From: axg708@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Ashraf Ghebranious)
Newsgroups: alt.horror
Subject: Re: Dracula?
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 06:02:59 GMT
Organization: Australian National University
NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.56.5.23

In article <C0o5L6.Ewy@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> burdickd@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Dakin Burdick) writes:

>I was appalled by the movie.  I almost walked out of it, and I 
>would have if I hadn't been on a date at the time.  The following
>problems applied:
>
>1.  Stoker's version was savaged, changed into a teen-slasher with
>    blood vomiting and breasty women in negligees.  The characters
>    were all transformed into angst-ridden characters with little
>    redeeming virtue.  The women were sluttish, but the guys were too,
>    and actually so was Van Helsing!  And naturally the doctor was
>    was turned into a drug addict (another tidbit that never went
>    anywhere).

This was a bit overdone. Sure, the book was erotic for the time, but if 
Coppola was trying to be true to the book, it would not have had women half 
naked in bed jumping up and down whilst 4 men , (one of which was her 
fiance) stood about watching them jiggle. It would not have been cricket, 
wot!


>2.  The plot never got going; Coppola tried to cram too much in and
>    the result was a confusing mess.  Renfield was well-played, but
>    never did much, and Dracula's various appearances were more
>    amusing than scary.  In fact, there was little thrill in the movie
>    at all.


What disappointed me was the movie started so well, so very well, and then 
before I knew it, had turned into a strange uncohorent tale. No offense to 
Mr Stoker, who's book I enjoyed immensly, but a book has the oppurtunity to 
add detail and explain what is in a characters mindset. Coppla tries to give 
us special effects instead.


>3.  The acting was appalling.  The hero was completely unconvincing
>    and had a british accent like that of Kevin Costner in Robin Hood
>    (BAD!).  The only two characters that were well-done were Van 
>    Helsing and Winona Ryder's characters, although the actors weren't
>    given much to work with.

Here Here!! They had Americans playing English characters (dont they have 
actors in England) and to add insult to injury, the only English actor 
played a German!

>4.  There were a number of problems with the costuming, the most
>    obvious of which were the women's skimpy negligees (just because
>    they came from "Victoria's secret" doesn't mean Victorian women
>    wore them) and the god-awful cowboy outfit the Texan was wearing,
>    from fringed leather to a Montana overcoat that mysteriously
>    appears for him in Transylvania.  
>
>5.  The sets and special effects were impressive but were used too
>    often and were never really relevant to the story.  Someone should
>    also have restrained the cinematographer, who did a wonderful job
>    but who also got WAY out of control.  I giggled when the peacock
>    feather turned into a tunnel; it was WAY too much.
>
>The only redeeming things in this movie were Van Helsing's two
>black comedic comments on chopping off heads.  If you have to see it,
>rent it, get drunk with some friends, and laugh your head off.
>

It seemed to me that Anthony Hopkins was still playing Hannibal. Mind you, 
Hannibal seemed more civilised.

**********************************************************************
"Jesus woman! I dont give a f___!" Rhett Butler (slighty paraphrased)

Ashraf Ghebranious                           axg708@cscgpo.anu.edu.au
                                      Australian National University
**********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.horror