I Have...Thoughts About Bram Stoker's Dracula
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 сен 2024
- In 1992, acclaimed director Francis Ford Coppola decided he was going to make the most faithful adaptation of Bram Stoker's classic novel yet. How did he do?
Here's a link to the Unshaved Mouse's review:
unshavedmouse....
Dial M by Twin Musicom is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. creativecommon...
Source: www.twinmusicom...
Artist: www.twinmusicom...
If you want to support me on Ko-Fi:
ko-fi.com/bett...
And if you want to keep up with me on the socials...
@bobbyiceman - Twitter, IG, TikTok
#francisfordcoppola #winonaryder #keanureeves
For all its flaws, this movie had some great strengths. The atmospheric and surreal horror imagery influenced by German expressionist horror and British Hammer horror films was really effective. Dracula seemed like a supernatural being of incredible power, like a sorcerer or a mage. The musical score was well done. And Gary Oldman didn't hold back as the character.
It's all style & little substance in favor of Dracula & Mina's "love story"
Flaws ?!?!? Where ?!?!
I thought the Dracula love story angle was the sexiest reimagining of this age old story. Gary Oldman was HOT as Prince Vlad and almost endearing as old Dracula. Loved it.
Vampiric Lucy is one of the best parts of the movie, and inspired the iconic look/attacks of Queen Yharnam in Bloodborne.
Who’s that?
Still a bad movie. Even if Bloodborne is a good game.
@@sub-jec-tivit’s a great movie
I liked this movie, parts of it, anyway, but I prefer the classic Dracula. This one, it seemed it tried to combine the real Dracula with all the sparkly lovey dovey vampire stories of the last few decades. I think all that started with the very human vampires of the 1970s Ann Rice stories, which I also loved, but I think things got out of hand after her novels became such a big success, this making of vampires to be more sympathetic characters. Vampires are supposed to be scary. And if they are going to make them sexy, romantic characters, Gary Oldman is not the way to go. (Though I do like him and find him attractive, I just think he was miscast) Frank Langella was an excellent sexy vampire - but again, not a scary vampire.
I thought Lucy was the best part, loved the scene where she returns to the tomb, that was the spookiest of the whole film. The way she turns when startled by them, the way she just drops the baby, I love that, all her humanity is gone. She was perfect.
One of the most visually striking movies of all time. The costumes cannot be topped to this day. Masterpiece.
Back in the days when the movie was first released - I got the pleasure to see the original costumes as they were sent around the world to be displayed. They were fantastic - but in very rough shape - i.e. the Dracula "gold dress" had so many stains of various colors! And Draculas red "muscle" armor had many chips around the edges showing its white underlying material. Still fantastic to see! If I remember correctly all the costumes were designed by a famous Japanese designer (and if you look back - you can certainly see some Japanese inspiration in the two costumes i mentioned).
This was in Oslo, BTW - where I lived at the time.
@@jarls5890 Yup, you got it. Dracula's armor was later reused in a movie called The Cell.
This movie definitely had a massive impact on the stylistic interpretations of Dracula. I saw Michael Pink’s Dracula (a ballet) 8 months ago, and while the plot is a fairly close adaptation of the book, it took quite a few nods from this film in the costuming, such as having Dracula spend act 1 in a red robe and dressing the brides in Roman-esque robes. Not surprising, given that ballet is an art form that depends heavily on stylism in the first place. I’d honestly recommend it for anyone who liked this movie, or who thinks ballet is staid and boring.
I would definitely be interested in checking that out :)
Guy Madden made a ballet Dracula in 2002. It was incredible and filmed in the silent movie format with Mahler music. Outstanding film that nobody ever mentions.
The blame for the love story having the most focus can't be put on Coppola since it was Hart who created it for his script. For some reason, after reading the novel, he came to the conclusion that Dracula was a tragic romantic character who just wanted love. I really don't know how the hell he ended up thinking that.
Directors take screenplays and shape them to their vision, so if he didn't view it as a love story as well, it wouldn't have been directed that way
@@BetterWithBob I see your point but I was just going by what Coppola himself said in the commentary.
In the book there's no romance between Dracula and Mina
When you notice that the official novelization was done by Fred Saberhagen, who rewrote the story in The Dracula Tape and it's sequels, as the love story seen here.
Well, I suppose every one sees in a story what is already in themselves.
I don’t blame you. Winona as Mina is my favorite Winona. I was so glad she came back after all these years into acting. I just love her. I haven’t read the book, but a tragic and doomed love story that Dracula is trying to force, which leads to his ultimate doom. Love it.
I don’t think the novel Dracula is a love story, not in the way this film, and a lot of other modern interpretations, try to make it out t be.
@@geslinam9703Just like how Hymn of Demeter by Hommer is a tragic story of a mother who lost her young daughter on a forced marriage and not some angsty forbidden romance YA story. What's with people and romanticising the bad guys???
@@nevermindimjustapasserby I think in the case of Dracula, it’s the sexual undertones that might have carried it into being romanticized, and if you consider the time that Dracula was written, and the mostly female victims, it makes sense. It’s been a long time since I read it, but I don’t remember there being a connection in the novel between Mina and Dracula’s long dead wife, that might have been entirely made up for the film. I guess Hollywood thinks we all want to see a love story?? Even worse are the more modern vampire stories and movies, which I kind of blame Anne Rice for. I loved her “Interview with the Vampire” and the humanity she gave to the vampires, but people took that idea and ran with it…Twilight, etc. A proper vampire should be terrifying, not some sad, lovelorn, misunderstood guy with perfectly blown dry hair.
@@geslinam9703 I agree to the point of the sexual undertones, but, for me at least, Dracula´s actions toward Lucy and Mina do not scream "romance" but "rape".
