From: douellet@beach.csulb.edu (Daniel Ouellette)
Subject: Re: DRACULA (Warning SPOILERS)
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:57:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.131737.2750@bvc.edu> wilsonandrew@bvc.edu writes:
>HOW ABOUT THE NEW "DRACULA" MOVIE? ALTHOUGH IT DOESN'T REALLY STICK TO THE 
>BOOK (SUPRISE SUPRISE) I LOVED IT. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS?
>



 I was dissapointed with the movie. I think part of it was that I was so
psyched for it there was no way it could meet up to my expectations. I went
to see it on Friday night at Mann's Chinese in Hollywood. The first indication
was that they weren't even showing it in the big theatre. They had relegated
it to two of the smaller theatres. For as big of a film as this was supposed
to be it had bad vibes (they were showing Passenger 57 in the main theatre).
 Overall the movie is a feast for the eyes. It's truly beautiful, and I'd
be very surprised if it didn't win an Academy Award for for either Set Design
or Costuming. The biggest problems I had were with cinematography and 
special effects (not makeup effects).
 I also thought that Keanau(sp?) Reeve was seriously mis-cast as Johnathan
Harker. While he did an OK job he just did not look right for the part. He
should stick with modern-time productions rather than period pieces. All I 
could think of was "Wow, Bill and Ted go to the 1890's." On the other hand
I felt that Winona made an excellent transition from 'girl' roles of the past
to a 'woman' role (albeit a young woman). Anthony Hopkins did an admirable
job, though I thought it was a little campy at times. Especially when they
were getting ready to kill the Vampire Lucy and Von Helsig spouts off about 
the bloodsucker and then says "but first, lets eat!!." While it's a funny 
line, and it made everyone laugh, I wasn't there to see a comedy. 
 Other little things bothered me, like when Mina follows Lucy into the garden
at night. It was just too quaint... Lucy is wearing red (a very passionate 
color) and Mina is wearing blue (the exact opposite..) 
 The thing I think I hated the most were the scenes seen from Dracula's 
point of view, when he was entering Lucy's house from the garden. It was all
stop-action, and worse yet it wasn't smooth. It kept rocking back and forth
and then would skip a bunch of frames and then pick up again. I realize that
Dracula was not in a human form at the time, but I have no idea what kind of
animal (or mist) would have that kind of jumpy movement. All I kept thinking
was that I was watching a bad quicktime movie that kept dropping frames in
order to stay in synch with the audio track.
 While Vlad's armour looked rather cool as muscle, I think they should have
stayed with the period and used armour that looked like what would have been 
used in the 1400's.
 In general the excessive use of blood, I found to be a big waste. Like in the
begining when Vlad stabs the Cross. I wasn't repulsed or anything, I just 
thought it looked VERY fake. I liked the idea of all the statues bleeding
from their eyes etc. but that _big_ splash from both sides of the set was just
too ridiculous. 
 That's enough spouting for now. Don't get the wrong idea. I didn't HATE the
movie, it was just that I thought there were too many _little_ problems 
which just added up. With the hype and money spent on this movie I kinda
expected more from Francis Ford Coppola. I would recomend it to anyone to 
see in a theatre (probably for a matinee). You would just lose too much 
visually, waiting for it to come out on video. i could keep going on, but I
won't. All of this of course is IMHO.
-Daniel


-- 
AlienSexFiend*Bauhaus*Curve*DepecheMode*Erasure*FrontLineAssembly*Gruesome- *
*	Daniel Ouellette       | 	 "People need to be schocked"	    *
*   douellet@beach.csulb.edu   |		     -Me	   	    *
Twosome*HumanDrama*JesusJones*KMFDM*LordsOfAcid*MLwtThrillKillKult*NitzerEbb*
Newsgroups: alt.gothic