Dracula

9 more reviews

1. ›Dracula - Review and opinion [ENG-ESP]@beysyd204d

   

   Hello friends, welcome to my blog

   I thought Dracula (2014) was a film that portrayed the character as a man who is capable of doing anything for the love of his family and his people, even to the point of becoming a monster. I really liked that film and have seen it a couple of times. But I haven’t really watched the other Count Dracula movies closely. If we go back to 1992 and the one that the public considers the best version, I’ve only seen parts of it without ever sitting down to watch it carefully. But yesterday I went to bed to watch Dracula: A Love Story (2025), which is the last film about this character.

   I decided to give it a chance because of the love story, which was the first thing that caught my attention. It begins with a couple madly in love, but when the prince goes to war, he asks the priests that in exchange for his courage and his fight in the name of God, they speak to Him to take care of his beloved wife. However, the wife dies in an ambush and the prince is completely devastated. He renounces God and curses Him, being punished by God to live eternally feeding on blood. Believing in reincarnation, the prince, now Count Dracula, begins the search for his beloved wife for decades and centuries without success. Until finally.

   Hola amigos, bienvenidos a mi blog

   Dracula (2014) me pareció una película en la que se muestra al personaje como ese hombre que es capaz de hacer todo por el amor a su familia y a su pueblo, hasta llegar a convertirse en un monstruo. Esa película me gustó mucho y la he visto una par de ocasiones. Pero en realidad el resto de las películas del conde Dracula no las he visto con detenimiento, si nos vamos al año 1992 y la que según el público es la mejor de las versiones, solo la he visto por partes sin llegar a sentarme un día a verla con detenimiento. Pero ayer me acosté a ver Drácula: Una historia de amor (2025), que vendría siendo la última película de este personaje.

   Decidí darle una oportunidad por la historia de amor, fue lo primero que me llamó la atención. El comienzo es una pareja amándose enloquecidamente, pero cuando el príncipe va a la guerra pide a los sacerdotes que a cambio de su valor y su lucha en nombre de Dios, ellos hablen con Él para que cuide de su amada esposa. Nada, la esposa fallece en una embocada y el príncipe queda totalmente destruido, reniega de Dios y lo maldice, siendo castigado por Dios a vivir eternamente alimentándose de sangre. Creyendo en la reencarnación, el príncipe ya convertido en el Conde Drácula, empieza la búsqueda de su amada esposa por décadas y siglos sin tener éxitos. Hasta que por fin.

   

   

   In my personal opinion, it’s not a bad movie. It has its touch of horror, gore, and romance. Maybe I didn’t like the actor who played the count very much, because for my taste he lacks appeal and charisma, although his character was passionate and full of life at first, and then with his spite and curse he became a sad, dark man who decided to punish himself until he found his beloved. Speaking of which, if he doesn’t eat, he dries up, as happens to all of us. But instead of being scary, this count’s appearance was a bit comical, and his reaction upon finding his mistress was rather poor. I felt it lacked emotion; he seemed silly. I do like the scene in the room where I saw a bit of that Dracula who wanted to get his beloved back.

   Anyway, this movie gave me some new elements, such as how he became Dracula and the hypnotism he caused in people through a perfume. As I said, this Dracula isn’t very attractive, so he needed a hook, and that hook was the perfume. I’ve always said that a man who smells good is attractive, and this movie proves it. As for the rest, such as the sets and production, I loved it. The images were very beautiful, even in places that were supposed to be scary.

   En mi opinión personal no es una mala película, tiene su toque de terror, gore y romanticismo. Talvez no me haya gustado mucho el actor que interpretó al conde, pues para mí gusto le falta atractivo y carisma, aunque su personaje al principio fue apasionado, lleno de vida y luego con su despecho y maldición se convirtió en un hombre triste, oscuro y que decidió castigarse hasta encontrar a su amada. Hablando de eso, si no come pues se seca, así nos pasa a todos. Pero la apariencia de este conde en vez de dar miedo fue un poco cómica y su reacción al encontrar a su ama fue bastante pobre, me faltó emoción, parecía que fuera bobo 🤭. Rescato la escena en la habitación donde vi un poco de ese Drácula que quería recuperar a su amada.

