Bramstoker's dracula collector's edition 2 disc

[CrimsonMist]

Maybe I missed something but how exactly did he become a vampire in here? I don't recall them saying, in the prologue he denounces God then 800 years later he's in a castle as an old vampire.

he denounces God and promises to return from death to avenge the death of his wife and desecrates his chapel.

 

[CrimsonMist]

the standout performance I thought was Anthony Hopkins as Dr. Van Helsing. He played it perfectly and is my favorite version to date.

I thought Hopkins was perfect casting, and he performed well with how the character was written.

But how he was written was NOT the Van Helsing in the book. Hopkins' Van Helsing was a loony bin. He knew his stuff yea, but he was just kinda crazy.

 

[Mr. Socko]

he denounces God and promises to return from death to avenge the death of his wife and desecrates his chapel.

Yeah but that makes no sense, it's a plot hole. How is it explained...so anyone who promises to return from death is able to do so?

In some versions, he makes a deal with the devil to become a vampire, in others he is cursed by an old wizard to be a vampire, in this version he's just "I promise I will be a vampire *poof* 800 years later, I am a vampire!" No explanation.

 

[Catman]

He disses God. What part of that doesn't make sense?

 

[CrimsonMist]

Yeah but that makes no sense, it's a plot hole. How is it explained...so anyone who promises to return from death is able to do so?

In some versions, he makes a deal with the devil to become a vampire, in others he is cursed by an old wizard to be a vampire, in this version he's just "I promise I will be a vampire *poof* 800 years later, I am a vampire!" No explanation.

well, 1. he pisses off God. You NEVER piss off God.

2. It's a crappy movie that shouldn't have even incorporated a stupid romance angle and the Vlad The Impaler origin nonsense.

In the book, he apparently(no one really knows) dabbled in black magic and became a vampire that way or something. They don't make it a focal point in the story. The only reason they showed his origin was to tie into the romance angle, which was stupid. In my opinion, anyway.

 

[DACrowe]

The movie operates as an homage to classic horror (like Murnau's Nosferatu influences this greatly as does obviously Browning's Dracula) and made in the same campy over the top operatic horror as I'm sure Coppola always wanted to dive into (he is Italian) and I find unintentionally similar to the campy Hammer horror movies.

With that said, it is also a gothic love story (unlike the book, which is the main reason I'd argue it is not Bram Stoker's) and a Grim's fairy tale.

think of it as a story that would be ripe for a broad mention in the Old Testament, as this is very much about Coppola's view of the Roman Catholic Church and how it uses people, taking away from what Coppola on the DVD called pure Christianity.

Vlad Tepes (Dracula) served the cross and under order of the Catholic Church committed horrific acts of violence and sin in the name of God. He then finds out that because of the wickedness of man, his love who he treasured and coveted killed herself. So there is strike one, he hates people now. Then the Church who he followed with so much fervor says his loved one cannot enter Heaven and she is damned. Well obviously Dracula never read the story of Job in the Bible, so he takes out the cruelty of the Church on God.

And this is Old Testament God, not the most forgiving sort. So, when he renounces God, he desecrates the Chapel by doing the most offensive thing, stabbing the cross. He has broken his covenant with God, because he mistakingly assumed God's covenant was to give him perks for listening to a corrupt institution (I'm just reading Coppola's movie, this does not reflect my own views on Catholicism). He thereby sells his soul and drinks the blood coming out of the cross that literally is the angels crying as it is his sin and offenses taking over him and drowning the memory of his beloved, Elizabeta.

He consumes the blood, for blood is the life and condemns himself willingly to live with his back to God. While Dracula in Coppola's movie was wronged, his offenses were greater, as Van Helsing presumes to tell Dracula in their bat confrontation, which is the truth.

Some have misinterpreted that Coppola has turned the hunters into the villains of the piece. I would disagree. I'd say they are merely the tools of what is a necessity, that we must be upset for. Van Helsing is crazy because Coppola and Hopkins thought it'd be fun if he was a little off his rocker, but he was on the side of God, who at the end is not depicted in a bad light, despite what some may say.

Unfortunately, this is best illustrated in the superior original ending that was deleted because of some unknown reason. The DVD is worth getting for a very interesting (if somewhat depressing) commentary by Francis Ford Coppola and a thorough making of the film (including onset fighting between Coppola and Oldman. We also got to see how Coppola trains his actors, which is talked about a lot, and is entertaining if odd).

But the original ending features a somewhat cheesy (due to speed it is presented and music) conclusion that just needed some of the shots from the reshoots inserted and slowed down. Mina after killing Dracula hears Johnathan open the chapel door and turns to see him. She runs to him and won't let him desecrate his body any further (she did not behead him. That idea came from George Lucas's advice to Coppola. Cool idea but the problems with the ending in the movie stem from Lucas, bastard). You then see the cross heal over Dracula as he is "reunited" with Elizabeta in the above painting. Cut to the courtyard outside and the hunters walk away with the "religious/bittersweet" music playing as they cross over the image of Christ on the Cross glowing on the stones beneath them. It is a casting call as Johnathan and Mina lead Arthur and Seward carrying Quincy. Van Helsing is last on screen (likely he would have had some narration, not in the DVD extra) and looks at the engraving on the ground and pauses, nods and walks off camera right.

Such a better ending. There are also a dozen or so deleted scenes, a few of which worth watching (including the infamous shovel scene in the book turned into something even creepier in the movie).

I recommend the DVD if you are mildly interested in this film as it gives a good exploration of it. I hope I explained the beginning as well.

 

[Mr. Socko]

He disses God. What part of that doesn't make sense?

Pissing off God is not an explanation for him remaining of the undead. If so, it's a very very poor one.

Not to mention, "dissing God" would be no way to grant you powers of immortality. It just makes no sense. Where do Vampires come from in this version? Basically anyone who pisses off God just becomes an old age man with superhuman abilities? Tell me...how much sense does that make.

 

[Mr. Socko]

well, 1. he pisses off God. You NEVER piss off God.

2. It's a crappy movie that shouldn't have even incorporated a stupid romance angle and the Vlad The Impaler origin nonsense.

In the book, he apparently(no one really knows) dabbled in black magic and became a vampire that way or something. They don't make it a focal point in the story. The only reason they showed his origin was to tie into the romance angle, which was stupid. In my opinion, anyway.

I do like the movie overall but I agree, as I said on the previous page, the romanticism was unneeded, I prefer Dracula as the personification of evil through and through but with a charm instead of sympathetic "damned to be a vampire." One other thing was the reincarnation...it's like everyone was reincarnated in the prologue to when the movie is set. What was the point of that? This should have been titled "FF Coopla's Dracula" not "Bram Stoker's Dracula."

And this is Old Testament God, not the most forgiving sort. So, when he renounces God, he desecrates the Chapel by doing the most offensive thing, stabbing the cross. He has broken his covenant with God, because he mistakingly assumed God's covenant was to give him perks for listening to a corrupt institution (I'm just reading Coppola's movie, this does not reflect my own views on Catholicism). He thereby sells his soul and drinks the blood coming out of the cross that literally is the angels crying as it is his sin and offenses taking over him and drowning the memory of his beloved, Elizabeta.

Good post DA, nice explanation...

...Coopla just tried too hard.

 

[DACrowe]

Oh I personally think it is a flawed movie that is greatly entertaining, says some interesting things and is beautiful to look at with one of the best musical scores I've ever heard and some of the best use of practical effects ever. Yeah Keanu was miscast and it is so unlike the book I hated it at first as well, but it is still a deliciously well made visual and stylistic triumph with so much intertexuality to classic cinema it is fun to still spot something new on repeat viewings.

 

[CrimsonMist]

The movie operates as an homage to classic horror (like Murnau's Nosferatu influences this greatly as does obviously Browning's Dracula) and made in the same campy over the top operatic horror as I'm sure Coppola always wanted to dive into (he is Italian) and I find unintentionally similar to the campy Hammer horror movies.

With that said, it is also a gothic love story (unlike the book, which is the main reason I'd argue it is not Bram Stoker's) and a Grim's fairy tale.

I read all you wrote, and i enjoyed reading it. You explained the origin of Dracula in this film excellently. Well said.

But what i quoted is what i disagree with.

Coppola's film, to me, was a subversion of the book. It missed the point of the book.