@@Wienpirat And don’t forget the “dead” part too. Rape and murder. But, after the initial fear, the women are usually hypnotized and can’t resist - a whole lot of psychological BS, hidden meaning, and attitudes towards women and what men think they want we could get into here, for sure!
I wouldn't say this is an unfaithful adaptation compared to its rivals. I think this movie is all the more frustrating BECAUSE it's so close to being an actually faithful adaptation - a lot closer than many others, for example the many productions that switch Mina and Lucy, make one of them Seward's or Van Helsing's daughter, kill off Harker, turn him into a vampire, have Renfield go to Transylvania instead of him, and smoosh or eliminate Lucy's three suitors entirely.
This one has the lavish costuming, the atmosphere, Gary Oldman's performance when he's actually being Menacing Asshole Dracula, the incredible use of old-school practical effects and vintage film techniques...the fact that they actually included Arthur, Jack and Quincey! Tom Waits Renfield! Anthony Hopkins Van Helsing! The Demeter, the carriage chase! Dracula growing young when he feeds! DRACULA WITH FACIAL HAIR!
...AND YET.
And YET.
The actual events of the film hew quite closely to the book AND YET the romance plot is like this big squirming cancer in the middle of it. Because of the marketing and title it's also almost singlehandedly responsible for hard-coding its egregious changes into pop culture to the extent that people think they're 100% canon and will argue blue in the face despite the evidence of the actual book sitting right there. "Dracula is explicitly Vlad III" no he isn't "Dracula has a lost wife and a tragic backstory" no he doesn't "Dracula and Mina are time-tossed lovers" they sure as fuck are not, his visit to her in the book is a violent sexualized assault perpetuated out of spite and vengeance. Then there's slut-shaming Lucy, damsel-fying Mina, making Van Helsing kind of a crazy jerkass, milquetoast Jonathan, losing all of Renfield's pathos and tragedy...so many missed opportunities.
I agree completely that this is, by far, one of the most faithful adaptations of the book. However, I must disagree with the love story being a squirming cancer in the strongest possible terms! Having read the book several times, it has numberous shortcomings that have long bothered me. THE most notable of which is that the titular entity of Dracula is nothing more than a plot device. He has no discernable character. This adaptation makes Dracula the central character in his own book and, I admit rather ham-fistedly at times, is a much needed improvement to the story overall.
@Coridimus YMMV. I grew up loving this movie and considering it the best Dracula adaptation, but as I've gotten older and closer and more attached to the literary version my appreciation for what Stoker was doing has shifted.
I prefer Dracula being the ominous menacing presence he is in the book, because the story of Dracula can be framed as the victims of an abuser fighting back and freeing themselves from the shadow of abuse. Dracula in the book- and this film - imprisons, gaslights and tortures Jonathan, repeatedly assaults Lucy in her sleep, enslaves and then murders Renfield for trying to warn Mina she's next and leaves a trail of suffering and death everywhere he goes. His sheer callous mercilessness makes him a fantastic villain.
Turning the perpetrator into a romantic Byronic antihero comes at the expense of every other character. Adaptations romanticising Dracula (I can think of at least four or five other than this one) mean that whole generations who haven't read the book have never met the real Mina, Jonathan, Lucy, Art, Quincy, Jack, Van Helsing or Renfield and that's a deep shame.
That is entirely fair. @@WandersNowherre
Yes, yes and yes.
The only true love story in that story is the one between Jonathan and Mina, and I would really love an adaptation that keeps that. Okay, her suitors love Lucy, so hers and Arthur's works as the secondary love story in that novel. But why the hell does this movie turn her into such a slut?
But you could truly make a very memorable love story for a movie about Jonathan and Mina, and yes, while Coppola's movie looks pretty good the way it nearly destroys that is one of the reasons why I ended up hating it in the end. I was quite familiar with the novel before seeing the movie, and due to that I never learned to like this damn movie.
@pohjanakka4992 I blame this movie and a bunch after it basically slut shaming Lucy for even the academic discourse consistently claiming that she dies in the book as some sort of punishment for her loose morals.
I really don't think that's in the original text at all. Book Lucy is framed as a sweetheart whose death is an unmitigated tragedy of errors despite all attempts to save her. It has less to do with sex than with wasting illness with which Stoker was painfully familiar. She is never seduced by Dracula, only attacked in her sleep, and she dies having very little understanding of what's happening to her (whereas Mina survives because she possesses the information and agency Lucy was denied by her well meaning protectors). It's not because Lucy is stupid or somehow deserved it. She just didn't get a chance.
That said Sadie Frost deserves all the credit for her range in this role. Her " spoiled little Lucy" speech to Mina is heart-wrenching, and her vampire transformation is chilling and iconic.
I took a class in high school where we had to read a book then watch the movie it’s based on and do a presentation on it. I did this movie and Dracula and it took a lot of editing in my paper to not get across how mad I was about adding in the romance, love when someone else points it out!
Hehe did you get a good mark on it?
I think Keanu and Carrey should have switched parts. Carrey can actually do a British accent.
"Because unlike some other Johnathans, I can speak with an English accent."
