I'm more and more enamored with this film every semi-annual watch a the kinoplex. It feels so bad that we'll never get anything like it ever again.
this movie is fucking dog shit kys
>>215561595MMMMMMM decent taste for a self0proclaimed Zoom zoom, though I shall not spare you the title of "faggot" this night! Think it as a term of endearment, if that takes the sting off. Faggot!
>>215561627This. Calls itself Bram Stoker’s Dracula yet not faithful at all to the book. Dracula was not literally Vlad The Impaler. Nor did he become a vampire because his wide killed herself. Nor did he go to England because some woman looked like his dead wife. Nor did he get some Mickey Mouse happy ending with Salvation. Christopher Lee one is superior in every way
It's a great picture. Good to see more and more people coming around to it. The wonky parts are there, but it more than makes up for them with everything else.
>>215561694>Christopher Lee one is superior in every way>this is a serious opinion in Bongland
>>215561694>not faithful at all to the bookWho cares? The book was nearly a century old by that point and has been adapted hundreds of times. Dracula is one of the most famous pop culture characters ever that's appeared in basically every type of media imaginable. The book is just a blueprint at this point.
>>215561784It's literally called Bram Stoker's Dracula. Not Dracula. Bram Stoker's Dracula. Of course it should be faithful to the book you dumb fuck.
>>215561784Then don’t call or Bram Stoker’s Dracula like it’s actually going to be a faithful adaption.
it was pretty stylish there's that
>>215561822>It's literally called Bram Stoker's DraculaIt was only called that due to copyright issues, not because Coppola sought to make a "faithful" Dracula adaptation.Also, I couldn't imagine being such a big faggot you take issue with him making Dracula literally Vlad the Impaler. It gives his character an entirely new dimension and level of depth by tying him into Christian history and mysticism, giving him a more fleshed devil/demon arc that also allows for some fantastic aesthetics.
>>215561627>>215561694there are many adaptations and I dont blame this movie for changing it. That he is a Prince with connections to Constantinople is kino
>>215561713Oldman over acted like he almost always does. “Look I’m ACTING! Can’t you see I’m ACTING” Dracula is not some sperg. He’s very cold and calculating. Mads would make a great Dracula
>>215561784>I'm not creative enough to write my own story so I will hijack a novel and warp it by adding shitty romance and postmodern bullshit but since nobody will care about my retarded additions I will name my bullshit after the author of the book I'm hijacking and illiterate faggots will defend my shitty story for decades to comeLol
>>215561890>Mads would make a great DraculaThey basically did this with Skarsgard for Nosferatu and it fucking sucked dick.>>215561895>shitty romance and postmodern bullshitIt's not postmodern at all you fucking retard, it's Catholic. Dracula in Coppola's version is basically supposed to be a stand-in for Jews.
>>215561876Right, now address all the oceans of time past lives faggotry. Mina was the first one to reject Dracula's bullshit and lead the charge against him in the book, and she was turned into a whimpering damsel in love. Stoker would have hated that inversion that completely changes the meaning of his story. If this gay romance movie needed another title then don't name it after him, otherwise people who aren't retards will expect the movie to resemble his work.
>>215561954> They basically did this with Skarsgard for Nosferatu and it fucking sucked dick.Idiot. Dracula is not some hideous asshole like Nosferatu was. He’s very much like Mad’s Hannibal Lecter
>>215561595Wish I lived somewhere I could watch in in theaters regularly.
>>215561954>It's not postmodern at all you fucking retard,Having Dracula, an abominable, repulsive being be a misunderstood uwu Gary Olman stud who only misses his one true live IS postmodern: Can't have pure evil, evil's actually misunderstood beauty.>JewsThat was in the novel. Coppola turned him into a romantic anti hero (and Mina into a total retard.)
>>215561984>Dracula is not some hideous asshole like Nosferatu was.Dracula was never supposed to be some gigachad either, that's a meme that comes from Lee's Dracula with no real roots in the book.>like Mad’s Hannibal LecterOh yeah because his Hannibal was so good lol>>215561980>Stoker would have hated that inversion that completely changes the meaning of his storyYeah, because as I said Coppola's is a Catholic version of Dracula as opposed to Stoker's very Protestant, modernist original that goes for the "le strong woman" meme that was all the rage with romantic authors.
>>215562029>Yeah, because as I said Coppola's is a Catholic versionI was unaware that Catholics like to pretend that Satan is a romantic figure looking fo his long lost love and that evil is relative. Must have missed that part of the catechism.
>>215562029He becomes a chad when he starts to get younger with more blood he drinks. Getsmore vigorous.