   En fin, una película que me entregó elementos nuevos, como lo fue cómo llegó a convertirse en Drácula, y el hipnotismo que causaba a las personas a través de un perfume, como dije, este Drácula no es muy atractivo así que necesitaba de un gancho y era el perfume. Yo siempre he dicho que hombre que huele rico engancha y aquí se pone de manifiesto. En cuanto al resto, como son los escenarios y la producción me encantó, las imágenes fueron muy bonitas hasta en los lugares que deberían ser tenebrosos.

   

   

   Thank you for visiting, reading and commenting

   Gracias por visitar, leer y comentar

   

   Images

   Separators / Separadores

   _{Traducido con www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)}

   _{Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)}

   

   ▲Upvote

   ReplyPermalink·Open on PeakD ↗·Linked from existing Hive post

   💬 Show comments
2. ›'Dracula' 1931 Review: A beautiful classic@namiks261d

   

   It's coming up on Halloween and I think this might be the first October where I was just completely oblivious to which month it actually was and how fast the Halloween holiday was coming up. I used to spend as much of the October month watching various horror and thriller films and television shows to get into that atmosphere of Halloween, having been someone that always loved that aesthetic but never really did anything on the holiday night or day itself. We're now almost ten days into the month and I just had that epiphany, quickly scrambling to find a film to check out tonight that wasn't too long to begin that old tradition of mine that I'd nearly forgotten about with all the chaos of the recent days distracting me.

   I felt like watching something old, very old. Something that could be coming up on its 100th anniversary soon sort of old. Black and white horror. Before the use of colour. Before the more modern use of horror was found with jump scares and low light. I wanted something more theatrical in its approach. The directing still creative but simple, the acting something that screams theatre performance rather than something more modern and Oscar-worthy. And it dawned upon me that there's a whole list of fun Universal monster films that I could watch. The ones that really started it all, pretty much. Starting with 1931's Dracula. Also the film that gave the character of Dracula a face to remember, coming from the great Bela Lugosi.

   Dracula

   ![Dracula.1931.1080p.BluRay.x264-[YTS.AM]-0004.png](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/namiks/23tbKK5widhoEnJtGbMrNPZTsaFpm7WEPjqSgiruiUuST9i9qQoiBF6uMYfaRCMe434HA.png) Cinema of the early 1930s was still something incredibly young. Something that was still jumping off its feet. I mentioned that the more theatrical style of such films of that era, and it comes from the fact that theatre just was more popular at the time. There was an established standard of how to perform as an actor, and many actors of the era already had theatrical backgrounds to them. Filmmaking gear was also relatively limited at the time, and this meant very fixed cinematography that'd rarely see movement. Though these monster films knew that they had to find new ways to tell stories, to find ways to connect to the audience and pay homage to the books that would've once placed great discomfort into their readers going into the night.

   Immediately the story throws us into the fears of a group that roam the night in search of blood. Feasting upon the unfortunate, taking forms of bats and wolves. This is done through the arrival of a horse and carriage just around sunset. Taking a foreigner into the wild lands and through a village, to which he is warned of the dangers at night. The foreigner of course shrugging it off and claiming that he's meeting a Count Dracula later on. This is met with great fear and rejection from the locals, given Count Dracula himself is the one that they fear. I really liked this opening, it jumps straight into things, and immediately throws in the fears of locals through their superstitions, as far as refusing to go outside even before the sun has fully set. Everyone insisting that the foreigner joins them and seeks shelter.

   With such a short runtime the story really picks up out of nowhere, and I think that's something we've really lost going into present day cinema, where the time is stretched out and everything needs a long establishing narrative. This display of superstition also increases the fear of the threat, and with how much bigger the world would've felt back then in the early 1930s, one can only imagine the impact it would've had. Where small towns and villages likely would've had their own superstitions that stemmed from close communities and unknown horizons that were rarely travelled. Particularly with the nature that would've lurked within the darkness of the night nearby, in the forests and over the mountains. Watching something like this back then certainly would've been a bit of a scare!