To quote David J. Skal, from his book "V Is for Vampire",

"Now, whatever Dracula is, it's not a love story; it is difficult, in fact, to imagine a more anti-romantic narrative. Stoker's Dracula is a cunning Darwinian superman; he does not seduce--he siezes. While he grows younger as he drinks blood, he never becomes attractive"

Coppola's film, rather than portray The Count as a ravenous monster, portrays him as a lovesick dope. Dracula does NOT cry. He does NOT get depressed. This is a man who forcefully takes what he wants when he wants it. This is a man who feeds babies to his three wives and then unleashes his wolves on the mother of the child, begging for it back.

I'll give Coppola credit for everything pre-Dracula in London. Except for the part where Dracula sees Jonathan's picture of Mina and is reminded of his dead love, everything before the film goes to London, to me, is near-perfect(in the novel, we first see Dracula in black...from head to to, he's wearing black, which leads me to my next point)

Dracula does not dress like an asian in an over the top opera.

This is also essentially a remake of Richard Matheson's take on the novel from Dan Curtis's 1973 television adaptation. And as far as i know, despite the deviations Matheson made, atleast an hour of his original script was removed. I haven't read it, but i do know it's availible in the book entitled "Bloodlines: Richard Matheson's Dracula, I Am Legend and Other Vampire Stories". If it wasn't 80 bucks, i'd have bought it by now. One day...

I, personally, don't see the similarities between this film and Hammer horror at all. Those films, atleast before the late 60's, were truly gothic horror. Coppola's film was fluff that missed the point. It's too flashy to be gothic. Of course, i understand that certain elements are there. But it's too flashy.

I'd disagree about Coppola's film being more a gothic love story than the novel. Where i agree with David Skal's remarks about the love angle, there in fact does lie one in the story, and Coppola didn't use it at all, instead opting for a more cliche, blantent rip off of another film.

The love angle in the novel is this:

Lucy Westenra is a shy, timid, pure, innocent and beautiful young lady. Three men are deeply in love with her. She picks one to marry, Arthur Holmwood, and despite this, Quincy Morris and Jack Seward remain very dear, loving friends with Lucy and Arthur. Then along comes Dracula and savagely takes her, turning her into a vampire and the shy, timid, innocent, beautiful Lucy is transformed into a sexually wild, bloodthirsty, child-attacking, animal. It's one of the most tragic portions of the book and every time i read it, it tears me up. They destroy her and bring her peace, and it's done through a major act of love by all three men.

It continues when Jonathan comes back to London, and Dracula attacks Mina. The most heroic part of the novel is when Quincy, Arthur and Jack, along with Van Helsing and Jonathan vow to save Mina from what happened to Lucy. There's a love there, while not really romantic in usual sense of the word, but it's quite powerful and another of my favorite parts of the book.

Coppola ignores this, and makes Lucy, for lack of a better word, a ****. I didn't care for her character at all in the movie. She wasn't innocent and lovely, she was just really....stupid. I didn't feel anything for her character when she became a vampire. She simply became an extreme version of what she already was.

And then Mina becomes romantically involved with Dracula, who in the novel just wants to forcefully take her and make her his. The whole love angle changes gears here, for the worst, i think. I don't find it possible that a man as evil as Dracula could ever turn into a crying fool over a woman. There's no sense of heroism to me when the four friends unite to destroy Dracula. That love isn't there. By turning the love angle to Dracula and Mina, and not Jonathan and Mina, it KIND of makes them bad guys, not but quite. They're normal human beings threatened by a force they don't understand, but it fails to me. Dracula is supposed to be the villain who almost gets away with it, but fails because the strength of the love the main characters have for Mina prevent him from winning. Coppola only takes the shell of that and changes the inside of it, and that, to me, was a huge mistake. On the flipside though, perhaps indeed the film is a gothic romance. And if that's the case, it's not my kind of gothic romance.

DaCrowe, i understand what you're saying, and i agree whole heartedly about what you said about what goes on in the film, but only in the context of that film. But i disagree with it was done. So perhaps the film was indeed a

I also don't like the fact that this was widely publicized as the most faithful adaptation of the book ever and so many journalists blindly accepted that. There were set reports or anything. Just everyone going "Yea, most faithful version of the book yet! HOORAY!". That is, until Newsweek called the bluff, by publishing excerpts from the book parallel to the screenplay, noting VAST differences.

Also, a rather ignorant, stupid thing Coppola said is on the laserdisc commentary(which i assume is the same on the new DVD as well?):

"Very few people have gotten through the book, if truth be known....it's very hard going..."

