From: pashdown@javelin.sim.es.com (Pete Ashdown)
Subject: Re: What an icky, icky movie. SPOILERS
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:44:19 GMT

lsheehan@hamp.hampshire.edu writes:

>*****************************SPOILER ALERT************************************


>	2) Gary Oldman.  Icky, Icky accent.

Yes.  We all know how Romanians from the 14th century are supposed to speak
anyway, don't we?  I thought the accent was fine.

>behind me).  I can't remember what I've seen him in before, but I distinctly
>remember him being better than this.  

Try Oswald in "JFK", Sid in "Sid & Nancy", Rosencrantz in "Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern Are Dead".

>	3) Winona Ryder.  I wasn't impressed.  Or, to be more specific, I
>wasn't impressed with her portrayal of Mina.  I always thought Mina was much
>stronger than that; Lucy dies because she is weak, Mina survives because she is
>strong.  I don't recall her EVER being in love with Dracula. (of her free
>will)

Of course, be accurate to the book and bring out another snore like Nosferatu.
Do your own interpretation and make something great like "The Shining" or
"Misery".

>	4) Keanu Reeves.  Did a nice job with what he was given.

Keanu was the most pathetic part in the film.

>the only one who thought of the Castle Anthrax when he showed up at the abbey?
>(you've been lighting the grail-shaped beacon again..)

What a fault.  The odds of FCC paying tribute to Monty Python are very small
here.

>	5) Vlad.  No wife that died, sorry.  No explanation of how he became a
>vampire in the book, sorry.

I've read the book as well.  I read it before I saw any vampire films.  It was
completely boring.  I thought the FCC explanation weaved well with fact and
was romantically plausible.  Of course, if you were directing the movie, I
would have fallen asleep by the time Johnathan arrived at the castle.

>And (and this is just a little picky thing of
>mine), he wasn't a member of The Order of the Dragon.  His dad was.  Nor was he
>"Dracul", as Hopkins so emotionally yelled.  His dad again.

Damn.  They should have had you checking the facts for this film.  It would
have made much better lines, "My father was a Dracul and I'm just a lousy bum
living off his name!"  "His father was a Dracul and he was just a lousy bum
living off his name."  Either you have a very dry sense of screen adaptations,
or a very exciting sense for boring facts.  You should also note that Vlad
didn't live forever and that it is physically impossible to change form.  That
mist, wolf, bat, and rats stuff is just silly isn't it?

>And Dracula in the book was something that you hated or
>feared, not sympathized with.  And certainly not loved.

This has already been done, twice.  Nosferatu and Nosferatu (remake).  I fell
asleep.

>romance, I'll watch the Frank Langella version.

Fairly poor romance at that.

>	6) When I start noticing little flaws, that signifies I'm not into the
>movie.

Nor do you want to be.  When you start forgiving nit picks and lose yourself
in the fantasy, then you start to notice a good movie.

>  The first flaw I noticed was that they didn't impale people properly in
>the opening battle scene.  Bad sign.

Prime example.  Can you tell us what a werewolf is supposed to look like as
well?  How about the undead?

>A lot of the shots (especially when they
>were burning the abbey) were quite obviously done on a sound stage.

No kidding?  Did you know that FCC was pushing that look to give it the
emotion of an old-style horror film?  Did you notice any of the shadow plays
and self-opening doors?  Did you nit pick about how shadows can't move on
their own?

> And was I
>the only one who got annoyed REALLY quickly by the freeze-frame camera
>tricks? 

These were shot with an old camera.  Another tribute to the classic style.

>I was in the front row, and almost threw up after they'd used it a couple
>times.  The silent movies were a nice touch-would've been nicer if they were
>all in BLACK AND WHITE.  oops.

You really have no sense of style do you.  Maybe FCC should have shot the
whole thing in BLACK AND WHITE, after all, color film hadn't been invented at
the time.

>	8) Two other little "book" things.  I belive you met the women once in 
>the book.  They invite Jonathan to lay down with them, then Dracula bursts in 
>and pushes them away.  This may be my memory, but I have no recollection of ever
>encountering them again.  FFC just had to have the whole "gratuitous sex thing"
>happening, I guess)

Go read the book again.  Stay away from any theatrical adaptations.  Die in a
library.

>Also, Dracula didn't want Mina because she looked like his 
>dead wife- he wanted her for revenge.

Also, Vlad wasn't a vampire, Mina never existed, and Romania looks a lot
better than a soundstage.

>	Well.  I think that's all the nit-picky things I can remember.  I'm
>very glad they left in the "children of the night" line (even though I don't
>remember it coming at that particular time)

I await your screenplay with anticipation.

>late-night t.v. and become a cult classic.  I just wish someone would come out
>with a REAL adaptation of the novel.  Or at least a truly scary, decent movie
>that has the vampire as the bad guy.  No, Bela doesn't count. (pardon the pun
>=)  )  And Nosferatu was SO long ago.  =) 

Nosferatu was remade in the same boring style in the early 80's by Werner
Hertzog.

The comments I've read here all point to, "Not the same as the book," "Silly
soundstage effects,"  "Historically inaccurate."  What did you people want?  A
PBS style dramatization of the book?  How BORING.  What I saw was one man's
interpretation of what has become a large myth.  A good one at that.
-- 
			What's the frequency, Kenneth?

DISCLAIMER: My writings have NOTHING to do with my employer.  Keep it that way.
Pete Ashdown    pashdown@slack.sim.es.com    ...uunet!slack.sim.es.com!pashdown