But Cary played a British lord
Tbh the duality of Dracula’s character here in this movie is what is so great about this particular interpretation of the Dracula with infused love story - Dracula here has feelings only for one person- Mina - so yeah, he can show some special treatment towards her. All others however are just food or obstacles or means to an end to him, so it was perfectly logical for a vampire like him that Lucy was just a victim to Dracula and food supply and he would easily violate her and murder her with no qualms. Same for Jonathan, Van Helsing and any others characters- he wasn’t supposed to treat them well and be suddenly nice to them just because he had feelings towards Mina. And tbh I think Oldman so effortlessly switching between sentimentality/brooding and bloodthirsty glee/slaughter is a strong point of his performance and his Dracula. Like if you bother to show vampire’s being in love in your movie you’ll definitely need to show that such kind of love doesn’t make vampire safe or completely defang him, cause he’s still undead creature, albeit with some feelings, creature that still brings death and destruction around him. I actually doubt that without this duality Oldman’s Dracula would have stood the test of time and would have became such a popular and influential version of the Dracula character.
well spoken. Duality is a major theme in this movie and Oldman´s performance (and real life situation at that time) perfectely encapsulates it.
Agreed - I never had any issue with the love story angle. I actually really liked how Mina was the one to set Drac 'free' so to speak, rather than dragging her into eternal damnation he chose to finally die to be with his lost love. He IS a monster, but one at the last who realized he'd made a terrible mistake and wanted out, and Mina was the one who gave him that motivation finally to do it.
*with no qualms
@@WynneL yeah, thanks. Fixed it
agreed. The video creator just failed to grasp this^^
It's not necessarily inconsistent that Dracula is fine with turning Lucy, but is conflicted about doing the same to Mina. He has different values and tastes than the mortal male characters who are in love with Lucy. To him, it's Mina who is the special one. And, had it been played up more consistently, it shows how some people can be romantic without being real gentlemen. Dracula cares about Mina, but is totally fine with corrupting and damning other women like Lucy and his brides. Heck, this could have been emphasized as yet another contrast between Jonathan and Dracula. Jonathan would be that good-hearted guy who is kind to everyone but hasn't figured out how to make his girlfriend feel special. Dracula is that charismatic jerk whom Mina is guiltily attracted to because he clearly sees and treats her differently than he does other people.
Good points 👍
The Madonna/whore syndrome is extremely common. Men have long been taught to treat "good" and "bad" girls differently. Lucy was portrayed as very naughty and sexual, while Minna is literally more buttoned up (minna wears high buttoned collars, Lucy is often flashing cleavage), and is ever so prim and proper, though slightly jealous of Lucy's class and beauty, and the freedom of speech they afford her. Minna is meek and humble ("good"), while Lucy is brash and arrogant ("bad") . So it makes sense to me that a man could treat the two girls so differently, and why the object of his pure, immortal love must be the meek, humble girl.
@@carolsimpson4422 Yes, and Dracula was also, upon seeing Mina's photograph and then encountering her in the flesh, warring with his own reawakened humanity. He wanted to be the image he presented for Mina, to be the man who once loved his wife, but he could no longer be. Romantic Dracula was a facade, not just for Mina, but for himself. The token resistance to turning her is tellingly short lived.
Book Dracula makes him being Vlad a plot point- it's how they figured out the path he flees back across Europe. Specifically book version is an accomplished wizard too, and it is remarked by Van Helsing Dracula is a problem beyond the usual because the mortal him was so exceptional.
@@mothmaiden Book Dracula is NOT Vlad the Impaler. Stoker was under the mistaken belief due to the ONE book he read about Romanian history, that the name "Dracula" translated to "Devil" (not "SON of the Devil," just "Devil" -- should show you how accurate his source was) and was a name given to rulers who had a reputation for courage, cunning, and/or cruelty. The name "Vlad the Impaler" didn't even appear in the book in the one passage that actually mentioned him, nor did anything about his impalings. He, and his father Vlad II Dracul, were both erroneously referred to as "Dracula" in Stoker's source.
The actual passage from that book gets copied into the text for Stoker's novel, and then, surprisingly enough, there's mention of a THIRD Dracula -- revealed to be the Count himself -- who basically mimicked Vlad III's campaign tactics against the Turks and actually succeeded where Vlad III failed despite losing all his soldiers in the process.
TL;DR: Count Dracula in the novel isn't Vlad the Impaler. He's a sorcerer who took Vlad's patronymic for his own and tried to copy his military deeds.
I have to admit that those two personas of Dracula always made perfectly sense to me. They portrayed his initial disconnect with humanity, "normal people's" values and their concept of love (and thus, the main problem with villain love interests).
However, I think the movie should've dived deeper into that aspect and the manipulative powers of Dracula. He easily could've changed the narrative to "I have only granted Lucy eternal life, the others killed her". They could've played into Mina's extremely kind, compassionate nature to give book Mina another nuance in line with our zeitgeist: those virtues are important, but be careful as there are bad people who may profit from them.
As much as I think that throwing in potential love is not inherently bad and enjoyed the movie, I don't like how all of that happens at the expense of Mina's very active, heroic part in the book.
i had no idea there were so many deleted scenes - including one of jonathan and mina reuniting at the end! thank you for this vid, a great watch and i learned something new eh :D
I've watched this movie a bazillion times and never noticed that Anthony Hopkins played two characters.
He's the old priest at the start, as well as the voice of the captain of the Demeter before Van Helsing shows up!
I still think it's the best version of Dracula on film. And I've seen almost every Dracula movie ever made... But I didn't read the actual Novel until I was in my 30's and I had watched most of the films in my 20's. Vampire fan here. I love it.
I'm sensing a consistency with your favorite characters and red hair...
the notes Stoker made for the sequel implied that the story was originally set in the late 1870s (tail end of the first bustle era a few years before the second) and the hairstyling is clearly sourced from the 70s so the bustle gowns work wonderfully well here now i guess the movie is explicitly set in the late 90s? but everything shows they understood how victorian dress worked and most importantly they didn't shy away from making everyone look interesting
It specifically says 1897 yes
The Tom Waits Effect = the effect by which any media, no matter how good or bad, jumps a noticeable amount by the presence of Tom Waits or a Tom Waits song. Something you aren't enjoying becomes tolerable. Something you are enjoying becomes that much better. And Little Drop of Poison in Shrek 2 is what solidified "SHREK FOR LIFE" in my heart forever.
