From: barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: Re: Dracula (NO SPOILERS)
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:10:42 CST
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

In article <9211191910.AA14988@rutgers.edu>, LANGSTOJ@EGLIN.AF.MIL writes:
 
> I must say that most of the people who have been posting comments about 
> FFC's Dracula are totally missing the point.  This is not a HORROR movie, 
> so don't expect Freddie or Jason.

Wasn't expecting them.  I *was* expecting a well-thought out story of
how a man became a monster.  I was expecting to be frightened by how
much of myself I'd see in him (which is the essence of any good
"monster" story).  I was expecting it to use psychological techniques
of horror (which *is* what Dracula - the *book*, which is what this
film claimed to be based on - is) rather than buckets of gore.  I cam
away horribly disappointed.

> This is not a SFX movie, so don't expect 
> ILM to come bursting through with a TIE fighter.

That's true, but bad special effects distract from the story. 
Inappropriately used special effects distract from the story.

> And most of all, THIS IS NOT A REMAKE!!!!!!!!!!!

  Yeah, but I thought Oldman was doing a good Lugosi impression :+)
  It's also *not* based on the book, like everyone said it was.  The
characters are different, the ending is different, the origin (I
believe - I could be wrong, 'cause it's been a while) is different,
the whole thing is *not* Bram Stoker's Dracula.

> Dracula is a LOVE story, with major emphasis on eroticism and the 
> supernatural.

Okay, another frustration of mine was there was *no* chemistry between
Drac and Mina.

> The cinematography in this movie 
> is some of the best I've ever seen; truly exquisite.

I will agree that at first I liked the cinematography, but after a
while the dizzying camera shots, effects, etc. just got in the way
(not that I didn't want them to).

> Someone commented 
> that they couldn't decide whether to be afraid or sorry for Dracula.  The 
> answer is neither; you must merely UNDERSTAND him.  This story presents the 
> tragic tale of a man in love and what possessed him to become what he did.

In order to understand him, you must first understand what role he has
in the film.  I she the protagonist seeking an unobtainable love?  Is
he evil incarnate?  Is he both (a la the Phantom of the Opera)?  It's
frustrating because I think FFC wanted him to be both, but unlike the
Phantom (who was both at the same time) what we get is someone who
switches back and forth.
  
> And this is a MOOD movie.  All the lavish scenes, the backgrounds, the 
> music, the changing from scene to scene as if in a dream, all help the 
> mood, to encapsulate the viewer in a dream and let their mind enjoy
> ...

I'll quote a friend of mine: "A failure of style over substance".

> Other than that, I would have to place this 
> movie in the top 5 Greatest Movies of All Time!  If this doesn't win some 
> serious Oscars come award time, I will know once and for all that they are 
> truly fixed.  My recommendation is to see this movie on the big screen at a 
> theatre with a very good sound system.  You will hate yourself if you wait 
> for video.

Oh, well, everybody's got their own opinion.  I still say that it's
the biggest piece of trash, the biggest waste of talent, the largest
disappointment, and the most frustrating fim ever put on celluloid. 
IMHO, of course.  I wouldn't recommend it to my worst enemy.

-Drizzt
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies