died. A reference to a wasting disease. As an explanation why victim was wasting away.
This lead to the story element of three bites. Which lends itself to building tension throughout the story.
@@Dularr yeah, I was trying not to write a book. There are lots of little wrinkles in the folklore. Like vampires being unable to resist counting things, for instance. Also being warded off by wolfsbane or wild roses. And of course all of that varies by source. Also, many cultures have similar cryptids with similar powers/abilities.
Gary's eyes are so lush in this film the way he stares it's almost like he can see right through you
It is one of the most beautiful films ever made. There are no computer effects, everything is made with cameras, light, models and so forth.
@@Gnossiene369 It was made in 1992, computer effects were mainstream in the industry at the time. Francis Coppola insisted not to use it and it was a controversial approach criticized by the producers and movie executives.
Keanu's English accent is precious and must be protected at all costs.
HAHA!
Blooming precious, sir!
"I know where the bastard sleeps! Carfax abbey!"
Gary Oldman one of the best Actors in our time.
This movie was literally based on the original novel ('Dracula' by author Bram Stoker) that "invented" the modern idea of vampires and created the character known as 'Dracula". This is the original Dracula story based on that novel from the year 1897. And yes, the idea of vampires in folklore existed long before author Bram Stoker was born, however, he created the modern 'vampire' that we know today in entertainment and literature platforms.
Bram Stoker din't create the Dracula entity. He seeked inspiration on Sheridan Le Fanu book ,"Carmilla".
@@catiabotelho5845- Carefully read what I wrote. I didn’t say he created the idea of ‘vampires’. I stated that he created the character called ‘Dracula’ (Count Dracula). And yes, like most authors he drew inspiration from real people. But the character known as Count Dracula was created by the author, Bram Stoker.
You should watch Dracula: Dead and Loving It. It is a more light retelling of Dracula's story, as well a parody of every single movie adaptation, including this one
Yes please it’s hilarious or young Frankenstein
Gary Oldman played Bram Stoker's dracula brilliantly as another fine english actor Christopher Lee did in the 1958 ''Dracula'' definitely worth a watch
Gary Oldman is brilliant in EVERYTHING
True story
My sister is married to Gary Oldman's nephew.
“EVERYONE!”
"It seemed like a good idea at the time." :)