>>215562015>Can't have pure evil, evil's actually misunderstood beauty.If you were a Catholic or had a Catholic upbringing you'd know that the nature of evil and demons are more complex than this, because men are fallen and not inherently virtuous. Dracula in the movie has been posessed by demons since he renounced God and pleads for the release of death after being exorcised so he can join his wife in hell and face his proper judgment, not go to heaven. I have no idea how you got that.>a romantic anti heroYou're either a fucking retard or a weird Protestant chauvinist if that was your impression of Oldman Dracula
>>215561984>Dracula is not some hideous asshole like Nosferatu was.Not like Nosferatu, but he is repulsive and foul smelling in the book. Kinda like a Jewish caricature.So not like Nosferatu but also not like Gary when in England. Like a more swarthy, moustached Lugosi. I think Madds is too conventionally handsome for that.
Dracula obsession with Mina was far more sinister. She was pure and he wanted to corrupt and pervert her. Not “I traveled oceans of time to find you” Gay Anne Rice shit
>>215562068>Satan is a romantic figureTo women he is, serpent in the garden and such.>looking fo his long lost love He was looking for death so he could face judgment and be reunited with his wife in hell, not actual love with Ryder.>evil is relativeNigger the movie is about a guy becoming an evil demon after renouncing god and stabbing a cross
>>215562104yeah. He was a wolf in sheeps skkn. He could pretend to be a gentleman when he needed to. Like a Jew
>>215562147>>215562104>JewHe also schemed to raise real estate prices and rent in London by buying up low-income properties
>>215562088The mental gymnastics here are truly astounding.>>215562120Exactly. Even the original play did it better. It's at the core of the story You change that, the story goes from good vs. evil to dollar bin romance. Unless you're retarded and think it makes it Catholic kek.
>>215562162His original plan of taking over the world by being the only undead with a functioning brain was awesome and remains sadly unadapted as far as I know
>>215562172>mental gymnasticsI'm not the one arguing that Coppola's Dracula is postmodernist, if anything Occam's razor favors me in this discussion.
>>215562088although its probably obvious to someone like you that he must enter hell I think the light shining down on him begging for forgiveness gives an idea he could be entering heaven. That you say its a protestant thing could be correct - that in the end it doesnt matter, he genuinely wanted forgiveness and got it
>>215562191>I think the light shining down on him begging for forgiveness gives an idea he could be entering heaven.I viewed it as the representation of the demons leaving his body and his castle (as well as Mina no longer being bound to him/posessed), though I get how somebody, especially somebody secular or Protestant could get the idea he's going to heaven too.
>>215562191I don’t even think ending some Catholic thing but pure romance horseshit. His love for her saved his soul and he will go into heaven and live happily ever after. Isn’t that sweet
>>215562267>is love for her saved his soul and he will go into heaven and live happily ever afterExcept that never happened
>>215562267>His love for her saved his soulthis is wrong. his love for her made him against God
They don't make these kinds of movies anymore. This felt like an epic.Winona Ryder probably at her absolute peak here too. Damn think about all the movies she could have been in if she wasn't blacklisted in 2001.
>>215562309Not talking about his dead wife. Talking about Mina who was his “salvation”
>>215562310> They don't make these kinds of movies anymore. Literally had Nosferatu and now Del Taco’s Frankenstein is out. What are you talking about. Don’t even say this trash movie is better because it isn’t.
>>215561595The amazingly dramatic opening, all the practical effects, Gary Oldman ... I love this movie
>>215562336del taco' frankie sucks balls
>>215562310>They don't make these kinds of movies anymorefor good reason. The kid in the scene with Lucy was scared as hell of her. Coppola and the actor for Lucy tried to soothe her which didnt help and in the end Coppola just bullied the kid into filming and edited the rest. The kid crying her eyes out is genuine
>>215562366Like this movie? Only women like this garbage. Are you a woman? You know the rules
Thankfully the French have corrected the vampire disasters.
>>215562373How does that constitute a "good reason"? Let kino die because it hurts fee fees on set? What kind of leddit take is that?
>>215562336>NosferatuCome on. That is exactly what I am talking about. Technically impressive, but you know that no one is re-watching it. Only imitating other better movies, with no soul of it's own. Ooh they put some creepy vampire moments. Is it a horror movie? No. Is it an improvement from Dracula 1992 no. What makes it better in any way.
>>215562382yes, like this movie. I thought del taco's was slightly worse than this actually, but they're really alike in tone and in how they fundamentally misunderstand the far superior imo source material
>>215562382>Only women like this garbageI like this movie for its constant nods to Byzantium>>215562393Id say scaring the shit out of a kid is a good reason not to do shit like that again. no need be edgy anon, no ones know who you are here.
>>215561595Dracula is too gay of a story/character to be taken seriously anyway so it’s honestly kind of perfect
>>215562390>correctedLolThis movie was a circus. It's literally Coppola's but make it even more retarded. I can only assume Besson wanted unabashed vamp camp.
