My two favorites was always Dracula with Bela and Nosferatu, the worst in my opinion was Dracula 2000. What about you? Discuss…
Tags: Dracula, Movies
This entry was posted on Monday, December 8th, 2008 by ian at 4:49 pm
and is filed under Movies.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I personally really liked “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” from 1992. Sure, it had some very bad performances (cough cough – Keanu Reeves – Winona Ryder – cough cough) and some less than realistic sets (the abbey, the psych ward), but it also had a several stellar performances from some of Hollywood’s best and special effects to rival any other from its day. Gary Oldman did a fantastic job portraying the Prince of Darkness and somehow making us pity him, while Anthony Hopkins’ portrayal of the great Van Helsing was superb. I particularly enjoyed how both Van Helsing and Dracula, in the film, had voracious appetites and seemed driven to fulfill their life-goals; the two characters were kindred in many regards. So, perhaps “Dracula” is both my favorite, and my LEAST favorite Drac movie. However, any movie with Cary Elwes is going to be great.
I don’t know if I’d say “Van Helsing” was the worst Drac movie I’ve ever seen, but it was low on the scale — it did, at least, provide non-stop action and combined three of the big “monsters.”
The movie guru strikes again!
I haven’t seen enough of the films to really make an educated decision, but I do agree that the 1992 film had some serious performance issues. The “British” accent of a certain character gives me a headache every time I play the laserdisc.
I have to agree with you Jason Coppola’s Dracula wasn’t too bad and Gray was excellent. I guess my real problem with the film is the title BRAM STOKER’S DRACULA — in my opinion it didn’t have much more in common with the book than any of the other films.
You may want to take a look at the Polish 1973 Christopher Lee COUNT DRACULA — not to be confused with his Hammer movies. It is the CLOSEST adaptation on film.
The closest of all is the 1974 BBC two part miniseries COUNT DRACULA starring Louis Jourdan and Frank Finley.
I totally agree with you, Alan. Though Coppola’s movie was made in a beautiful way and I really liked Anthony Hopkins, this film was a great disappointment to me.If I have to mention all the sad mistakes Coppola made, I ‘ll be busy for quite a while. And that rediculous love between Mina and Dracula…It made me sick! There is a love story in the novel: the story about the love between Jonathan Harker and his Mina, and if you like the story about the love from a few brave men for Lucy. This love makes them stong enough to face the most terrible dangers.
And those costumes… Renfield was looking like a giant worm, Dracula’s ladies like Turkish concubines ( Didn’t Dracula hate the Turks?), Mina was wearing the most beautiful dresses, but wasn’t she a simple schoolteacher? And why was The Count Himself lokking like a mix between the Pope and Grace Kelly? Why that Chinese looking coat? Why did Lucy look like a lady from the red light district in Amsterdam?
In chapter 2 of the novel we can read that Dracula doesn’t want to look different. And if he opens his mouth to speak, no one must stop and laugh.
Hamilton Deane was the first writer who changed the story and sadly enough many followed him. Even until now “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” hasn’t been made!
So favorite movies are the only ones that come close to the novel: BBC’s “Count Dracula” ( 1977 ) and Jess Franco’s “Count Dracula” ( 1969 ).
BBc’s “Count Dracula” closely follows the novel and was partly filmed at Whitby; in Jess Franco’s “Count Dracula” the best Dracula performer ever, Sir Christopher Lee, simply IS Bram Stoker’s Dracula. He looks like a Victorian gentleman, is dressed in black, is the owner of a big moustache and grows younger after every snack. If only he could play Dracula in the upcoming movie…
I still contend Coppola’s film is the best version, in so many ways. For anyone questioning the theatrical-ness of the costuming and sets, you need look no further than the great companion resource, Dracula: The Film and the Legend, which goes into great detail about these matters. In my opinion these Expressionistic touches do what straightforward film adaptations cannot: they represent characters’ inner thoughts and feelings. The trappings also do much to suggest the spirit of the times, being directly based on very specific Symbolist Period artwork.
As for the “questionable” acting of Mr. Reeves, yes he plays the role as a wooden bore, but then again, isn’t that why Coppola chose him, since that is essentially Harker’s demeanour in the novel? The duller he is (representing the status quo), the more he contrasts with Dracula’s exotic mystery.
I don’t contend that the love story element is faithful to the book, but as a movie with a clear “throughline”, that addition and linkage to an actual historical event really raises the level of operatic drama that the novel already has in spades, thus embellishing it with perhaps even more resonance that Stoker couldn’t have possibly gotten away with in mass-publication during Victorian England if he’d decided to add that approach to his story.