This was my first Tom Waits experience and I didn't realise he was a singer until I was about 16 or 17
@@BetterWithBob Next time it happens (the unexpected presence of Tom Waits), you'll see what I mean.
I have feelings on this one as well: it started when I was a gothy teenager and was introduced to it by my equally edgy boyfriend who tried to use it as romance influence, including muttering gibberish like in the cinema scene like it was some secret sexy language. Vomit inducing as much then as it is now. Ugh. Now as I look back at it with more maturity what I can't stand it taking itself so seriously that it threw down the gauntlet calling itself Bram Stoker's Dracula and is one of the least faithful adoptions of the book. Maybe it becuase I haven't seen the extended cut but I always doubted the sincerity of this production as it seemed more like a fanfiction sex romp than an adaptation of Bram Stoker.
I felt especially that Mina's character suffered the most (besides the Lucy/Furry sex scene, I mean WTF?) Mina was a freaking badass in the book, with her determination, courage, and so fiercely intelligent she even gave Van Helsing a run for his money. Now in this movie she's reduced to the love interest being fought over. I could never tell if this was trying to be campy with how over the top serious it was, which I don't mind but tha may just be a personal preference, when I think of something so over the top it becomes funny I think more like Evil Dead.
But to end this with my own personal pet peeve, I've done medieval armored combat for many years, and I loathe the red twizzler armor. It's so poorly designed that poor Gary Oldman could barely lift his elbows above his waist, resulting in one of the saddest sword flourishes ever committed to film.
Well Francis Ford Coppola wanted to just title it D to differentiate it from the other adaptations, but then went with Bram Stoker's Dracula because he tended to do that with films he adapted from books to distinguish them from original scripts he wrote himself
@@BetterWithBob And in 1992, a vampire film called D could have also been misconstrued with the anime Vampire Hunter D, and after my very long ramble of why I just don't care for this version I am willing to agree with you on the quality of the cinematography and over all design. At the end of the day though I just can't stand the over wrought reincarnated love story though I probably would have liked it more if they had let Dracula just be the villain, might have also been an interesting twist on it too if Elizabetha was less of a reincarnation and more of a spirit that was possessing Mina; Dracula hypnotizing her in the material would while Elizabetha tries breaking her down in the spiritual one.
Love this movie tbh. Camp fun but looks spectacular. Worth watching for the visual style alone.
It's an opera...just without the singing.
I love just looking at the film. The sets, makeup, costumes and effects are absolutely entrancing. The acting, less so, though I think Hopkins adds levity and life, even if the portrayal betrays the book. And I also believe Ryder's best performance is in The Crucible, where I'd rank this towards the bottom of her filmography. But she certainly looks the part! I enjoyed hearing your perspective. For better or worse, this is my Dracula! I also think Crimson Peak is more than just style over substance. There's no need to knock that film in order to elevate this one. They both have glaring issues yet exhilarating moments of cinematic brilliance.
I genuinely think Crimson Peak is a terrible film that just looks nice. Not just in terms of writing and direction but even weird editing choices. I've watched it three times and can't find any substance, but I do find a good bit in BSD
@@BetterWithBob We're just sharing opinions and on CP we disagree. We good. Great video and Happy Halloween!
There were many things in the movie that didn't exactly match the book, but I think Hopkins actually captured a lot of the spirit. There's the moments of hysterical laughter, weird humor and the whole "kind laugh" monologue. Book Mina felt pretty different, but I think Hopkins kind of nailed it.
Teenage me didn't mind the romance, quite the opposite. lol I was fascinated by Dracula (and might or might not have written fanfiction after seeing the movie that elaborated further on the romance aspect). And while I nowadays see that the movie is not perfect, I still adore it. I do however absolutely agree with you regarding Mina, Lucy and the design of the movie. ♥
Hehe Dracula fan fic is something I wish I'd done when I was younger lol
I'm guilty of writing Dracula fan fic, too lol
"We've all become God's madmen" I always interpreted as him reflecting on the human cost of their quest to kill Dracula. So, while they're on the side of God, their devotion to the quest had consumed them and now it had reached the point of costing one of them their life.
I just love this movie. I love the costumes. The acting was great. I just love it. I watched a documentary on the making of this and Gary Oldman went through so much crap. He is a superb actor.
Yeah I believe he was going through a divorce and battling a drinking problem at the time
Oldman is miscast and he totally overacts. There, I said it.
I love this movie because the filmmakers just went bonkers
•Nothing looks ‘real’. The castle doesn’t look like a castle, Mina’s mansion doesn’t look like a real house. Everything looks like a decorated set to Broadways most elaborate stage play.
•The cinematographer was given vast sums of cocaine and told to do whatever TF he wanted. From the top-down zoom introduction of Renfield, the aforementioned mansion scene film through an actual window, the 13fps cinematograph-o-vision, invisible vampire foursome ceiling mirror cam, endless oddball choices. There’s even a shadow puppet shot!
•Sir Anthony Hopkins is fucking spectacular. Dudes got like twenty lines in the movie but he’s the star in his own universe. “I’m afraid your wife is dying. She will turn into a vampire, and we will have to kill her. NOW LETS GET SOME FUCKING TEXAS ROADHOUSE!”
•Gotta stake a vampire? BLOOD GEYSER!™️
•Several shots are clearly filmed backwards but played in reverse. This adds nothing to the story but the jarring way fabrics moves wrong makes everything 10x creepier. FFC did this because he loves you.