   I found the visuals incredibly beautiful. And something I noticed was the characteristics of the lenses used. They performed a more swirly bokeh that was still quite visible in the backgrounds even with the black and white and generally darker tones. This would've been unintentional back then given how common of an outcome it was with those lenses, but today it would've been a direct consideration to make things more otherworldly, less connected to a grounded reality. I guess the impact remains the same nonetheless. The use of that film stock definitely adds to the atmosphere too. Black and white out of no colour stock yet, grainy and gritty, amplifying the harsh surroundings of Dracula's castle which is covered in debris, dust, and all kinds of critters. This also added to dynamic range, where the shadows end up being incredibly dark. The story being something a bit more a thing of its time, but not in any negative manner: a solicitor called up to his client's castle regarding papers on real estate. His intent being to move from Transylvania to England. What's interesting about the story though is how it portrays Count Dracula, initially as a rather respectful individual. Only for Dracula to pursue a series of manipulations through the use of drugs and hypnotics. Enforcing the lawyer to his will for his travels to England with his three wives. Slowly hunting upon the locals as they come to the realisation of what is happening. I quite liked the simplicity of the story in this regard. It's more how the acts unfold in a slow, theatrical manner. Also amplified by a lack of music throughout the film, often with just total silence. Nothing between scenes, nothing over dialogue or moments of suspense.

   ▲Upvote

   ReplyPermalink·Open on PeakD ↗·Linked from existing Hive post

   💬 Show comments
3. ›The first Dracula in colour@ismaca971d

   [Image](https://www.filmaffinity.com/ve/filmimages.php?movie_id=124304)

    

   This is the first in a series of horror films produced by the iconic Hammer Productions (UK), based on Bram Stoker's novel.

   Directed by Terence Fisher, the film stars Christopher Lee (as Count Dracula) and Peter Cushing (as Dr. Van Helsing).

   It should be noted that the US title has changed slightly compared to the UK.

   Image

    

   The release was called "The Horror of Dracula" to avoid confusion and legal problems with the 1931 Dracula film of the same name, directed by Tod Browning and starring Bela Lugosi.

   This is the first colour version of Dracula. Although this detail may not seem so important to us, it is an extremely important fact if we remember the importance of the "redness" of blood as an element of terror (although colour films are no longer so new).

   Try to imagine the impact of seeing a vampire on screen for the first time with his bloody fangs, cloak and red eyes, all of which are common parts of the genre today.

   Image

    

   In addition, the colour of the gothic scene is striking simply because it is new.

   The film was a hit with audiences. Although superficially it may seem a bit trashy to many, its context and excellent explanations lead us to consider it a true cult gem.

   ▲Upvote

   ReplyPermalink·Open on PeakD ↗·Linked from existing Hive post

   💬 Show comments
4. ›Film Review: Dracula (1931)@drax1125d

   

   History of cinema is full of films that became important for being first at something while not being particularly good. The Jazz Singer, the very first sound film, provides a good example as a film not likely to be remembered as memorable musical drama. Four years later, in 1931, horror genre had its first sound film in form of Dracula, Tod Browning’s adaptation of popular novel by Bram Stoker which has set the main parameters of vampire fiction in popular culture.

   Dracula wasn’t just first Hollywood horror film made in sound. It was also the first authorised screen adaptation of Stoker’s novel, based on the authorised stage play by Irish author Hamilton Deane, first shown in 1924 Britain. Three years later the play was further adapted for American audience by John L. Balderston. This version became big hit on Broadway and made big star of the Bela Lugosi, Hungarian actor playing Dracula who would repeat his role in screen version. The plot begins in Carpathian Mountains where British solicitor Renfield (played by Dwight Frye) travels to the castle of Count Dracula, despite locals warning him that the Count is “undead” or vampire. Purpose of Renfield’s visit is to arrange Count’s purchase of Carfax Abbey, property near London. After the papers are signed, Renfield meets Dracula’s three mysterious brides before being hypnotised by Count. Dracula has arranged his coffin to be transported to England by a schooner that would arrive with all of its crew dead and only survivor being Renfield, now a raving lunatic babbling about his “master”. Dracula wanders about London streets and attacks flower girl before finding his way in the polite society that includes Dr. Seward (played by Herbert Bunston), his daughter Mina (played by Helen Chandler), her fiance John Harker (played by David Manners) and Mina’s friend Lucy Weston (played by Frances Dade). Seward runs sanatorium for the insane which is next to Carfax Abbey. A bat arrives to Seward’s home where Lucy is later bitten by Dracula and dies of exsanguination. She later appears as strange lady offering candies to little girls in order to bite them. By that time, Dracula has developed interest in Mina, but Seward’s home is visited by Van Helsing (played by Edward Van Sloan), scientist who believes in vampires and knows how to fight them.

