More like "Really lame and gruesome hacked up film version" Dracula. Ever since we listened to Dracula during the Balboa Bennion reunion in John and Wendy's car, I've wanted to see the most recent film version starring Anthony Hopkins and Winona Ryder. Finally this last weekend the Provo Bennions rented it from Clean Flicks. I confess my self disappointed:
Item: Mina begging Dracula to let her become a Vampire, so that she can roam the earth in a state of damnation for eternity too.
Item: Dracula denying her the privilege!
Item: Lucy...Dang gina, did anyone like her? I think her teeth bugged me most
Item: Remember how Dr VanHelsing is so great? And that Anthony Hopkins is pretty great too? You'd think it be a no-miss situation...
I'd love to see what Ebert says...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I just don't think that Francis Ford Coppolla is made for adaptations (The Outsiders... watch it again).
I really disliked the role reversal of Mina and Dracula. I think that one of the big themes of the book is that Dracula sees his state as immortal while other view it as undead.
My other, almost bigger beef than the role reversal was the fact that the story was so poorly told. So many holes left for the viewer (what are the boxes, why did he have to have those houses in such specific locations, was Van Helsing magical as he teleported?, what was the deal with Keanu and his employer that made it so Keanu had to go...(why even bring it up in a two hour movie). I felt like the only way I could put the puzzle together was by reading the book, which I think makes a crummy adaptation... the movie didn't stand alone.
Some funny Ebert quotes:
the vampire shakes his fist at heaven and vows to wait forever for the return of the woman he loves. It does not occur to him that after the first two or three centuries he might not seem all that attractive to her.
(not funny but true) Coppola seems more concerned with spectacle and set-pieces than with storytelling
Coppola directs with all the stops out, and the actors perform as if afraid they will not be audible in the other theaters of the multiplex.
the movie descends into visual decadence, in which what people do is not nearly as degraded as how they look while they do it
Vlad cannot see the justice in his fate. He has marched all the way to the Holy Land on God's business, only to have God play this sort of a trick on him. (Vlad is apparently not a student of the Book of Job.)
I absolutely agree that the movie did not stand alone--and that really bugged me as well. It really felt like a rushed, bare bones, convoluted retelling of the novel. With that, I feel like they really cut out some of the best stuff. As I thought about it some more and read Ebert's review, I really think the movie looses by not putting in the pseudo-science stuff--all about how to get rid of Dracula, and how Dr. VH finds out about him and how he convinces the other. I think the movie tried to represent that by showing Dr. VH giving a really lame lecture and then showing him glance at pages of really old books that have "DRACULA" or "VAMPYRE" in big letters. D-u-m dum.
Never seen the whole thing, but the snippets I saw were exciting. Does that make me shallow? And I thought that Wolverine played Dr. Van Helsing. And the movie always is rushed. It will be the same thing with the new Pride and Prejudice too.
First of all, yes.
Second, the movie will always be shorter than the book and will always cut out part/characters etc... (Sense and Sensibility, Emma etc). Doesn't mean that the story will feel rushed.
See quote by Dr. Ebert above:
Coppola seems more concerned with spectacle and set-pieces than with storytelling.
Yours truly,
-D (get it? like the book, get it?)
Thought on Ebert...
Full of himself
Coppola adapted Puzo's The Godfather in what has been considered to be one of the best, if not the best, film of all time. I would interpret his adaptation of Dracular as more of an experiment gone awry. Tried to tell a story without telling it. It is an interesting study that I think is more difficult to dismiss than say... Van Helsing.
Well, I am in total agreement that Dracula was a bust(Thankfully I turned it in on time so no late fees ;)) But I believe that to adapt a book of the Caliber of Dracula, or Frankenstien, You have the problem that people who want to see it usually are tied up in their own thinking of how a Dracula, or Frankenstein movie should be(Shallow Horror movie with ideas of how to kill the monster but nothing else). I believe that this movie was trying to bring a note of Sympathy for Dracula, much how the Frankenstein Movies did for the Monster Frankenstein. The problem is that the book Frankenstein was sympathetic to the Frankenstein Monster while Dracula was Set forth by Bram Stoker as "Pure Evil." Coppola trying to make Dracula a sympathetic Character, only makes him seem weird and disgusting at all times except when he is trying to stop Mina from becoming a Vampire. I was Dissapointed along with Anna, not because this movie was called Dracula, but it was rather called Bram Stoker's Dracula. Implying that it is going to be faithful to the ideas and ideals of the original Dracula.
I give this movie a Thumbs down.
My two bits on Ebert: I am much more prone to agree with his dislikes than his likes. If he gives a movie 2 stars or less I'll generally not bother to see the movie. I will, however, bother go read the review which almost always makes me laugh.
DB
For some good reading please see: Patch Adams, Amageddon, Constantine, Dead Poets or my personal favorite- Pearl Harbor.
I think Armageddon is my favorite, followed closely by constantine. I also think J&W might have seen a different version of Dracula. Because this one really wasn't even that exciting--they left out all of the cool exciting things for the sake of...I don't even know what. Although Ebert does have an ego, I think he describes Dracula pretty well, except the whole part that it worked for him and he gave it too many stars.
Also, he gives a really stinky review of Sense and Sensibility, which makes me think less of his taste.
But he is really funny, and I enjoy reading his reviews.
Well it is my belief that Ebert, while he does have a big ego is good at reading films. I really have enjoyed his article of movies that he hated (Just ask Anna, She has "I Hated, Hated, Hated, this Movie" by Roger Ebert.) Anyways, another fun review to read is Lake Placid.
Post a Comment