I'm 19, and since the third grade, i've read the book front to back seven times. And from that, i can tell you this. It's rather simple. It's very hard going, i guess, if you're stupid or something or have no interest in reading it.

 

[DACrowe]

Actually the commentary on the DVD is new and was recorded in 2006 and Coppola has much more perspective on it. One of the most interesting things he said was that he was going to make "Mary Shelly's Frankenstein" as Dracula's companion piece originally, but decided not to revisit similar material and produced Branagh's movie.

In retrospect I wish I could have seen it, because Branagh stayed relatively close to the source material (moreso than most filmmakers) but made something miles behind what James Whale did with Frankenstein in 1931 and Bride of Frankenstein in 1935. I doubt Coppola could top that either, but he could have made something coherent, visually arresting and enjoyable. Branagh's film is a mess.

And that is why I defend Coppola's Dracula. It is MESSY, but it is actually a very well constructed film that works on its own terms.

I myself originally hated the movie like you did as I've read Bram Stoker's masterpiece two times now. I hope to read it again at some point. And at the end of the day no one has done the book justice. Murnau, Browning, Hammer and Coppola just pick and choose what they want to use from the book and do their own thing.

Coppola wanted to make an operatic horror movie that allowed him, normally a naturalist and existential realist to go superduper way into the world of the surreal and absurd. I understand that. Dracula's costumes (which won them the Oscar) as with everything visually in that movie, is an extension of this. NOw, would a Hungarian/Romanian nobleman wear that? No. But those are details.

I appreciate what Coppola did, because I got past that it wasn't the book after a few years. Interestingly, he was the one who reinserted much of the storyline from the book. He came on to adapt James V. Hart's adaptation of Dracula (which already included the love story). At the end of the commentary he reflected that if he had written the screenplay he would have made it scarier and left out the love story, but he was hired to do Hart's version and he had tried to make that at least cosmetically more faithful to the book than any other adaptation. He apparently read the book as a camp counselor to children when he was a teenager every year for a long time and loved the book.. He fought to get all the hunters in (including Quincy who is always cut) and keep the basic plot from the book. And as he doesn't consider his material (as he did not create the story) with every adaptation he does going back to The Godfather, he insists on having the author's name in the title (Mario Puzo's The Godfather, John Grisshim's The Rainmaker, etc.).


I personally think this is more Coppola's interpretation of Hart's Dracula and that title (and press coverage in 1992) pissed me off just as much. But I actually can see Coppola arguing that he was more faithful to the basic material of Dracula than previous filmmakers. I'd also argue he was just as unfaithful as others, but that is neither here nor there.

I suspect Hart copied Curtis's production (which I only saw half of once over a decade ago), but that is expected as Hart is not the most original of writers. The screenplay really is the weakest aspect of the film. It is the visuals, mixing, music, special effects, cinematography and acting (outside of Keanu) that sell this as a grand horror opera. It is not what Stoker wrote which is vastly superior, but I am not arguing that. I am watching the movie on its own merits and see a quality film that has a lot of subtext that makes it worth watching beyond the enormous entertainment spectacle one gets from watching a nude Monica Bellucci vampire go down on Harker, a mockingly virginal white Lucy having the face of evil eating children and vomiting blood and a bat Dracula monster creating the most frightening Van Helsing Dracula stand off in film history (something Stoker mistakingly did not include).

And I have to say the last 10 minutes of the movie are some of the most exciting I have seen in a movie. I understand that was as much Roman as Francis, but it worked. They made the climax of the book much more epic and exhilerating and well...cinematic.

The ending was always the part that pissed me off the most when she seemingly chooses Dracula for eternity over Jonathan and the hunters. However, I came to peace with it only to see the original ending on the DVD which is much MUCH closer to Stoker's ending while not sacrificing the impact of the ending in the movie. It just made me sad.

However the visual and audio triumphs of this movie is why I enjoy it. I also said he unintentionally captured the Hammer films because though were high camp and high entertainment. Yes, they were thematically closer to what Stoker wrote (with Dracula being all evil and not sexy at all, albeit the women in those movies were always a hair's drop away from falling out of their dresses), but they were high horror camp, just as Coppola's movie.

I agree the strongest portions of the movie are mostly at the beginning in the pre-London section (I'd add in his really creepy arrival, including the animal rape of Lucy). I'd also include the confrontation with Lucy in the crypt which is the only scene that I thought captured what Stoker was trying to convey as well as when Dracula "finishes" her. Not what Stoker wrote and not as good, but as a film quite good and WAY MORE entertaining than it has a right to be.