   When Dracula first appeared on screen, it was a big box office hit. To say that today’s audience is going to be less impressed is an understatement. And this is hardly because of technological limitations, like the lack of colour which the modern audience is accustomed to expect in vampire films. Dracula is one of those big films from the past that didn’t age well and its importance lies more in what it inspired than in what kind of entertainment can give to today’s viewers. A cinephile expecting this film to live to the reputation it enjoys in film history books is going to be disappointed.

   That doesn’t mean that Dracula is bad film. On the contrary, it has at least two major displays of extraordinary talent. The first is Karl Freund, innovative cinematographer who had worked in Germany and contributed to many classics of Weimar period, including Metropolis. His cinematography in this film is inspired by German Expressionist cinema, including Nosferatu, 1922 silent classic which is one of the more innovative and original interpretations of Stoker’s works. It contributes a lot to the Gothic atmosphere of the film, especially in the opening scenes that take place in Transylvania and, later, in the scenes that take place in Carfax Abbey.

   Another and better known talent to contribute this film is Bela Lugosi. Hungarian actor has lobbied hard to repeat his role on screen and he won only because Lon Chaney, legendary silent film actor who had been Browning’s first choice, had died shortly before the production. Lugosi delivered great performance, playing the vampire as suave elegant aristocrat who seduces his victims while not baffling them with his enigmatic words. Lugosi’s performance was so strong and effective that it has set the standard what the vampire should look on the screen for next couple of decades, establishing stereotype that runs to this day. It was Lugosi’s best and most successful role that turned him into a Hollywood icon, but also had misfortune of having him typecast as villain in horror films. Same fate has befallen Dwight Frye who left good impression as Dracula’s mad servant, only to play Fritz in Frankenstein few months later and be typecast in similar roles.

   Apart from Edward Van Sloan as Van Helsing, all other acting performances in the film are vastly inferior and Helen Chandler is especially disappointing as Mina. One of the reasons might be found in rather uninspired direction by Tod Browning, director who had made his name with successful horror films of silent era, but who apparently didn’t adapt to sound era. The film has too many static shots and gives away its stage origins too easily. And, despite being incredibly short, it looks boring and confusing at the same time. Poorly made and unconvincing bats that appear in the film don’t help either. Browning also tried a little bit too hard to appease censors, unlike many of his colleagues in the more relaxed years before strict enforcement of MPAA Production Code. Almost all erotic overtones in the film are heavily suppressed and there is almost no violence in the film. Dracula never reveals his fangs, shot dissolves in black before each bite and even Dracula’s demise happens off screen, only with his mortal cry signalling his fate. Browning later made Freaks, controversial film that would later gain cult status and which is often considered the beginning of the end of his career in Hollywood. Those who watch Dracula now might conclude that the downward trajectory of his career in 1930s had more to do with his lack of ability to adapt to new standards of cinema. His version of Dracula looks even worse when compared with Badham’s Dracula, another faithful adaptation of the play made half a century later. Yet, its importance for film history is undeniable and this film could be recommended for more curious cinephiles.

   RATING: 6/10 (++)

   Blog in Croatian https://draxblog.com Blog in English https://draxreview.wordpress.com/ Leofinance blog https://leofinance.io/@drax.leo

   Unstoppable Domains: https://unstoppabledomains.com/?ref=3fc23fc42c1b417 Hiveonboard: https://hiveonboard.com?ref=drax Bitcoin Lightning HIVE donations: https://v4v.app/v1/lnurlp/qrcode/drax Rising Star game: https://www.risingstargame.com?referrer=drax 1Inch: https://1inch.exchange/#/r/0x83823d8CCB74F828148258BB4457642124b1328e

   BTC donations: 1EWxiMiP6iiG9rger3NuUSd6HByaxQWafG ETH donations: 0xB305F144323b99e6f8b1d66f5D7DE78B498C32A7

   

   ▲Upvote

   ReplyPermalink·Open on PeakD ↗·Linked from existing Hive post

   💬 Show comments
5. ›CineTv Contest: Memories|| Mr. Cinema and Dracula.@nbarrios671850d

   In 1973, in Venezuela, from Monday to Friday at 10:30 p.m., on Channel 2 (Radio Caracas Television), there was a program called Mr. Cinema, whose moderator was Luis Guillermo González. His phrase was "Look for the armchair or sofa and enjoy this, your Mr. Cinema".

   ---

   This television program was broadcasted until the mid 80's, and its schedule began to change, sometimes at 11 PM, sometimes at 12 PM.

