here, as promised, is a blog post where you can [via the comment function] add your reflections on coppola's DRACULA. as we have said in class, i'm particularly interested in your responses to the following:
1. how does the movie size up as movie? i.e. how well does it 'stand on its own two feet'?
2. how well does it rate as a filmization of the stoker novel?
[of course your comments need by no means be limited to these questions alone.]
7 comments:
As most already know I love this movie. I think that it stands fairly close to the novel with the exception of the love story between Dracula and Mina/Elisabeta however i think that for a movie's sake this addition was amazing. the scene where Mina drinks Dracula's blood kills me because he says he cannot do it, he loves her too much. the entire movie pulls me in even though i have seen it numerous times i get trapped each time i watch it. another thing I love about this movie is the fact that they take sayings from the book and put them into a different context to where they mean completely different things. i felt that even though Keanu Reeves acting was horrific, that is no different from any other movie he makes.
I found Bram Stoker's Dracula to be a very cool and interersting realization of the novel. Just standing on its own, the movie is very entertaining and has great production values. It's a lot more fast-pace and intense than older Dracula films and I think that even a person unfamiliar with the novel would find it entertaining.
As an adaptation of the novel, I think they did a great job. I liked the fact that they actually kept the characters and most of the story of the novel intact and didn't do any of the weird swapping/combining of characters like some of the older films did. I thought they did a great job casting Gary Oldman as Dracula and Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing. Definitely my favorite Dracula movie that we've seen so far!
I love the fact that in this version, we pretty much wind up rooting for Dracula. C'mon, if you had to choose between Vlad and Keanu, who would you go with? Plus, the casting of Tom Waits as Renfield is pure genius.
Also, Lucy's transformation into a vampire is pretty horrific and I think the movie does a better job than the book in presenting this.
I thought this was a good movie. I liked the added information about dracula that wasn't found in the novel; however, I could have used less of the over done love interest between Mina and Dracula. I thought it a bit over the top and too much. It was interesting to see the film as a love story instead of a "horrible vampire" story...more focused on love than blood sucking monsters.
As an adaptation from the novel, I thought that the movie was pretty accurate. There were a few added scenes (mostly concerned w/ the love interest between Mina and Dracula) and a few alterations to character development, but overall I thought that they didn't destroy the novel.
I personally believe that Francis Ford Coppola's version of Dracula is by far the closest adaptation to the novel that a movie will ever be able to get. The only way I can see a film get any closer to the novel is if someone used the script from Coppola's film and took out all the romantic moments between Mina and Dracula. I didn't think the film was absolutely perfect, but I stand by it being a great adaptation and a good movie. The only things I didn't like were the Dracula and Mina love moments and Keanu Reeves' terrible acting, but neither of those were enough to ruin the film for me. Anthony Hopkins was cool, Gary Oldman as Dracula was interesting, and tieing Dracula's origins to the real Vlad was a pretty good idea.
this version of Dracula was entertaining and magnificently directed. Hats off for casting Gary Oldman as Dracula and Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing. i wish i could say the same with Keanu Reeves-who had the same facial expression throughout the whole movie with the exception of one out burst towards the end of the film which was unexpected and unnecessary
I am not a fan of Francis Ford Coppla's adaptation of what I believe to be one of the most well written, and amazing classics. When I wasn't being irritated beyond belief by Keanu Reeve's attempt at acting, I was outraged at the quality of the film. Not only did Coppola butcher the plot and characters of the novel, but he had the nerve to call it "Bram Stoker's Dracula"
Yes, I do recognise that the film was created in a different time than the movie, and because of this some aspects were different. The audience that Coppola made his film for is, I will admit more desensitised than the audience of Stokers time, but I couldnt help feeling insulted by his underestimation of the audiences intelligence. I am eagerly awaiting for a half decent film version of the book to be created, because Coppola didnt get anywhere near half decent!!!!!!
Post a Comment