And masterfully made, I'd argue.

 

[Catman]

I think the reason I'm one of few who loves this movie is because I didn't think the book was that great. The book was just a bunch of letters and journals and s--t and Dracula was barely in the damn thing. I think Coppola actually made improvements!

 

[DACrowe]

I'd highly disagree. But I look at the movie s a separate thing, and it is extremely good in its own right. I'll give Coppola few bonus points for including the journal and diary entries, as well as all the characters and getting Harker goes to Transylvania and they chase Dracula there at the end correct. In that sense he was mores successful than anyone else, but he thematically completely changes the book to fit his (and moreso Hart's) views.

I'm okay with that because it is such an enjoyable experience to watch.

 

[Catman]

I'd highly disagree. But I look at the movie s a separate thing, and it is extremely good in its own right. I'll give Coppola few bonus points for including the journal and diary entries, as well as all the characters and getting Harker goes to Transylvania and they chase Dracula there at the end correct. In that sense he was mores successful than anyone else, but he thematically completely changes the book to fit his (and moreso Hart's) views.

I'm okay with that because it is such an enjoyable experience to watch.

And Gary Oldman is the best Dracula.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

BUT-!

This new DVD does not contain the extended version of the film that appears sometimes on eBay...

 

[Catman]

BUT-!

This new DVD does not contain the extended version of the film that appears sometimes on eBay...

Whats the extended version?

 

[DACrowe]

I hear it has the original ending as well as the shovel/water scene that both should have been left in. I do not know what else is on it. BTW Bela Lugosi is the best Dracula, bar none.

 

[Rac]

Whats the extended version?

Maybe this:

Criterion laserdisc version has extra footage

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Maybe this:

Not sure if it's the laserdisc version, but the one of eBay has 10-15 minutes of extra footage.

 

[KenK]

I think the reason I'm one of few who loves this movie is because I didn't think the book was that great. The book was just a bunch of letters and journals and s--t and Dracula was barely in the damn thing. I think Coppola actually made improvements!

See, that sounds like it would frustrate the piss outta me. I'm sure I'll get around to reading Dracula at some point, though.

 

[CrimsonMist]

See, that sounds like it would frustrate the piss outta me. I'm sure I'll get around to reading Dracula at some point, though.

Nah, it's actually quite creative in how the story is told. And Dracula IS in the whole book. When he's not be directly spoken about, his presence exists in every page. And that's what makes it creepy.

 

[CrimsonMist]

Actually the commentary on the DVD is new and was recorded in 2006 and Coppola has much more perspective on it. One of the most interesting things he said was that he was going to make "Mary Shelly's Frankenstein" as Dracula's companion piece originally, but decided not to. I hope to read it again at some point. And at the end of the day no one has done the book justice. Murnau, Browning, Hammer and Coppola just pick and choose what they want to use from the book and do their own thing.

For Murnau, he HAD to change up the novel. He couldn't get the rights to the novel, so he made to change locations, character names, and such. The only thing that remains is the basic "Man sells house to Undead Fiend in which all hell breaks loose". He created something entirely new, and subsequently added to the Dracula/Vampire mythos both a new way to destroy a vampire(sunlight) and a new character.

Browing's film however, does what Whale did for Frankenstein. It made something new out of the novel and did a half-assed but decent job. Had he stuck to the shooting script and filmed it the way the Spanish crew did, it would probably be THE greatest version of the film ever made. I dont know why. Maybe i'm just biased. But then again, what Coppola did was take a script that he had the opportunity to fix, but didn't. He wound trying to adapt a book, calling it the most faithful version of the novel ever made, and wound up missing the entire point. That's why i think the other films, especially Hammer, despite their differences, are more well-regarded. They didn't set out to make it faithful. They only set out to adapt the story. and Hammer films managed to capture the dread of it all. Watch Horror of Dracula and Dracula: Prince of Darkness. Both films together, despite some problems, essentially make up the whole book(except the ending).