   The subject matter of the movies was varied: action, comedy, science fiction, romance, drama, westerns, classics from the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, etc.

   The problem with this was that I was six years old and my mom and grandmother would send me to bed early because I had to go to school the next day.

   As an obedient child I followed my mom's and grandmother's orders, I remember that the TV was in the living room and for the time it was black and white and very similar to this one:

   

   Fuente

   They would wait for the adults to fall asleep and I would sneak into the living room, tune to channel 2 and there I would start watching movies like : Anchors Aweigh, Wuthering Heights, Picnic, Jason and the Argonauts, Tarzan, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, The Ladies Man, Gaslight, Where Eagles Dare, Five Fingers of Death, The Bridge on the River Kwai, It Happened One Night, Arsenic and Old Lace, Citizen Kane, Rio Bravo, Dr.No and many others.

   Of course, sometimes I didn't understand the plot, or when the movie got more exciting, they would yell at me to go to sleep or else they would punish me.

   They televised film series dedicated to actors or film directors: John Wayne, Dean Martin, Jerry Lewis, Clark Gable, Marilyn Monroe, Bette Davis, Abbott and Costelo, David Lean, John Ford, Sam Peckinpah, Frank Capra.

   

   Source

   My favorite day was Friday as it was dedicated to Science Fiction and Horror, and I was left at home to watch the complete movie, among many I saw: The Incredible Shrinking Man, The Thing with Two Heads, The Fly, Fantastic Voyage, King Kong, One Million Years B. C, Rasputin the Mad Monk, Barbarella, Creature from the Black Lagoon, Blacula, The Fearless, Vampire Killers, The Mummy, The Wolfman, The Gorgon, Rasputin The Invisible Man, Frankestein, Freaks and countless other films.

   

   Fuente

   My favorite movies were those of Vampires, especially those of Dracula, I identified a lot with the character, as I felt misunderstood, misfit to society, especially, I was struck by the one played by Christopher Lee in the Hammer films, he was the first vampire that really inspired me fear, especially his appearance as a vampire in the film "Horror of Dracula" by Terence Fisher.

   

   Source

   The presence of this Dracula on screen is terrifying, he is the incarnation of evil reflected in fangs and blood. This creature is capable of the greatest acts of evil in order to satiate his desire for blood. Here, Peter Cushing is the best Dr. Van Helsing of all the Dracula adaptations on film.

   

   Source

   That being created attraction and repulsion in me at the same time, I covered my eyes in the bloody scenes, but I opened my fingers to see them. I was very struck by the final duel between Dracula and Van Helsing, he manages to expose Dracula to the sunlight by throwing himself on the curtains of a window, takes two candlesticks and improvises a cross, before which he retreats while he disintegrates into flesh and bones, thus, Van Helsing opens the window and the wind carries the ashes away.

   After some time, the work impressed me even more because I had not seen it in color, being it a must in my video library and I consider it a classic, for all that it transmits despite its low budget, its setting is powerful, and the work of the protagonists is exceptional. I consider that this film introduced me to classic horror, to modern horror and encouraged me to watch good cinema. I approached F.W. Murnau's Nosferatu, Robert Wiene's The Gabinet of Dr. Caligari, most of the Hammer Horror Films and I am still discovering great works of cinema whether A, B, or Z.

   

   Source

   When I place myself in the time in which I saw the film, I can say that it brings back memories of how my country Venezuela was back then, when my mom or my aunt took me to the movies to see Disney films, bought me a Banana Split ice cream, or took me for a walk through the Chacaito Mall and a Boulevard called Sabana Grande.

   

   Fuente

   I remember the quiz shows that were on TV and their, I remember the marmalade sandwiches with yellow cheese at a soda fountain that still exists and is called Don Corleone, I remember my grandmother taking me to school, I remember Toddy, Savoy chocolate and pancakes with butter.

   

   Source

   I also remember them buying me clothes I didn't like and the carnival costumes they forced me to wear, I wanted to be El Zorro or Dracula, but they dressed me up as Prince.

   

   Source

   I will always remember those times, and the influence of that TV show in my film education.

   This is my entry to CineTV Contest: Memories

   ▲Upvote

   ReplyPermalink·Open on PeakD ↗·Linked from existing Hive post

   💬 Show comments
6. ›Dracula - A modern take on this cruel villain@dedicatedguy2346d

   

   Truth be told, I don't remember having watched a serious movie about Dracula, so for me it is hard to compare this series with past productions. The only thing I remember watching that is about Dracula is the Netflix animated series Castlevania. So I don't have any references when it comes to comparing this new Dracula with those from the past.

   This Dracula is highly intelligent as most ancient vampires usually are, he has accumulated knowledge and social skills thanks to his immortality and he is also capable of absorbing the knowledge of his victims when drinking their blood. His castle is huge of course, and it has an abundance of hidden entrances and halls. In the first episode, I thought the castle had the capability of changing its insides in order to confuse the poor victims of Dracula when trying to escape.

   The character has a sort of elegant cruelty and is rather pitiless with his victims, no empathy whatsoever is ever shown. I also suspect he is a psychopath because he can very well fake a gentle personality when it is convenient for him, but what he is always trying to accomplish is to increase his knowledge by murdering new victims and expanding his power and influence in human society.

   

   The first 2 episodes were as I was expecting them. Set in the past, we have a new victim in Dracula's castle experiencing torments, there are also a bunch of nuns in their convent with one of them possessing the Van Helsing last name which means she is very special, and we have Dracula doing what he does best.

   It is the third episode that was very different because it is set in the present. There are new and modern ways of dealing and maybe learning from a bizarre being such as Dracula, and I thought we were going to see a raw approach regarding how would modern society deal with this specimen. Sadly, this wasn't the case. In what I believe is the worst mistake of this series, Dracula ends up finding a very silly and absurd way of releasing himself from his captivity.

   Eventually, we also learn that the knowledge that Dracula gathers from the blood of his victims can be a double-edged sword in the right circumstances. The third episode has the chance of being the most interesting and original way, but it ended up being the most disappointing one. Despite this, fans of Dracula will probably enjoy this new show.

   

   The best

   • As the poster says, this is indeed a fresh take of this old villain.
   • In the beginning, there were some scary scenes in Dracula's castle.
   • Dracula personality was very well designed.

   The worst

   • The strategy Dracula uses to escape in present-day is absurd.
   • There weren't enough security measures in modern times when Dracula was captured.

   More information: https://www.themoviedb.org/tv/86850-dracula Review: AAA In numbers: 7/10

   ▲Upvote

   ReplyPermalink·Open on PeakD ↗·Linked from existing Hive post

   💬 Show comments
7. ›Dracula 2020 Review@trumpman2361d

   

   So, I just finished watching this mini series on Netflix and thought to share my thoughts.

   First, as the name suggests, its yet another flick based on Count Dracula. But is it any good? Well... I found it quite enjoyable to watch. It's three episodes, 90 minutes each and if I had the time I would have probably watched them in one go. I also liked the twist on the third episode, which I guess was somewhat original but not executed well. As for the ending, it sucked balls.

   But enjoyable doesn't mean good. I mean, you know the feeling when you masturbate just to kill some time? Cause you have exams and want to avoid reading, or the wifi is dead or whatever...Yeah, it's enjoyable..but well..not good.

   Overall, the series screams mediocrity. It tries but in the end it just fails to be something you will remember a few weeks after you see it. It just has too many moments that are...hmmm... cringy is the best word to describe them. Special effects? Cringy too often... Acting? Cringy too often...Atmosphere? Cringy too often... Writing? Cringy too often! Honestly its so full of cringe that sometimes you feel that you are watching a comedy, not a horror film.

   So, all in all I will give this a cringe +, watch only if you run out of options. If you have the option, watch Dracula: Dead and Loving It. It's much more scarier and fun!

   ▲Upvote

   ReplyPermalink·Open on PeakD ↗·Linked from existing Hive post

   💬 Show comments
8. ›Dracula series on Netflix - starts great, fizzles quickly@netflixr2365d

   Even though I think i am with a majority of people when I say that I am kind of sick of the rehashing of old stories over and over again I was excited when I saw that Dracula as a new series release on Netflix. The show appeared to have a high level of money pumped into it and had a fantastic ambiance right from the start.

   src

   It is clearly based on Bram Stokers's recounting of the story as you can almost imagine Keanu Reeves in the part of Jonathan Harker, whom we are introduced to straight away in a chilling sequence where he is recounting his time at Dracula's castle. At this point the show is still really good.

   src

   At this point most people are probably already very familiar with the story as it does mirror the original novel and the 1992 blockbuster film where Keanu Reeves put on what might be the worst British accent of all time in film. I was still enjoying the show during all of this. Unfortunately, by the end of the first episode things start to spiral into a "modern twist" on the story that I am certain was their intention all along and well, it is even part of their marketing ploy in that they used the phrase "The Legend gets some Fresh Blood."