I can watch this movie on mute and still be endlessly fascinated.
absolutely LOVE finding a new favorite RUclips channel!!!
Thank you :)
Lucy was literally my favorite part of the movie. I was so upset at her death. Also I hate when people change the lore of other peoples stories or folklore to what they think it SHOULD be. It’s so disrespectful. People have done this a lot when it comes to different peoples religions and mythologies as well. That being said the story of the vampire being misunderstood love interest is so cheap and this was the beginning of a horrible trope. There was no need to make Dracula this way. Johnathan was my second favorite character. I also loved learning that dracula had many transformations not just a bat or vampire. The character designs and acting was phenomenal but again it is ashamed that they chose to make this a Dracula sympathizing movie unlike the actual story.
I *loved* the love story, myself. Specifically, the stark tonal shift between monstrous Dracula and seductive Dracula. I have read the book as well and while it’s not a particularly faithful adaptation, I think it’s awesome to see. I feel it mostly just allowed Gary Oldman to exercise a significant depth of character with Dracula and show off his chops as an actor. Dracula is terrifying in the book and just as menacing in the film, but you get to see how truly manipulative he can be in creating his “wives” as well. You see the lengths he will go to for one he really, really wants, compared to one he could take or leave, like Lucy and his wives at the castle. It makes you wonder how each of the three came to join him, what sort of tactics he used against them. Anyway, love the video!
This movie is both the closest film version to the novel and also the furthest from the novel at the same time. It’s the best vampire film of all time and even topped the silent film Nosferatu (1922).
i unironically love everything about 92 Dracula. Amazing making of stuff and even though its cheese its so so good and the bits it does get right about the book it gets really good.
I kind of feel like the idea of "faithful adaptations" is overrated due to the creative boundaries it imposes. Purists might dislike the focus on romance and love in the movie Bram Stoker's Dracula from 1992 for diverging from the book, but I quite like it.
In the movie version, Prince Vlad's transformation into a monster becomes a metaphor for a man's heart turning dark due to loss and grief. It's a pretty fresh and unique spin, imo. Also, as a romantic I appreciate how this angle adds emotional depth to the story.
I get that calling the movie "Bram Stoker's Dracula" creates certain expectations, though.
It's still my favourite film about Dracula.
"We've all come God's madman".
Never since I watched this film at the age when I definitely shouldn't have watched it did I think this phrase was aiming to condemn what the men did to Dracula.
Rather, I always thought and still think that he was referring to the impact the ordeal had on the hunters. How far they went, what they pushed themselves to do and how much they were willing to sacrifice.
mmmmm ... this movie has a special place in my heart. It is the primordial horror movie for me, the one i dreaded growing up, as i'm too young to consider Hitchcock's work modern enough to be credible and too old for the newer shitty horror that rely mainly on CGI or cheesy jump-scare. Re-watching this over and over i keep discovering more stuff (beside the horror) that i really like - big name actors, comedy, action, drama, tragedy, love-story, erotica, solid back-stories, character arcs, cinematography, graphic effects that still hold and much much more. I don't agree that giving Dracula a story that almost makes you root for him is a bad thing. I see it as the definitive love-story - a great man that renounces his crown, his life and even his God for a chance to get back to his loved one. That brings him on a path of destruction that hurts everybody around him but also himself. Killing Lucy just before meeting Mina gives the audience the proof that he means business: his purpose is a good one but make no mistake - he's the ultimate bad guy that will destroy everything to get to that. About mina and the ending - i like it: her not going back to him shows this experience took a toll on her, as it should. A full happy ending would not fit this story, a bitter-sweet is much better. Is it a good book adaptation - for sure not, is it perfect - no, does it have weaknesses - many, but it's still one of my favorite movies ever
Great comment. To this day, in every walk of life you will meet the most random people who aren’t even Dracula/horror fans but they will attest that this is the greatest film of all time. And that it was the definitive motion picture experience of their life. It’s usually the people who think that they understand cinema that tend to have trouble comprehending this movie. This happens with great art throughout history. The opening war scene with the red backdrop is all we need to know about who this Dracula is. It’s a storybook. He’s a brutalizing, reviling, wild berserker. He passionately kisses a crucifix. It’s what we see centuries later. Lucy is the new object of wild, predatory impalement, even though Dracula’s quest is for something supposedly pure: first, Christ, then Mina. Van Helsing reads him though: “He impaled people and roasted them, boiled their heads in a kettle, he skinned them alive and hacked them to pieces and then... drank their blood.” There is a reason Vlad Tepes was never considered a Catholic/Orthodox saint.
Any movie with a money shot of Wynnona Ryder's lovely jugs is an Oscar worthy production! 😮
I watched it 4 times at the cinema.
Meh. I love Anthony Hopkins performance in this film. It adds a bit of humor to a very serious and sappy love story. You may be unaware that humor in horror is great.
I remember reading the book for high school and then watched the movie because it was the closest adaptation or so I was told. Needless to say at certain parts I was very surprised because it never took place in the book. Afterwards I figured it was the most faithful because every character in the book makes an appearance.
This a great vídeo essay! The romance thing is weird tbh. I read on a Lugosi biography that when the movie came out Universal was not sure how how to market it so they tried to sell it as gothic love story….lol! But I think that influenced greatly how the public viewed vampires as sort of “romantic” (they were just getting into the public pop culture subconscious back then, nosfeartu was rediscovered later)😅 and of course we have gradually leaned more and more into it with each coming version of Dracula (and vampire media in general…don’t even get me started on Edward Cullen 🙃😒) overall I think it’s a fascinating topic.🖤
1- duality is a big theme in the movie. Oldman´s performance shows this very well while in other caracters it is more subtle. Van helsing, for example, is both a cold scientist and a madman and most characters are between caste/faithfull and incapable to resist the temptations of the flesh.