>>215562322>his “salvation”She was his "salvation" from demonic posession and immortality, not judgment from God. >>215562310>This felt like an epicIt's not even that it's just an epic horror film (though that's an exceedingly rare genre now as nu-horror, shitty slasher movies, and "elevated horror" have dominated the genre), it's the craftsmanship in this movie that is impeccable. Be it the the set design, makeup, wardrobes, cinematographu, practical effects, and lighting, visually I'd argue it's one of the best movies ever made imo. There's still some parts in it like the scene of Dracula turning into a pile of rats or the green smoke rising into a trail in Mina's room that are mind-boggling to have been pre-CGI and outright mog CG to this day. Every scene is bursting with color and intricate detail in contrast to the vast majority of horror films that go for a deliberately grainy, minimal, or drab look, while all the shots are composed in a way that I'd argue it really is one of the only kinos truly worthy of the "this looks like a painting" meme, because nearly every shot does in fact look like a romantic oil painting.It's the writing and casting where it falls short, though I'd argue its flaws make it more endearing despite bringing it down overall. Ryder and Reeves are hilariously out of their depth despite looking the part (particularly when they're opposite legends like Oldman and Hopkins), while the script can be clunky and poorly paced at times.
The fact that WInona is the one that got the ball rolling on this whole movie being made made this movie special.Best she ever looks in her career and probably her best acting.
>>215562420It's not being edgy. Was Kubrick edgy when he didn't give a fuck about how his actors felt? This slippery slope of "can't upset anyone on set" results in the souless slop we got now. It's a horror movie. Prepare the kid and go at it.
>>215562460I hate her fucking face and voice. Her and Reeves were miscast in an otherwise perfect film.
>>215562478Coppola makes some big mistakes in his movies. Glad there are one or two simply perfect though
>>215562336>NosferatuIt's the third best and most influential movie with that title and always will be>>215562373>The kid in the scene with Lucy was scared as hell of her.That's what makes it one of the best and most shocking scenes in the film. It wouldn't have worked any other way, sort of like a Jodie Foster Taxi Driver situation.
>>215562478Keanu could not do it, but was not bad enough to sink anything. Who else would play Mina? Come on Winona did great. The zainy-ness and scale with all the different settings and the true craftsmanship that went into this made it so unique and unforgettable.
>>215561595One of the best movies ever made
>>215562582Tits or GTFO
>>215562533>Keanu could not do it, but was not bad enough to sink anything.I think that has to do with the script making his character kind of lame, a common ailment through all adaptations of the book. Doubly so here, where he is cucked by fate. No actor could have made this Jonathan compelling when sharing screen time with the other characters.
>>215562533>Keanu could not do it, but was not bad enough to sink anything.because his scenes get carried hard by Oldman and then Harker is pretty much removed from the film entirely until the end
>>215562640Oldman was just as bad in this as Kenu. One couldn’t act and the other over acted
>>215562658>Oldman was just as bad in this as KenuWorst take on Dracula one can possible have
>>215562640That goes without saying. It's his movie everyone else just needed to do enough to let him stay in character. Played the shrivled up count and the reinvigorated Dracula, both perfectly. All time performance.
>>215562667> Worst take on Dracula Not if you read the actual book
>>215562658ragebait
>>215562709Even critics said Oldman was over the top. You’re just an idiot fooled by the “I’m ACTING! Give me muh OSCAR!”
>>215562722>over the topAs opposed to fucking Legosi and Lee? He was completely on the ball in that regard.>>215562703>the actual bookIt's already been established ITT that this movie was not intended to be a faithful adaptation of the book so that point of contention is not relevant.
>>215561595The effects work is outstanding. The rest is a mess. It was too desperate to appeal to young people in 1992. I like Hopkins and Oldman but even they are a miss here.
Is is way more accurate than most Dracula films.T have read actually the book.
>>215562373Hi femanon
>>215562739Legosi didn’t over act. What are you taking about. It’s just been parodied at this point. Lugosi didn’t even know English when he did the movie. He just recited the lines
>>215562801>He just recited the linesHe coped by overacting physically as many foreign actors with a poor grasp on the language do. Not denying he was ezcellent in the role, but to say he didn't overact is silly.
>>215561595Costumes only
>>215562845Not an accurate assessment for an early sound movie based off a play production. Almost all early sound movies were very Broadway because they brought in Broadway actors to replace the silent screen ones. Didn’t even play music in Dracula because studios thought people would think the music was actually playing in the movie
>>215562908>Almost all early sound movies were very Broadway because they brought in Broadway actors to replace the silent screen ones.True, but we're not talking about early sound movies, we're talking about Dracula movies and how Lugosi became the template for Dracula. That context is important for why that character became what he became, and why a theatrical, over the top Dracula came to define the character as opposed to the more reserved version that is featured in the book.It's also why I like Gary Oldman's performance, because he took that early sound film antagonist to a logical and new extreme, fit with and exaggerated and new wardrobe that was highly distinctive. He's one of a handful to truly leave a mark on Dracula and brought to life a truly new version of the character.
sex with Lucy