   But it invites the question from me and many others - "Did it need it?"

   src

   Dracula starts out looking like Gary Oldman's portrayal in the 1992 film but within the first 30 minutes has changed into what appears to be a completely different actor who is more Pierce Brosnan in a 007 sense than he is Dracula. The comedic elements that are introduced into his character made me feel at times as though he was being played by Ricky Gervais.

   I can appreciate what they were trying to do but in my mind (and I am speaking contrary to the current overall opinion by the online approval rating) to be a bit lame. Basically, it stopped being creepy and had a more whimsical aspect to it.

   The problem I have with this presentation might have a lot to do with me not enjoying when directors and producers take a finished product that was already done quite well and then muck about with it to the point where they are so desperately trying to not "copy" an already finished product and then try to make something new that we didn't really need.

   The series is only 3 episodes long and by the time I got to the end of it I was genuinely bored with a great deal of it, especially once they attempted (and i guess succeeded) in putting the Van Helsing bloodline into it all.

   I also didn't like the fact that each of the episodes are as long as a full-length film and honestly, despite the fact that I love Netflix to a much higher degree than a person probably should, was just too damn long for me.

   [src](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-b2HXpbg7U)

   I felt as though the series seemed very "Sherlock" ish and I suppose you could say that I wasn't terribly surprised to find out that this is precisely who is behind this production. Mostly, I'm going to go ahead and disagree with the 80% of people that have said they thought this was a good show and go out on a limb and say that I was terribly disappointed with most every aspect of this series.

   I think that right now, and perhaps forever, stretching the story of Dracula into 4.5 hours and introducing elements into it that have nothing to do with the original story doesn't need to be done and I found it boring. That's my 2 pence.

   ▲Upvote

   ReplyPermalink·Open on PeakD ↗·Linked from existing Hive post

   💬 Show comments
9. ›Film Reviews: Two 70s Draculas@janenightshade2785d

   Photo courtesy of moviemorlocks.com

   Over the past couple of days, I’ve watched two famous Dracula productions I’d never seen before. One was Count Dracula (1977), a two-and-a-half hour British television movie that some Drac fans consider the most accurate and best onscreen translation of the book. (Yes, even more than the 1992 Francis Ford Coppola version, which introduced a reincarnation/romantic storyline that doesn't exist in Bram Stoker’s novel.)

   The other production I viewed was the once-famous 1979 John Badham film, Dracula, starring Frank Langella as Drac and Laurence Olivier as Van Helsing. This film received a lot of buzz when I was in college and I can’t believe it’s taken me almost 40 years to get around to watching it. Of the two, it's the 1977 production that I prefer, although the later film has its good points. Here are my reactions to the two versions:

   Directed by Phillip Saville, Count Dracula stars Louis Jourdan as Drac. Jourdan was a former French pretty boy who was imported by Hollywood to provide Continental eye candy for big-screen rom-com fluff like Three Coins in the Fountain (1954). In the 70s, he did a ton of television guest spots and tv movies, as big-screen roles dried up.

   Jourdan spoke fluent English but never lost his heavy, very elegant French accent. Jourdan brings a unique Continental gloss to his portrayal of Drac that American and British actors can’t quite match. He’s handsome, seductive, and exquisitely polite. But there’s no attempt to make Drac a romantic hero in this production, unlike in subsequent portrayals of the iconic bloodsucker.

   Jourdan’s Drac is Evil with a capital E, and we know that from almost the beginning, when we see him hand an infant over to his three creepy “brides” for a snack. (That lone, baby-munching scene will stick with you for a long while, guaranteed. Creep Factor 10.)

   The only significant changes from the book are making Lucy and Mina sisters instead of BFF’s, and merging Lucy’s two suitors, Arthur Holmwood and Quincy Morris, into one person. Otherwise things proceed in orderly fashion according to the novel: Jonathan Harker (Bosco Hogan) visits Drac in Transylvania and is imprisoned there (where he witnesses the infamous baby-snacking incident, among other terrifying sights.) Drac has his body shipped to England and a storm causes the ship to run aground, but Drac and his cargo of 51 boxes of Transylvanian dirt are recovered.