2- still on duality: people remember this movie as the one with a love story- rightfully so- but this is also a very good at being an horror movie (young me as quite terrified)
3- a very well made movie that feel timeless. the wardrobe, filming techniques and general art direction make it unique.
4- a good enough adaptation but overall and much more important a very good movie.
5- music is used to elevate key moments.
6- so many good quotes.
I love this book, but the movie is the strangest anomaly. I've seen it 4 times and every time I watch it the only thing I remember is Renfield in that damn accordian slinky straight jacket thing. 😮
Heck yeah, a Dracula '92 review for Halloween, from Bob! 🦇🎃
My connection with the movie sprouted from the Dracula binge I went on after the high of watching (and enjoying) Dracula: Untold back in 2014, so I watched both my mom's VHS copy of the Coppola film, and even the Bela Lugosi version on DVD (to which my mom greatly rejoiced, at last I was choosing to watch an old historical black-and-white movie! Not to mention the appreciation she had towards Lugosi for being a fellow Hungarian). I'd always been a fan of supernatural/monster romances, born out of Beauty & the Beast being my favorite childhood fairytale, so you can imagine my surprise when I saw just how romantically & sexually-charged this film was, especially in comparison to the older versions (it even makes direct reference to Jean Cocteau's world-famous La Belle et La Bête in one scene). Couple years later, I borrowed a graphic novel version of Bram Stoker's book from a friend at school and was both surprised and not to see just how different it was focus-wise to Coppola's movie. (And yes, I *have* since realized that the reincarnation bit, which several other 21st century versions have since copied over, technically came from Boris Karloff & The Mummy). As a result, I can understand your mixed-bag feelings towards this film. (For instance: let us be glad that Keanu Reeves has gone on to have bigger and better successes in recent years as an equal parts bad-ass and compassionate action star, however I appreciate you not lambasting him like most other critics do. Plus, you love Winona Ryder as Mina, which is also quite welcome!).
4:16 Well hello, unexpected yet appropriate Phantom of the Opera reference! (Yes, I'm a proud Phan through & through, my costume for today even being a modernized version of Christine's Masquerade dress from the stage show that I put together). 🌹
Thank you for your comment :)
I love both the film and the book; however, the book Mina is a stronger character than the Mina in the movie. Book Mina is strong and courageous but definitely not in love with Dracula. In fact, Mina would rather kill herself than be turned into a vampire.
When they were promoting this movie, the actors and actresses went on to different late-night shows to claim the movie brought out the romance in the book. Maybe that's why your brother incorrectly insists the book is actually a romance.
I suspect Coppola was just really horny when he made this movie, but like you, I love Lucy. What directors get wrong is that being turned into a vampire is akin to rape. Neither Lucy nor Mina consent to being turned into vampires who want to be brides to their attacker. It's not a love story but rape,
This was one of the few VHS tapes we had when i was a kid. I watched it countless times during summer.
Shout out to that makeup and costumes. Although the directing and acting are disjointed the visuals are great.
Thank you for acknowledging the Annie Lennox song. It's my favorite too.
This was the first movie I bought on DVD... God, I feel old...
In my top 5 fave movie of all time. Francis is my fave director too.
I love this film, but mostly watch it as a good fan-fiction version of the story. For accuracy, I watch the 1977 BBC Dracula starring Louis Jordan. You included some scenes from it in this video and for good reason. No one has topped that film in terms of its accuracy.
Yeah he's very compelling as Dracula. Very underrated in the role
Keanu plays Jonathan Harper perfectly, Jonathan is a wet blanket. He is low energy and stiff like Keanu plays him.
It makes perfect sense that Dracula would love Mina, but treat everyone else like dust. He's seen generations of people die. They are less than a blip on his radar/food to him but Mina is the love of his life and always has been. And it does make sense that Mina would be in two minds as the story suggests reincarnation works so she literally is two people - the princess and the modern woman. It's hard to make that work psychologically because it's not straightforwardly relatable 😂😅 But it does make sense. And I love the the moral ambiguity of him being a loving man and a ruthless killer because theres something very true to life about that - human nature in itself is a beautiful and a horrific thing and he embodies both.
I think the score could’ve been talked about more. I have always really appreciated it
Ya, the lowest points in the movie are when it shows Dracula crying and moping about. I'm not buying this for one second!
Gonna have to disagree about Van Helsing. He seemed just a bit unhinged in the novel. A genius, obviously, but one with a fair dose of eccentricity and I thought Hopkins was the only portrayal to capture that side of him. Somebody who was willing to believe and do whatever it took to defeat the undead even if it meant going a little mad in the process. I found it refreshing rather than the typical depictions of him as a coldly scientific figure or a badass action hero.
You are not going to talk about the amazing sound track other than one lime at the end?
Francois Ford Coppola's take on Dracula is far from a faithful adaptation - most obviously in the characterisation of the eponymous Count himself and the reframing of the entire story as a tale of doomed supernatural love across the ages rather than a horror story about a monstrous, Undead parasite preying on those that cross his path - but then again taking liberties with the plot, characters and even world building of the original novel in the various Dracula movies we have seen over the decades is hardly anything new and has been a semi-regular pass time of Hollywood since the 1920s. Watch the film on its own terms and, the unfortunate miscasting of Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker aside, the movie holds up very well, with wonderful atmosphere, great practical effects, incredible costumes and some very memorable performances.