Although, Universal planned to do it, until the depression hit. Universal was interested in making the film as far back as 1914, with Lon Chaney playing the role. But when they became aware of the copyright problems, they kind of left it alone until much later. Lon Chaney died, they wanted Conrad Viedt, he didn't want it and we wound up with Lugosi. The big kick to the balls is, that MGM bought the rights to Dracula's Guest, the excised first chapter of Dracula to turn into a female vampire film with Dracula in it. When that didn't happen, MGM sold it to Universal, which in that transaction, it was revealed that Dracula never had a copyright in the US since publication. Meaning Universal could have made their faithful version with Lon Chaney about 15 years earlier, without having to worry about anything! And don't get me started on Dracula's Daughter....Universal really messed up by firing James Whale off that project. The script he had for that was brilliant.

Coppola wanted to make an operatic horror movie that allowed him, normally a naturalist and existential realist to go superduper way into the world of the surreal and absurd. I understand that. Dracula's costumes (which won them the Oscar) as with everything visually in that movie, is an extension of this. NOw, would a Hungarian/Romanian nobleman wear that? No. But those are details.

I appreciate what Coppola did, because I got past that it wasn't the book after a few years. Interestingly, he was the one who reinserted much of the storyline from the book. He came on to adapt James V. Hart's adaptation of Dracula (which already included the love story). At the end of the commentary he reflected that if he had written the screenplay he would have made it scarier and left out the love story, but he was hired to do Hart's version and he had tried to make that at least cosmetically more faithful to the book than any other adaptation. He apparently read the book as a camp counselor to children when he was a teenager every year for a long time and loved the book.. He fought to get all the hunters in (including Quincy who is always cut) and keep the basic plot from the book. And as he doesn't consider his material (as he did not create the story) with every adaptation he does going back to The Godfather, he insists on having the author's name in the title (Mario Puzo's The Godfather, John Grisshim's The Rainmaker, etc.).

But the thing is, Dracula isn't really surreal and absurd. Or atleast not the way Coppola thought it was. It's very real, with this strange and surreal character thrown in. He's the fly in the ointment. He's the struggling fight of Superstition against the faith shift in science.

And as i said, the story was basically a rip-off of Matheson's Dracula screenplay. And even with that Matheson's version was far superior. Matheson had the reincarnated love(in this it was Lucy and not Mina, and Mina is Dracula's revenger on the characters for Lucy's destruction). It has the whole love interest. The only difference is, and this is what Coppola SHOULD have done when he was tweaking Hart's screenplay, is that Matheson's Dracula TAKES his love. He doesn't seduce her and doubt himself. He just takes it. Coppola should have had Dracula realize Mina was the reincarnation of his wife and took her as his own. That way, despite there being some love interest of sorts, Dracula is still evil.

I personally think this is more Coppola's interpretation of Hart's Dracula and that title (and press coverage in 1992) pissed me off just as much. But I actually can see Coppola arguing that he was more faithful to the basic material of Dracula than previous filmmakers. I'd also argue he was just as unfaithful as others, but that is neither here nor there.

I suspect Hart copied Curtis's production (which I only saw half of once over a decade ago), but that is expected as Hart is not the most original of writers. The screenplay really is the weakest aspect of the film. It is the visuals, mixing, music, special effects, cinematography and acting (outside of Keanu) that sell this as a grand horror opera. It is not what Stoker wrote which is vastly superior, but I am not arguing that. I am watching the movie on its own merits and see a quality film that has a lot of subtext that makes it worth watching beyond the enormous entertainment spectacle one gets from watching a nude Monica Bellucci vampire go down on Harker, a mockingly virginal white Lucy having the face of evil eating children and vomiting blood and a bat Dracula monster creating the most frightening Van Helsing Dracula stand off in film history (something Stoker mistakingly did not include).

I agree with the first paragraph. If it is indeed true that Coppola tried to inject more of the novel in the screenplay, then i'll give him credit. What i won't give him credit for is injecting the screenplay with more bits from the novel and still missing the point. The most faithful version of the book was the 1977 BBC adaptation with Louis Jordan as Dracula and Frank Finlay as Van Helsing. It combines Arthur and Quincy into one character (Quincy Holmwood, a rich Texan), and makes Mina and Lucy sisters(although this isn't really stressed and doesn't affect the story). The ending is slightly different as well, but it still captures the novel at it's best and the only thing it suffers from is it's TV Movie production values. I've yet though, to see anything surpass this film.