   He goes after Lucy first, killing her and turning her into a vamp; then Van Helsing is called in; Harker escapes and returns to England to marry Mina, etc. Many details that don’t appear in other oncreen portrayals are shown here, such as Van Helsing cutting off the dead Lucy’s head and stuffing garlic in her mouth after staking her (another super-creepy moment.)

   The negatives include an over-reliance on “special effects” that are now extremely dated and a sad reminder of just how ridiculous fancy camera tricks could be in the days before CGI. This movie also switches from film to videotape halfway through, which is a bit jarring, but doesn’t mar the quality too much.

   The acting by Frank Finlay as Van Helsing is very good, if a bit eccentric; Susan Penhaglian is particularly effective as Lucy. But it’s Jourdan’s serpentine glamor as Drac that carries the film. This film is recommended especially for accuracy freaks, or for anyone who wants to know the “true story” without reading the book. I give it a solid 8/10, which is close to how it's rated by IMDb voters.

   Dracula (1979), directed by John Badham; starring Frank Langella, Laurence Olivier, Kate Nelligan, and Donald Pleasance. At the time this film was released, much was made of Langella’s performance as a “sexy” romantic Drac, and of the fact that Van Helsing was portrayed by Lord Olivier, considered the greatest actor of the English-speaking world in his day. All the ingredients for a great film are there, including wonderful cinematography by camera legend Gilbert Taylor, and a score by John Williams. There are a lot of great Gothic sets; the castle that Drac rents in England is wonderfuly atmospheric, full of black walls, bats, spiders, cobwebs, and huge rats.

   But it just doesn’t come together in the end. Dracula looks very Gothic, but it just doesn’t feel Gothic. There’s something missing. And it’s ultimately rather dull. Langella is an actor I consider to be seriously underrated, but I didn’t like his portrayal of Drac at all. He’s too low key and matter of fact. His attitude seems to be: “Yeah, I’m a bloodsucker, get over it. Be tolerant!” I didn’t find him particularly sexy either.

   Olivier is good as Van Helsing, but nothing special. His portrayal of the vampire hunter just seems to be yet another old-man-with-a-weird-accent role, similar to the ones he played in Marathon Man (1976), The Boys From Brazil(1978) and The Jazz Singer (1980) in the twilight of his career.

   Dracula is not particularly accurate to the book, either. The film opens with the shipwreck delivering Drac to England, eliminating entirely Harker’s midnight carriage ride through the Carpathian mountains to Drac’s Transylvanian lair. Lucy (Kate Nelligan) and Mina have switched places, and it’s Lucy who’s engaged to Harker, not Mina. (This pointless exchange is mystifying.) And it's Lucy that Drac focuses on after killing Mina, who in this version is also Van Helsing’s daughter.

   One of the worst revisions is making Lucy’s former beau, Dr. Seward, her father instead of her ex-suitor. The new Seward is not at all a sympathetic character, which makes rooting for him hard when he teams up with Van Helsing to vanquish Drac. As played by Pleasance, Seward's a slob who runs a filthy, medieval-looking mental asylum on the bottom floors of his large manse. This not only makes Seward look bad, it makes Lucy look bad also, as she swans about in genteel, upper-middle-class comfort on the top floors of the house while pathetic wretches screech and writhe in chains below.

   Consistent with the romantic storyline that this version pushes, Lucy falls in love with Drac, dumps Harker, and runs off with the bouffant-haired bloodsucker. Seward, Van Helsing and Harker fight Drac for her life and soul. But you don’t know whom to root for. Is it Drac and the unsympathetic Lucy? Or slobby Seward, cuckhold Harker, and their weird Dutch friend? It's this scattered point of view that leaves a hole in Dracula's dark heart.

   This film does feature some great scenes, so I wouldn’t give it a pass. Drac’s death scene, for example, is impressively different and ferocious. Although, I’m not sure how original it is, since it’s virtually the same scene that kills off Dr. Polidori in Frankenstein: The True Story (1973), an excellent miniseries starring Michael Sarrazin, that premiered to rave reviews six years before this film was released. But overall, it doesn’t satisfy the viewer as much as it could have. IMDb fans have rated this film a 6.5/10, which I think is about right, although I might rate it a little lower at a 6/10.

   ▲Upvote

   ReplyPermalink·Open on PeakD ↗·Linked from existing Hive post

   💬 Show comments