I love this iteration of this version tbh it’s so good 🧛🏻♀️🧛🏿♂️
That’s my favorite Annie Lennox song as well ❤️
I can’t listen to it without tears as my true love was taken too soon.
💙💙💙
Disapointing is the word for this adaptation. The issue with this movie is not the casting! I tend to blame the writing and Copolla's choices. Everyone had high expectations for this movie and it was just... meh
Alex Winters would have been a great Renfield
But you're never supposed to "root" for a Byronic hero: the whole point of that kind of figure is that you are of two minds, that you know he requires a tragic ending, but some part of you doesn't want to see it happen to him. That was the case with Byron's own characters like Conrad ("one virtue and a thousand crimes") and later Byronic figures from Heathcliff to Sweeney Todd. Seen in this light, the Dracula of this movie (unlike the novel, of course) is in the tradition of Byronic vampire figures like Blacula or Lestat or, arguably, the Frank Langella or even the Louis Jourdain Dracula. And this seems to me to be a perfectly coherent way to deal with vampire characters, both in general and in this movie. I do seem to have more problems than you do with Keanu Reeves' attempt at a British accent.
This movie is a masterpiece. The original book was written as a collection of letters, journal entries and news articles in a sort of literary 19th century found footage. To make a move completely accurate to original book you would have to make some kind of horror mockumentary. . In order to capture the atmosphere of the original book in cinematic form the story must be reimagined. The Coppola version is the only visual feeling of this story to actually pull this off.. you mentioned how flimsy the male roles are in the movie but I always thought that was kind of the point.
Okay. You need to watch Dracula Dead and loving it now 😂
"But so are THESE!"
I really do not care that they added a love story contrary to the book, most would agree this is so much more faithful to the novel than other adaptations, and anyways, an adaptation can alter things, I’m personally not a gigantic original Dracula book fan, I absolutely love this movie, its visually spectacular, the acting is tremendous, its epic and exciting and entertaining and mesmerising and every shot a delight for the eyes. Production design, costume, use of a dozen old practical camera techniques, the more I learn about how this film was made the more I love it, like the behind-the-scenes of LOTR where you find out they used all these tricks to fool the viewer. So much art and passion went into making it look so unique and 90% of it in-camera effects. My personal favourite Coppolla movie tbh, there’s just so much on the screen to enjoy, and Anthony Hopkins and Gary Oldman are absolutely enthralling to watch.
I read the book last year i did like it i grew up watching this version of Dracula i enjoyed it Winona Ryder and gary oldman did a brilliant job but i didn't enjoy Keanu Reeves as Johnathan he was totally miscast to me
So what are your thoughts on the new interpretation of Dracula as a narcissist?
I've been a hardcore vampire and werewolve fan my entire life. I graduated high school the year this came out in 1992. I immediately went back to watch it again for one reason.
LUCY.
Alright. And the brides.
as a bi vampire obsessed individual i highly relate to this. And Keanu… and Winona 🤣.. you can’t just have the most attractive people in the moodiest gothic romantic horror like this without demanding i watch multiple times!!!
Wish we could’ve gotten a little more of monica bellucci 😭😭
Regarding how disconnected Van Helsing is from the rest of the movie, the idea is that he constitutes the scientific mind that has been turn crazy by the supernatural. On a deeper analysis, he represents reason blinded by strong feelings (love, desire).
He feels disjointed because he is not a developing character, but an explanation of what's changing within the mind of the two main female characters.
I don't think that's this Van Helsing though. The mad stuff was all added in addition to the canon text or else ad-libbed by Anthony Hopkins
@@BetterWithBob This is a weird movie, with a female background motivation and a male foreground action.
For a pure male mentality is disconnected and sluggish, until something clicks and the realization that the movie talks in seducers language gives it a completely new light.
Once on that state the movie fills entirely intentional, I can´t see patch work at all.
Despite the tile, maybe the book is only half the movie.
The 2 biggest criticisms I always heard about this movie was Dracula’s first appearance as an old count with his hair done up the way it was n people would always make fun of it 4 looking like a pair of boobs or a monkey’s butt something stupid like forgetting that Dracula is supposed to b looking like an aristocrat from the 1700s n how people used to wear their hair up in a similar manner either that or they would wear wigs n then their was Keanu Reaves people used to complain that he was so miscast in this movie simply bcuz they got used to him playing Ted Logan from Bill N Ted n since he wasn’t trying to b a teenage goofball n actually trying to b an Englishman some people just couldn’t get past that fortunately I was able to watch n enjoy the movie 4 what it was despite some changes from the book to the movie
Anthony Hopkins humping the leg was hilarious, i enjoyed this movie and watch it often along with Interview with the Vampire. Two of my favorite movies along with the 1st Riddick
Not even a minute in and I'm howling with laughter! I'm definitely gonna enjoy this one.
"Hannibal Van Helsing cannibalizing the scenery" was def. a phrase that made me lol. And saying it out loud almost makes it a rap verse! 😆
@@DJtheBlack-RibbonedRose for me it was the smash cut to "I'm Boo Boo the Fool" that had me rolling
@@cheezybastard8661 Ha ha yeah that was great, never expected Bob to ever utilize that phrase on himself but here we are. 😆
Hehe BooBoo the Fool has been me since 2019ish
If you can find an original VHS tape from that same year, you would see all the deleted scenes.
Back then on VHS deleted scenes weren't even invited yet.
So when DVD became mainstream and they adapted All those movies to have deleted scenes.
I noticed because I love Bruce Lee films and Cheech and Chong films noticed that they cut parts out of the original and then I compared them and found out the truth.
That is exactly the reason why I still have my original VHS tapes just in case I want to see the originals just like we remember the first time.