The cinematography and the special effects(the make up, really), along with the music were the high points. Oldman as Dracula was great casting, Hopkins as Van Helsing was great casting. Hell, everyone except Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves were great. Those two though, ruined the movie. and for Dracula and Van Helsing, the characters were just...off.

But i will agree that it perhaps was a mistake not to have this Van Helsing/Dracula stand-off, something that's been a staple in Dracula lore since Browning's Dracula. If Universal remakes Dracula and it's NOT a faithful adaptation of the novel, they should really stress the stand-off between characters. I actually have an idea for that now, come to speak of it. Maybe i'll write a story, lol.

And I have to say the last 10 minutes of the movie are some of the most exciting I have seen in a movie. I understand that was as much Roman as Francis, but it worked. They made the climax of the book much more epic and exhilerating and well...cinematic.

The ending was always the part that pissed me off the most when she seemingly chooses Dracula for eternity over Jonathan and the hunters. However, I came to peace with it only to see the original ending on the DVD which is much MUCH closer to Stoker's ending while not sacrificing the impact of the ending in the movie. It just made me sad.

I agree with this. The ending was intense, and really exciting. Hell, it's damn near exactly like the book until they slash Dracula's throat and he runs into the church. I want to see this alternate ending, as it sounds much better, and a bit more satisfying.

However the visual and audio triumphs of this movie is why I enjoy it. I also said he unintentionally captured the Hammer films because though were high camp and high entertainment. Yes, they were thematically closer to what Stoker wrote (with Dracula being all evil and not sexy at all, albeit the women in those movies were always a hair's drop away from falling out of their dresses), but they were high horror camp, just as Coppola's movie.

Well, the first three Dracula films were perfect(despite Brides of Dracula not being an actual Dracula film). But they were serious, gothic horror films. Only until the late 60's did Hammer start getting stupid with their Dracula films. They focused on the women's cleavage more than they did on Dracula. Hell, Christopher Lee, over the course of all of the films, except Scars of Dracula, has only like 20 lines of dialogue. They never made him talk. But Christoper Lee says that's because they wanted him to say stupid things that he felt didn't represent Dracula at all. In Dracula 1972 AD, they wanted him to say something that implied he was Satan and Lee told them to piss off. So they changed it. But early on, Hammer nailed it. They got campy afterwards.

I agree the strongest portions of the movie are mostly at the beginning in the pre-London section (I'd add in his really creepy arrival, including the animal rape of Lucy). I'd also include the confrontation with Lucy in the crypt which is the only scene that I thought captured what Stoker was trying to convey as well as when Dracula "finishes" her. Not what Stoker wrote and not as good, but as a film quite good and WAY MORE entertaining than it has a right to be.

The animal rape was...disturbing. If it wasn't for the make-up, that would just be a stupid scene. The confrontation with Lucy, minus the blood-vomiting, was EXACTLY how i pictured it in the book. Personally, when i first read the book, that portion scared the crap out of me. I was scared out of my mind when i saw how close that scene was to what i saw in my imagination too. Then again, i was also more scared and upset as this wasn't the same Lucy you read about previously. She was such a nice, innocent lady. And then she's turned into THAT!

And masterfully made, I'd argue.[/QUOTE]

Eh, despite being too flashy and everything that i think it is, i'll give it to yat:

 

[Catman]

Nah, it's actually quite creative in how the story is told.

It is kinda clever and the book is pretty good. However, I wouldn't call it great. The whole journal concept is a double edge sword. In some ways it works brilliantly like the Jonathan stuff in the beginning of the book. Then, there's snooze-fests like a couple of the Van Helsing stuff. Seriously, there's like parts where Van Helsing is writing nonsense for like 10 pages.

 

[CrimsonMist]

It is kinda clever and the book is pretty good. However, I wouldn't call it great. The whole journal concept is a double edge sword. In some ways it works brilliantly like the Jonathan stuff in the beginning of the book. Then, there's snooze-fests like a couple of the Van Helsing stuff. Seriously, there's like parts where Van Helsing is writing nonsense for like 10 pages.

Yea, i know what you mean. Actually, i think i might have something you'd be interested in. A friend of mine informed me about this. I think maybe a year or so after Dracula was published, Stoker went back and revised it. He took alot of what he felt slowed the story down and fixed it. If i can find it online, i'll post a link for it. It's supposed to flow much better than the original.

 

[Catman]

I'm surprised it hasn't been published. And was Bram Stoker the George Lucas of his time?