From: ps70awg@rs1.tcs.tulane.edu (mel rupinski)
Subject: Re: Dracula (No Spoilers)
Organization: Tulane University, New Orleans, LA
 
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:43:53 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-21307]: rs1.tcs.tulane.edu

In article <1992Nov18.143517.4069@wkuvx1.bitnet> barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>In article <dsanders.8.722102127@alexandria.lib.utah.edu>, dsanders@alexandria.lib.utah.edu (David Sanderson) writes:

>>      However, the special effects and scenery are not what this movie is 
>> about, it merely helps to provide the mood.  The story of Dracula is a very 
>> powerful tale...
>
>Yes, the original story is.  This movie wasn't.  The acting was the
>stiffest I've *ever* seen in a movie (an allegedly non-B movie). 
>Jonathan Harker vanished for half the movie, so long I had almost
>forgotten about him (wish I could; Reeves was better in both the Bill
>& Ted movies, though that's not saying much).  I couldn't understand half
>of what Oldman said because of his thick accent.  The special effects
>(such as they were) only distracted me (though it was a welcome
>distraction).  Winona Ryder and the girl who played Lucy... the only
>thing about them that's the same from the book is their names!  The only
>two good parts were the madman (Dracula's lackey, I forget his name)
>and Hopkins as von Helsing, and even then von Helsing seemed like he
>wandered in from another movie.  And were we supposed to feel Drac was
>evil incarnate or feel sorry for him?  And what was the point of
>having the Texan be the one to stab Drac (yeah, I know the header says
>no spoilers, but c'mon, we *all* know what happens in the end)?  It
>should be Harker and Von Helsing?  Who was the protagonist?  Why do
>they have the gratuitous breast shots every few seconds - just to keep
>all the men in the audience awake?  Why should I care in the least
>about any of these unsympathetic characters? etc., etc., etc.  I've got
>a hundred other frustrations about this movie.  Possibly the biggest
>waste of $3 in my life.  Wasn't it supposed to be *horror*?  Where
>were the frightening parts?  The Nightmare on Elm Street series was
>more frightening than this at its silliest!
>
><mutter mutter gripe>...
>
>-Drizzt

I must agree here.  I loved Bram Stoker's novel, but was utterly disgusted
with this film.  I gues I should have known something was up when I saw
the subtitle "Love Never Dies"!  Ughhh.  How korny,  in fact the whole
story was just another korny love story -- it did absolutely NO justice
to the complex and well-crafted tale of seduction and obsession that was
_Dracula_ (the novel that is).  I thought it was pitiful.  The fact that 
the story followed somewhat the original plotline, but deviated a great 
deal in some places, just made the whole thing ridiculous.

Did anyone really buy that whole renounce God-stab the cross-drink the 
blood that flows out of the cross only for Dracula-become a vampire bit?
"The blood is the life". . . excuse me, what was this?  Oh, and BTW,
since when has a metal sword had the ability to kill a vampire, I always 
thought you needed a wooden stake. . . (ughhh)

I like to think of this movie as Bram Stoker vs. A Harlequin Romance
(and guess who wins?)

On a lighter note, I did enjoy the cinematography and the musical score,    
but I was having deja vu -- where have I seen and heard them before?
Can you say a Tim Burton film?  good.

For my money the best vampire film is, and will always be "Nosferatu".

Just my $.02

-mtr


--
|Mel Rupinski               |"I was captured by spacemen and taken to  | 
|Dept. of Psych. (Tulane U.)|some time in the future where they made me|
|ps70awg@rs1.tcs.tulane.edu |eat Chinese food for two weeks - and I'm  | 
|ps70awg@vm.tcs.tulane.edu  |still hungry"-Sam (QL:Good Morning Peoria)|