The movie is terrific, and you tell me everything I need to know learning you started with Van Helsing
Oh my goodness finally some love for Sadie Frost, she was perfect in my opinion.
She was indeed
I saw it as a young teenager with my best friend in the cinema when it came out. Afterwards, we both came out into the light of day as completely new girls, having discovered, between this and the Last of the Mohicans, that watching shirtless long-haired guys speaking exotic languages really does stuff to you.
Now, the three brides did stuff to at least one of us as well, the one who did not know she was bisexual yet.
My personal favorite Mina in terms of horror factor is still Jan Francis' incarnation from 1979's Dracula. While it's not one of my favorite overall adpatations of the story by any means, that one iconic scene with the undead Mina still unnerves me.
I find it to be a masterpiece of tone, presentation, and emotional delivery helped in no small part by Laurence Olivier and Donald Pleasance (R.I.P. to both). I appreciate more with each viewing how every ingredient contributes something:
The oppressive darkness in the cemetery and claustrophobic mines, the night fog's thick atmosphere, Mina's reflection in the water signaling her entrance with the slow face reveal as Van Helsing looks up to witness what she's become, the genius in simplicity with Francis' crusty makeup making her skin appear like she's risen from the grave, her simultaneously chilling & hypnotic voice like she's now some hungry puppet of her master merely imitating Mina's voice, the glints of light in her black eyes accentuated by thin rims of red on her eyeballs' edges that match the color of the blood dripping from her lips.
The cherry on top for me, of course, is Olivier's delivery of Van Helsing's grief over what Dracula took from him. His tears and that soul shattering mourning cry really sell the character of a father cradling the freshly staked corpse of the precious daughter he was forced to kill. In my opinion, the scene works better in black and white but the colored version still goes hard.
*Link:* ruclips.net/video/NGqa84ca1y4/видео.html
I saw this twice during its original run. I liked it enough. Not my favorite, but it stuck the landing enough that I remain fond of it.
Bob have you ever read or heard of a book called Dracula undead by dacre stoker it's written by a descendant of bram stoker 🤔🦇
YES, FINALLY , THANK YOU !
FYI.... a lot of the dialogue came from the novel.....
Besides the liberties that were taken for Dracula's origin and the love story. This is about as close to the book that nearly any movie has ever come.
I once got sent a fan edited version that cuts the love story out and it makes the film a whole hour shorter lol
I agree with your assessment 100%.
Sadie + the cinematography are enough to love the movie for me. Also her "return" is as scary as the 1979 movie one (well, there is Mina because for some reason they swapped the characters).
Richard E. Grant lol I love that guy
Man.. 18 ads in this video. Fck youtube seriously 😢
I don’t see a problem with Dracula as a tragic love story. I thought it was a great movie. But I’m also not married to the original IP.
This film is my guilty pleasure and I love it to death. You could say my taste in men came into being when I first saw Gary in this film (and Bowie in Labyrinth). British, theatrical, fem, retro & dark 😎 ( and supernatural?)
I love the costumes and the aesthetic as well as the music.
Glad you mentioned the ancient TV adaptation with Louis Jourdain; while it's of its time it did stick mostly to the book (which in my opinion really drops off in the last few pages).
What I do remember about this movie is Gary Oldman I do like him as the campy monster and the out of time charming human. More so that he is believable in both
One of my favorite movies and I just saw it. I don’t remember the book I read it twenty years ago. So it didn’t ruin it for me.
Ooooh, this film is a bane of my existence. I'm not book purist, but how dare them calling this film as the canon
It could've been perfect film, the cast, the visuals, the costuming! But I hate the plot to my core
Supposedly the author's name in the title is Francis Ford Coppola wanting to distinguish films he adapted, however loosely, from original screenplays he wrote himself. He did the same with The Godfather, titling it 'Mario Puzo's The Godfather'
I hated the romance angle, they should have kept dracula an evil force of nature.
Calling Crimson Peak "All style, zero substance" is a CRIME
I can't get past the part with the baby.
To this day, in any walk of life, you will meet the most random people who aren’t even Dracula/horror fans but they will attest that this is the greatest film of all time. And that it was the definitive motion picture experience of their life. It’s usually the people who think that they understand cinema that tend to have trouble comprehending this movie. This happens with great art throughout history. The opening war scene with the red backdrop is all we need to know about who this Dracula is. It’s a storybook. He’s a brutalizing, reviling, wild berserker. He passionately kisses a crucifix. It’s what we see centuries later. Lucy is the new object of wild, predatory impalement, even though Dracula’s quest is for something supposedly pure: first, Christ, then Mina. Van Helsing reads him though: “He impaled people and roasted them, boiled their heads in a kettle, he skinned them alive and hacked them to pieces and then... drank their blood.” There is a reason Vlad Tepes was never considered a Catholic/Orthodox saint.
I read this book and loved it. So I cannot begin to explain my shock when I saw this movie. As someone else said to me, it’s like I was watching a parody of the book. I don’t understand why so many people praise it.
It does have a lot of good. But also a lot of...whoa
Personally I don't necessary feel like a book needs to literally translate into a movie. There is a charm with both screen writers and directors sharing their own adaptation. I absolutely adore this movie. Nothing is perfect but the flaws are still what makes it so special.
Very well said 😊
I largely agree with this analysis but I would also like to mention that the music is spectacular. Wojciech Kilar, who also did really well for The Ninth Gate, really pulls out all the stops here. He nails the gothic horror, the melancholic love story and the bombastic action scenes so well, the music feels like an oil painting. For me, this is up there with Basil Poledouris' _Conan the Barbarian_ among some of the best soundtracks ever.
If you love the 2004 Van Helsing movie, you got no room to criticize this movie. 😅