From: ptm57791@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Patrick T. Murzyn)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula"
Date: 16 Nov 92 21:31:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BxtvtD.B7J
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

dtschett@saims.skidmore.edu (donna tschetter) writes:

>Agreed- visually stunning and thought -provoking.

	Before going to see this film, I was able to read a few initial 
 reviews from the newsgroup here. Some negative comments were based on
 the acting of Ted...er, Keanu Reeves' acting, most on the style with
 which the movie was filmed. I read these to get an overall view of the
 film, not to formulate preconceptions.
	
	Regarding the acting, well, the only ones that really made an
 an impression on me were Anthony Hopkins and Gary Oldman. (Oh, and the
 three women who played Dracula's castle-mates...) While a tad bit wacky,
 Hopkins' Van Helsing was an entertaining character, and Oldman's Count
 was both evil and sympathetic. 

	Now, to what I didnt like... spoilers ahead...

	The thing that most ruined it for me were the models and puppets,
 used in recreating the early battle scene and then the train rides. I
 couldnt help thinking that Coppola might have been able to go through
 less trouble to simply go on-location to some mountain with train tracks
 and film the scene. Oh, well. The sets, too, were annoying. The scenes
 shot in "London" just cried out, "Soundstage!" to me. Likewise, the final
 chase scene on the mountain looked like the actors rode in off the back
 lot and into the set, while some lackey sprinkled powdered-sugar in front
 of the camera for snow. Yuck.

	Another thing that irritated me was the fact that Coppola would
 ruin what was otherwise a perfectly intense scene by going completely
 overboard with special effects. Early in the movie, where the Count returns
 to find his wife dead, he jabs his sword into the stone cross in front of 
 him. The angels crying tears of blood and the candles overflowing blood were
 dramatic, but the stone cross could have made do with a small trickle of
 blood. Instead, they choose to turn the pump on full-blast and flood the
 room. Similarly, the scene where Lucy finishes her transformation to a
 vampire was powerful, up until the point where the sea of blood comes
 bursting in through the French doors.

	Further, the editing was annoying. The whole transition from the
 circular design of the peacock feather in the garden to the approaching
 tunnel exit for the train was quite cheesy, in my opinion. Another 
 transition of this type was used from the close-up of the fang-marks on
 Lucy's neck to the eyes of the wolf. Another editing-based quibble for me
 came after the scene on the mountainside, where Van Helsing saves Mina 
 from the three vampiresses. They could have kept the horror and dramatic
 intensity of the film by fading out as a horrified Van Helsing watches the
 vampiresses butcher the horses. Instead, we jump from that scene to another,
 not letting the viewer feel the full impact of the scene.

	Now, for a couple (yeah, only a couple) scenes that I *did* like
 and werent ruined by overboard blood-waves... The first was the scene
 where the Count helps Ted...er, Jonathon shaving, where he quickly turns
 away and licks the bloody razor. Perfectly revolting. The second scene
 is when the Count enters to find his female castle-mates feeding on 
 Jonathon, and gives them the screaming baby with which to sate their
 thirst. The Count's laughter, while hearing the crying child in the 
 background, was completely evil.

	So, overall, I was extremely glad I only had to spend $3.00 on
 matinee show. I would have been very unhappy had I spent the full $6 on
 a movie that disappointing. Still, I'd say the film was worth about $2.50
 of the $3; I should have gone and saw ALLADIN instead...

					Just my long-winded opinion,
						Patrick Murzyn
						ptm57791@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu