A lot of folks consider this not only a horrendous sequel
but also just an all around bad film.
And I get it. I don’t necessarily
agree will all of that but I do get it. I
mean why the fuck do you need a sequel to Saturday
Night Fever? It was self-contained
and didn’t leave very many burning questions.
What else is there to say about this character?
Well it does seem logical that Tony (Travolta) would set his
sights on Broadway next so I’ll give credit for that. It also makes sense that he would move to
Manhattan to try and further his career, become a dance instructor and take
other odd jobs until he gets his big break and even still act like a jerk. What doesn’t add up is that Tony doesn’t
curse, drink or smoke. The first movie
was a pretty raunchy R but this one is a tame PG. And it’s really weird is that Stallone (who
writes, produces and directs here) felt like he needed to justify this new tone
and gives Tony some line about having a new outlook on life. Yeah I don’t care for the switch to PG but to
provide an explanation to the audience seems bizarre to me. It’s like Stallone broke the fourth wall for
a moment.
Anyway, Travolta looks like he’s having a good time. Tony is less moody and slightly more grown up. He cracks a lot of jokes, like a lot of jokes. And the shit he dishes out is classic
Stallone humor. In fact I think Stallone
turned Tony into himself pretty much.
The no cursing, smoking, drinking, very goofy attitude and eternal
optimism are all traits of the man. Every
piece of Tony’s dialogue I could totally picture Sly saying in another movie or
actually even more in real life.
Speaking of Stallone he does an alright job directing. Definitely not as good as Rocky II, III or, hell, even The Expendables (even though it wasn’t a
great flick). Come to think of it this
is probably the worst I’ve seen him as a director. There are four really annoying things that he
does here. The first is there are too
many montages. Sly, buddy, why the fuck
were there like twenty montages? Well
actually I can give a pretty good guess what the answer is which leads me to
the next annoyance. Ok, I know this is
going to sound really stupid but there’s too much dancing. I know you’re thinking, “this is a fucking
dancing movie, what did you expect?”
Sure this thing needs to have dancing in it but holy shit is there a lot
of it. This along with the montages
(most of which consist of people dancing) were there probably to pad out the
film. There isn’t much of a story: Tony
auditions for a Broadway production, gets in and there’s also a love triangle. In order to fill out those 90 minutes they
just made the dancing and montage scenes as long as they needed. Saturday
Night Fever had a bunch of dancing but it was to support the story and characters. Here it’s played up as the main attraction
while everything else takes a backseat.
Items three and four have to do with the two female
leads. Jackie (Cynthia Rhodes (Dirty Dancing, Flashdance)) is Tony’s…umm…well
that’s just the problem. I couldn’t tell
if she was supposed to be Tony’s girlfriend or just his friend. She says she loves him towards the end but
were we supposed to know this all along?
It’s not clear at all. And this
is important information to be fuzzy on because the love triangle doesn’t work
or have any emotional weight if she’s just a friend that doesn’t have the hots
for Tony. The other woman in the
equation, Laura (Fiona Hughes (Aspen
Extreme)), is too sinister of a bad guy.
She’s the star of the Broadway show and she wants Tony as a boy toy and
not a real boyfriend. This is fine but
Stallone made the character utterly heartless.
She’s so cold with her constant dumb smile or smirk. It’s like the part was played by a
robot. And because Laura is such an
empty shell of a person I can’t even work myself up to dislike her. She’s just there on screen and you know she’s
mean but you don’t feel one way or another about her.
The show that Tony’s in is called Satan’s Alley and the
director describes it as a journey into hell and then an ascent into heaven. The plot is supposed to follow the same idea
but it kind of doesn’t. Tony starts in
hell (not being in a Broadway show) and only rises (he gets in a Broadway show). It’s pretty much a straight line and not a
curve. There isn’t any character
development. That happened off screen in
between films when Tony gave up his vices and vulgar speech. What we’re given here is more like the ending
to a story and not a complete tale in and of itself. So the fatal flaw of the movie is that it
focuses on a part of Tony’s life that’s pretty uninteresting. If Stallone wanted this character reformed
then we should see that reform and what the cause was to bring it on. I think that would’ve been a better picture.
So sure it’s not very good and pretty shitty compared to its
predecessor but it’s certainly not unwatchable.
Entertainment Weekly called this the worst sequel ever made. Really?
I beg to differ. Rocky V is at least on par with this and
The Lost World: Jurassic Park is a
total piece of fucking crap. I would
rather see this than Blues Brothers 2000
any day. I don’t think Staying Alive is quite as terrible as
people make it out to be but it’s definitely not good or even worth seeing. It’s just averagely bad. And also it doesn’t have very much to do with
the first one except that our main character’s name is Tony. I guess it was good that they didn’t call
this Saturday Night Fever II. Check out Saturday
Night Fever I though. That one
really is a damn good film.
Whenever November rolls around there’s the possibility that
a James Bond film will come out because that’s what’s happened since 1995 (with
the exception of Tomorrow Never Dies,
fuckin’ thing had to be released in December screwing shit up). It’s been spotty lately though with a bunch
of years in between 007 features but this year we got one. And for some reason I saw it.
Just to let you know I’m not a huge James Bond fan. I mean I think the movies are fun ‘n all but they
don’t blow me away or anything. I don’t
mark my calendar to make sure I don’t miss the opening of a new one. The public is head over heels for this shit
though. I think it’s more of a nostalgia
thing and it makes you feel safe like you’re in on the joke. “Oh shit, this bad guy doesn’t realize he’s
messing with James fucking Bond. He’s
gonna kill that sucker at the end of this movie.” We give him a lot of leeway that we wouldn’t
ordinarily dish out to some one-off character.
Imagine if Skyfall, Quantum of
Solace or Casino Royale came out
but weren’t Bond pictures. People wouldn’t
really give a shit. It would do mild to
acceptable business and then no one would talk about it again. My point is I think the public knows these
movies aren’t great but we go to see them in droves anyway and we even break
Bond box office records (Skyfall had
the biggest 007 opening ever and fuck me I helped make that happen). It’s our de facto action film. James Bond can do no harm in ours eyes. For some reason the public likes to see these
totally ridiculous movies but tends to shun other action. It’s a double standard folks.
This latest installment is no better or worse than the other
two Daniel Craig Bond pictures. The short
review is if you liked those then you’ll like this. But I know you want to hear more so let’s do
it.
Daniel Craig? Sure I like
him. Well actually I never thought much
about him until I saw The Girl with the
Dragon Tattoo (2011) and then I recognized that he can be a real fine
actor. He works as Bond too, definitely
more tortured and serious than previous incarnations. They tried to go this route once before with the
Timothy Dalton ones, The Living Daylights
and License to Kill, but they’re
pretty bad actually and I wouldn’t recommend them. In general I think Bond is best when he’s at
his most smug but I think Craig is a stand-up guy and I can get behind that.
Javier Bardem (No
Country for Old Men) as the dyed blonde bad guy is really where I take
issue with this thing. The filmmakers
couldn’t make up their minds what this character was. At first he’s a computer genius, then he’s
possibly a homosexual, then he’s a deformed villain with no teeth, then he’s a
master planner, an ex-agent and finally by the end he’s just a thug. That’s a helluva lot to cram into one
guy. He meticulously plans everything
perfectly yet applies brute force taking the bazooka-to-kill-a-fly approach when
he fights Bond during the finale. He
says that he has eliminated everything superfluous in his life yet he wears
fancy fucking suits and owns at least one prostitute. And I keep saying “he” because I don’t even
know what this dude’s fucking name is. I’m
sure they must’ve said it in the movie but I can’t remember when. The man can’t be a combination of every bad
guy type. You gotta pick one, or maybe
two, and go with it. This character was
so all over the map that it didn’t feel like he had an identity. And if there’s no identity then I can’t get on
board with him because I know that the movie will just have this sonuvabitch be
whoever they need him to be at any particular moment. I want my bad guys to have standards and
values goddammit and not just be evil-ish.
I would’ve like to see them go with the gay angle which is
what I thought they were gonna do for a second.
That certainly would’ve been different, especially for James Bond, and made
this villain a lot more interesting. But
of course it only gets two lines of dialogue and then it’s never brought up
again.
The opening action sequence is exciting and a fucking
spectacle. The only problem with it is
that it’s so big they kinda didn’t leave themselves anywhere to go. This is the same situation that The Expendables 2: Expendabler found
itself in. Of course you want something
fast and wild for your opener but if you’re making an action picture you gotta
ramp shit up and not blow your load right out the gate. And for those that have seen this already, what
the fuck is up with that chick Eve? She doesn’t
even say she’s sorry? She just laughs it
off and pretends like nothing ever happened?
That’s really fucked up.
Probably my favorite scene was the fight between Bond and a
henchman in the Chinese skyscraper. It
was done beautifully with one uncut shot of the whole fight in silhouette and
at the end of this shot the camera comes over the edge of a broken window to
show the bad guy dangling out of it with Bond grabbing his arm. Very nicely done.
I didn’t know that Sam Mendes directed this until like the
day before I saw it and that surprised me.
I thought he only did serious Oscar nominated type shit. Well I’ll tell ya, he’s not a bad action
director and I think if he had better, non-Bond, material to work with he has
the potential to put out a classic. Road to Perdition was cool and Jarhead was pretty not bad but those are
more dramas. He needs a solid pure
action script. And Mendes seems to be
interested in American culture as all of his films (even this one) have to do
with shit we hold near and dear in this country like the mafia, the military
and even good ol’ action. He deserves
credit for shooting a goddamn beautiful picture here. It’s very pretty to look at but it’s too bad
that the story isn’t really there.
Not to give too much away I won’t go into the ending even
though there are some things to talk about.
Like that it turns into Home Alone
for a little while and we find out that the title should really be “Bond Farms”. Whoops. Did I write that? I don’t think I can erase it now. Aw shit.
Oh yea I almost forgot Ralph Fiennes is in this too. Looks like he's having a ball doesn't he?
The whole time I was watching this thing I kept trying to
think of ways that these Bond movies could be freshened up ‘cause they’re all
basically the same. It’s just a matter
of which ones are better versions. But
then it finally occurred to me that there really isn’t a way. The thing about these 007 films is that they
all have to adhere to a strict formula. You
have to have some sort of enormous opening sequence, then a totally ridiculous
credit sequence with a current pop star singing the main theme, a bad guy that
wants to take over the world or enact a revenge plot, gadgets, fancy cars,
beautiful women (you need both a hero and a villain), extravagant suits and elegant
dresses, exotic locales, gambling, drinking, and on and on. If you stray from the blueprint and leave any
of these things out then it’s not a Bond picture. With practically no leeway there’s pretty
much nowhere for the series to go. They
can only move laterally and maybe that’s why people like them so much. They know what they’re getting. They know it’ll include some action, some nice
looking actors, some expensive cars and clothes, a little drama, and James Bond
will always win. No matter what, this
character will never be killed off for real in one of these movies. There’s security in that. Bond will always be there for you and he’ll
kick the bad guy’s ass one way or another.
I don’t see any signs that James Bond has wavered in
popularity. Folks seem to like him just
as much as ever. However when I went to
go see this one the audience had had enough and half the theater started to
empty out during the famous shooting at the camera sequence that they tacked on
at the very end. It was probably because
the running time of two and a half hours was pushing it.
For my money True Lies
is a better action spy picture than any of the Bonds. But this is coming from a guy that thinks the
best of these movies is Goldeneye and
the worst actor in the title role was Sean Connery.
If you want to know who I think makes the best James Bond
and some further insight into the series check out the reviews I did of Moonraker and A View to a Kill.
Finally got to check out Nicolas Winding Refn’s second
picture, Bleeder. It’s shot in the same handheld, indie style
like Pusher and the cast is
essentially the same. Refn also wrote
this giving the characters very natural dialogue and also leaving real heavy
shit for the end which is what he loves to do.
I liked it but this is definitely a sophomore slump. The story unfolds pretty damn slowly, the
characters aren’t terribly interesting and there isn’t any pending doom like
with Pusher. There are two stories happening at once and
are connected through the characters.
One is about Leo who is going to have a baby with his girlfriend but
doesn’t really want to and goes kind of crazy because of it. The other is about Leo’s friend, Lenny (Mads
Mikkelsen (Valhalla Rising)), who
works at a video store and virtually only talks about movies. He wants to go out on a date with this one
woman, Lea (Refn’s real life wife), but is shy and has trouble getting up the
nerve.
Zlatko Buric (Pushers)
also makes an appearance as the video store owner and I absolutely love this
guy. His role in this is small but just
hearing him rattle off the million different types of porn he has to some
customer is engrossing to watch.
The ending is kinda nuts and involves something I don’t
think I’ve ever seen before in a movie. Jesus,
I wonder if that shit actually happens for real. If it does that’s such a horrible thing to do
to someone. So the last half hour is definitely
where it’s at with this one. But you
need to go through the first hour in order for the payoff to have weight. And Refn is a master at that. He knows how to set you up with scenes that
seem a little dull and even boring at times but when shit goes down it hits you
hard as a motherfucker.
Refn is showing the destruction of one relationship and the
blossoming of another. I guess he’s
saying that it’s the circle of life.
When one dude fucks up his adult life another begins his. And who knows where it’ll lead. For all we know Leo started out like Lenny
but decayed into a bad person that only thinks of himself. Maybe Refn is also saying that we never know
what’s inside of us, what we’re capable of.
When push comes to shove how will we react? Leo starts off as a mild mannered guy but
eventually gets a gun and shoves it in someone’s face. The stress and responsibility of having a
child and the changes that come with that was too much for him. Lenny also struggles with change. When he gets Lea to go on a date with him he
stands her up because it’s a big leap to make that first step towards a
relationship. The subtext of this piece
is interesting.
It’s cool and I would recommend this over Fear X but I think you should check out the
Pushers, Valhalla Rising or Drive if
you haven’t already before giving this a look.
This is more of a mini bonus review because not only does it
break my rule of foreign language productions but I’m also a little burned out
on all this Dracula talk.
It has all the basic parts to the formula we’re familiar
with including Hutter (the Harker character here) going to Transylvania to have
Count Orlok sign a contract to buy a piece of land, Orlok then feeds on Hutter,
travels to Germany (I think?) by ship, Hutter escapes the castle with his life
intact and Orlok goes after Hutter’s wife, Ellen (Mina). There’s even a Renfield type character and a
black coach that takes Hutter to Castle Orlok.
Max Schreck as Orlok is pretty damn creepy and I think
because it’s a silent picture it only adds to the eerie aura. Those long fingers, slender figure, black
coat with a zillion buttons, huge fangs and crazy ass eyes make for grotesque imagery. For me this is the only incarnation of
Dracula that looks a bit scary (although Gary Oldman dressed up as the very old
Dracula isn’t very pleasant to look at either).
Orlok is only in this thing for something like nine minutes but he makes
the movie.
It’s another solid telling of the tale but you have to have
a little patience. Silents aren’t for
everyone and the soundtrack plays a substantial role. The version that I’ve seen (the one that you
can rent on Netflix) has a pretty bad one.
It’s too light most of the time and doesn’t fit with the time period at
all. But if you don’t care for the
musical accompaniment you can supply your own which could be a saving grace.
This is it boys and girls.
I feel like after watching these different incarnations of the tale this
film is what it was all building towards.
A definitive version that puts the characters in their proper places, an
inclusion of all events, it’s dark, scary, crazy, romantic, epic, you name it
they did it.
This is the one that follows the novel the closest but even Francis
Ford Coppola couldn’t resist making some changes. There are two that I would consider major and
the rest minor. The biggest minor change
would be the prologue. The film attempts
to explain why and how Dracula became who he is and it’s actually a pretty good
little illumination so I actually like this inclusion. As for the majors we have Mina being the
reincarnation of Dracula’s dead wife so therefore she kind of wants to be
turned into a vampire instead of being repulsed by it; and the ending is
different. In the novel it’s cut and dry
while the movie finishes on a more confusing note (is Mina a vampire or not? An early edit shows that she’s not but what
they ultimately went with doesn’t make it so clear). So as you can see even the big changes aren’t
ridiculous.
Stoker wrote his book in an epistolary format meaning that
the story is told through documents like diary entries, letters, news
clippings, etc. So not your usual
narrative work. This is important to
know because this picture keeps that format intact whenever it can. There will be times when Harker is reading
from his diary or Mina is reading from hers or whatever.
Gary Oldman was perfectly cast in the title role. He lays on the accent thick, displays the
various moods extremely well, is maniacal as shit and handles the man/monster
thing great.
Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing is wonderful too. Resolute as always and he’s got a couple of badass
subtle scars on his face implying that he’s dealt with some nasty forces in the
past. There’s one time that he almost
falters and that’s towards the end when Mina tries to seduce him. Pretty interesting to see Van Helsing give in
for a split second. With this
installment Van Helsing doubles as the comic relief. It may have been how the character was
written this time but I want to say that this is Hopkins’ doing. He likes to ham things up a bit but in a
charming, deadpan and, admittedly, often funny way. Hopkins’ temperament doesn’t take away from
the weightiness of the material though.
Certainly not. In fact I think it
only adds another layer to an already very cool character. Van Helsing is sort of eccentric in this and
I like the notion that it takes a madman to catch a madman. He’s jaunty and thrilled by the hunt but deadly
serious when it’s time to get down to business and kill some fucking vampires.
The two big blunders of this production however are Keanu
Reeves and Winona Ryder. I don’t think I
need to go into why Reeves was a pretty bad choice. After watching him for ten seconds you’ll get
it. Ryder also doesn’t turn in a good
performance. But then again I don’t
think she’s a good actress in general. She’s
not what this movie needed. This film
needed someone who would be totally absorbed by the part like Gary Oldman did
with his role or even Sadie Frost (Shopping)
did with hers (she plays Lucy here).
Ryder looks like too much of an amateur next to her costars only playing
Mina on the surface and not digging deep enough. But this was Winona’s ride. She brought the script to Coppola’s attention
and they agreed to work on it together. She
also gave suggestions of who to cast which Coppola went with. Ryder definitely doesn’t ruin the movie but
she seems to get worse every time I see her and I just wish they cast someone
better.
My favorite parts (and you’ll know this if you read the ’31 Dracula review) are the journey to
castle Dracula and the scenes inside the castle. That shit creeps me the fuck out. When Harker is waiting for the carriage out
in the wilds of Transylvania and gets picked up by the all black coachman in
that totally weird physics defying way (Coppola’s idea was that physics don’t
work right in the presence of a vampire) I just sighed and shook my head. The castle itself is also hell on earth. Everything is so dark, old and remote. Imagine being trapped there and drained of
your blood just enough to keep you weak but not enough to kill you. Goddammit, somebody finally brought these
truly freaky images to life in a balls out way.
The one criticism I have of the castle though is that they
incorporated steel into the structure. It’s
supposed to resemble the painting “The Black Idol” by Frantisek Kupka which
is the image of a human figure sitting on a throne with its claw hand out. That’s a fucking great idea and I’ll admit
that I do think the gate looks cool made of sharp metal spikes but the rest of
it doesn’t fit. This is supposed to be
an ancient building and having the steel in there makes it look sorta like a
stupid steampunk castle.
My other favorite part of the movie is the vampire Lucy
scene. Damn does she look scary in that oversized
wedding gown, glass coffin, ghastly white makeup and huge fucking ruff neckwear. Most of the vampire Lucy stuff was shot in
reverse too which definitely makes the scene look abnormal and off. And the shot of Lucy’s head rolling away in
slow motion against a black backdrop looks phenomenal.
For the first time we actually get the ending that’s laid
out in the novel. It’s done well too
with a lot of tension and gypsies being taken out as our heroes go after
Dracula. It’s nice to finally get this
sequence and see the original conception of how this story was meant to
end. But it’s also strange that Coppola
came up with his own final moments instead of just going with what Stoker wrote
(SPOILER: although, Coppola does
credit George Lucas with the suggestion that Mina behead Dracula as he thought
a sword through the heart wasn’t definitive enough). But like I said earlier this is totally fine
and doesn’t ruin the movie at all.
Now on to the shit I found really fascinating about the
making of this Dracula. There’s an extra on the DVD that talks about
how all of the effects except for one were done in-camera. What?!
Yes. The blue flames were the
only things done as a post-production effect.
Everything else was done as a practical real effect. That’s un-fucking-believable. And it seems like almost every shot has some
sort of effect going on which must’ve been a huge undertaking. Coppola brought in his son, Roman (who wasn’t
even 30 yet), to do the work and boy oh boy did he do a bang up job. Like for instance there’s a part where Harker
is first reading from his diary on a train and there’s a shot of the train
going across the top of the diary. They
built a large diary and used a model train to go across the top. And when Harker is shaving in the castle the
shot is done straight on and we should see the camera’s reflection. Well that’s a very old trick that involves
using a double whose back is turned to the camera with Reeves standing on the other
side of the “mirror”. Coppola also says on
the commentary track that when Dracula is shaving Harker the walls move in a
little as the scene progresses to give a claustrophobic feeling. This is what makes this film so incredible
not only from a technical standpoint but doing the effects this way gives the
whole thing this very mysterious and unnerving feeling. A bunch of the time you can recognize that
there’s all sorts of crazy shit being put in front of you but the amount of it
and the execution makes for a fucking bizarre viewing experience. With Jurassic
Park signaling the start of the digital age just one year later this is
sort of a last hurrah for old fashioned effects. They used every trick in the goddamn book and
it’s astonishing.
Also as part of the extras Coppola says he originally wanted
this to be even weirder than it already is with almost no sets or props. It would be very impressionistic with shadows
and essentially just actors in their unbelievable costumes. The costumes would be the sets. I couldn’t help
but think of Cool World when I saw
that and I’m so glad the studio put their foot down. I don’t know if any movie should ever look
like Cool World. Man that was awful. There’s a scene in this though that
demonstrates what Coppola was talking about and it’s when Mina is going to marry
Harker in Europe and she’s tearing out pages of her diary and throwing them
into the ocean. She’s supposed to be on
a ship but all we see in the shot are a lantern and a rope. I never realized that that’s all there was
until Coppola pointed it out on the commentary track. My brain had filled in the rest of the ship
without me even realizing it. I never
found that scene confusing or weird with only a lantern and a rope. It was always very clear that Mina is on a
ship throwing diary pages into the water.
Then I startlingly realized that Coppola most likely would’ve made the
whole costumes-are-the-sets thing actually fucking work.
The Japanese inspired costumes did turn out spectacular
though. Holy shit guys. The dragon samurai-like red suit of armor
that Dracula wears in the beginning is one of the most amazing getups I’ve ever
seen. To me it looks like muscles with
the skin stripped away. And the helmet with
those conic horns puts it over the top.
I also love in particular Lucy’s wedding dress that I already
mentioned. That and the old Dracula’s
red robe with the really long trains creep me out.
Another interesting angle to this production is that
everything was filmed on a soundstage.
The only part that wasn’t was the wedding ceremony with Harker and Mina. They filmed that at a Greek Orthodox Church
in California. But everything else was
done on a set including all those Transylvania and London streets shots.
After hearing the commentary track with Coppola it seems
that he has mixed feelings about this film.
He loves the special effects aspect of it, that he was faithful to the
book and he certainly did want to take this project on but I think at the same
time sort of felt he had to. Coppola’s
studio, American Zoetrope, was about to go under if he didn’t make another couple
of hits which forced him to do The
Godfather Part III and Dracula. He was hoping to retire and work on small
personal projects. Again, the material
was something Coppola was interested in but it comes across that he couldn’t do
it on his own terms exactly and that bothered him. He doesn’t give high praise to Winona Ryder
for instance saying that she was too smart for her own good and that she didn’t
give it her all. Oldman and Hopkins were
reportedly a bit hard to work with because they don’t like rehearsing. Remarkably Coppola makes no mention of Keanu
Reeves or his performance. Because there
were so many effects shots and just shooting to do in general the schedule was pretty
strictly enforced with the studio execs keeping Francis on a tight leash. This led to Roman Coppola basically
co-directing the picture. Remember, all
of the effects were done in-camera so Roman had to be there and take a very
hands on approach. And in addition to
this Francis also says that Roman shot a lot of the prologue and ending. With the soundtrack only three pieces of music
were written and recorded for the entire film much to Francis’ dismay. Fortunately because the score was recorded
with several mics he was able to drop out or add in whichever instrument
sections he wanted giving the illusion that variations on the lone three themes
had been laid down. All of this shit
made for a bittersweet experience and hearing the commentary track it seems
like Francis hadn’t thought about it in a long time and therefore hadn’t
totally resolved his feelings towards the film.
Sometimes he’ll get very into the notion that he envisioned and executed
nothing but in-camera effects and at others he’ll talk about his frustrations
that things were rough on set. I was
surprised to hear all of this because none of these complications come through
in the final product. When I see this
thing I marvel at how wacky, over the top yet cohesive it is. It works amazingly well.
The more I think about it and every time I see this version
of Dracula I like it more and
more. In fact I love it now. This is the film that keeps on giving. With each viewing I notice something new or
find yet another scene spookier than before.
And this was Coppola’s intent. He
said he knows that not every single thing will be caught by the viewer but the
accumulation of peculiar instances and camera tricks will amount to an
off-putting feeling. This piece is so
beautifully, meticulously and fucking crazily crafted that it demands
respect. Everything from the freakish
hairdo that Drac wears when he’s old to the shadow that has a mind of its own
to the camaraderie of Seward, Quincy and Arthur to the human sized bat and wolf
creatures that the Count turns into to the vampire brides seducing Harker scene
to the buckets of blood that are showered on Lucy when she dies (that’s an
homage to Kubrick by the way) to young Dracula looking like Jesus…this is a
masterpiece my friends. There will be
other movies made in the future that tackle this story but it’s difficult to
imagine this one being topped. This is
the Dracula to watch. I kind of want to go back and see it again
right now.
Creep factor: Off the fucking charts. I understand that what someone finds scary is
very subjective but the things in this picture are the kinda shit that sticks
with me.
Romance factor: High.
Dracula is both an extreme monster and an extremely tragic figure
here. Very difficult to get both across
but I think they do it. At times I fear
his wrath and at others I feel his pain.
Yet again we don’t get the full story that’s laid out in
Bram Stoker’s novel. This is based on the
same play that the ’31 version used as a starting point. It’s the 1920’s and we open with the Demeter
voyage to England. Dracula washes ashore
and is found by Mina. From there on it’s
your pretty standard Dracula story except for some inexplicable reason they
switched the characters of Lucy and Mina.
Mina is the one who becomes a vampire and Lucy is the one that the Count
falls in love with. Also the ending is
different with the finale taking place on a ship.
I didn’t expect anything from this one because no one ever
talks about it. I figured it was so bad
that people just don’t even want to bring it up. Well I was pleasantly surprised. I really dug this version and now I’m
confused why it’s never referenced.
The cast gives good performances including Donald Pleasance
(Halloweens) as Dr. Seward, Kate
Nelligan (Wolf) as Lucy, Laurence
Olivier (Rebecca) as Van Helsing and
Frank Langella (The Ninth Gate,
Frost/Nixon) as Drac. I’ll get into
Olivier and Langella more specifically in a minute.
The scene where Van Helsing stakes Mina through the heart is
done really well. The makeup in
particular on Mina is pretty spooky. And
the special effects aren’t bad. I
especially like when Dracula climbs up and down walls. It looks convincing. And there’s this one part where he jumps
through a window and instantly becomes a wolf that was awesome.
It’s shot pretty damn well too with John Badham
directing. This is what he did after Saturday Night Fever. The cinematography was done by Gilbert Taylor
who was DP on Hitchcock’s Frenzy, The
Omen and fucking Star Wars. The score was penned by John Williams also. So this was kind of an epic production.
There are a couple of bad points though. The first is going to sound odd but bear with
me. Langella’s hair is very
distracting. It’s really 70’s and it’s
too big. The length and poofiness keeps
changing too making it incredibly difficult to ignore. Other than his hair Langella is a fucking bad
ass Dracula. I’ll admit I had my doubts
but once you see him next to others he’s a tall, slender man dressed practically
all in black that has an imposing presence.
Just his very stature and calm but assertive voice demands your
attention. I mean the man’s a good six
to eight inches taller than anyone else in the film and that was smart casting. Langella has a special talent of looking relatively
normal while radiating this very off feeling. But Jesus that hair. I don’t know what they
were thinking.
The second is Van Helsing.
They handle him strangely in this one.
First of all they have Mina be his daughter (Lucy is Seward’s daughter
here) so her death is what prompts Van Helsing to be brought into the mix. He has no idea what the hell is going on at
first and that’s very different from what we’re used to. He acts like a confused old man that’s out of
his league. Olivier was quite sick when he was making this
and that absolutely comes through. It’s unfortunate
and hinders the performance a fair amount.
Van Helsing does get his act together but it’s not until a little later
when he goes to discover what happened to Mina.
So overall more positives than negatives. Langella wanted to portray Dracula as “…a
nobleman, an elegant man with a very difficult problem” and I think he achieved
that. We don’t get any bloody fangs or
gory violence. This version is more
play-like similar to the ’31 Dracula. And I’m not sure which one I like
better. I want to say this one but it
doesn’t have the journey to Dracula’s castle segment that carries so much
weight with me. However, I do very much
like the look and feel of the ’79 version.
It strikes a good balance between the horror and romantic aspects of the
story. Good job movie.
Creep factor: Some but not a lot. Carfax Abbey is fantastic, Dracula himself
and the vampire Mina scene are all good stuff.
Romance factor: Pretty high.
After Bela Lugosi’s infamous performance Dracula had become caricatured
pretty quickly and everyone just thought of him as a monster. This film attempts to show a more humanized version
than what you’ve seen before.
My first Hammer horror delight and even though this is just
one film out of a whole lot that they made I think I get now why these pictures
have a huge following. They’re pretty to
look at, competently directed, the actors give good performances and they
change the story just enough to differentiate itself from past incarnations
making it feel fresh. This one was Hammer’s
first stab at Dracula.
The story they went with doesn’t resemble the classic tale
really at all. Jonathan Harker travels
to Castle Dracula because he’s the new librarian. However, he reveals through a diary entry
that he’s really there to do a hit job on Drac (Christopher Lee). When Harker is unsuccessful the Count flees
and Van Helsing (Peter Cushing (Star Wars))
is left to pick up the pieces and go after the vampire with the help of Harker’s
brother, Arthur (Michael Gough (Batman
(1989))). I told you it was different.
I’m fine with these story changes though. The way it’s rolled out makes the movie feel
like a small part of a larger story and I like that. Before the audience is brought into the fold Van
Helsing and Harker must’ve discussed vampires, Dracula, their powers,
weaknesses, how they found out about Dracula, the horrible things that he’s
done, how they tracked him down and they clearly formulated a plan on how to
kill the bastard. Dracula must’ve been
looking for a new librarian so the timing was convenient. But I’m sure he was just angling for a meal
and puts ads out for servants all the time.
There are two kinda big things that annoy me though. First, Dracula’s castle is clean as a
whistle. The filmmakers didn’t even
attempt to make the place look spooky at all.
It’s bright, uses many colors and doesn’t appear to be that big. It really bothered me that Dracula would live
in such a nonthreatening abode.
Second is Dracula himself.
He’s barely in this fuckin’ thing!
And when he is he pretty much only snarls or hisses. I don’t have anything against Christopher Lee
but I didn’t care for him in this. And
it’s really his appearance because he can’t help that he has practically no
dialogue. He looks too British and he’s
got salt ‘n pepper hair that makes him look professorial ‘n shit. I’m sure a lot of you out there grew up with
this version and this is how you think Dracula should go but Lee just doesn’t
sit right with me. He acts like more
animal than man and the imbalance is too much.
To dehumanize the character to this extent doesn’t make sense to
me. You’re supposed to connect with
Dracula a little, understand where he’s coming from. Here we don’t get a chance to and it makes Dracula
seem like kind of a barbaric idiot quite frankly. I mean he gets infiltrated by a hitman and
almost gets himself killed because of it (why Harker staked the bride first and
not Dracula I have no idea), attempts revenge but doesn’t achieve total victory
(Lucy gets killed), goes for a second revenge and fails again leading to his
own demise. So what has Dracula really accomplished? Not a goddamn thing. He’s just some asshole that can’t get his
evil plot together.
Moving on, in this version we actually see vampire Lucy out
in the woods taking a child to feed on and that’s the only time we get that. The death of Lucy is pretty awesome with a
fair amount of blood. Van Helsing is his
usual steadfast self and he appears to be English, not Dutch, this time. Dracula’s castle is located in Klausenberg
and not Transylvania and also Mina, Lucy and Arthur don’t reside in England but
someplace closer to Klausenberg called Carlstadt. Fangs and blood are definitely used here as
opposed to the ’31 version but no bats or wolves.
I thought this was fun and I like that it’s pretty short
(about 80 mins) but it only takes bits and pieces from the original yarn and that
totally threw me. I think I’ll enjoy it
more with successive viewings as well as other Hammer horror movies because now
I have a better idea of what to expect.
Creep factor: None. It’s
a vibrant, clean and neat film.
Romance factor: None.
Dracula’s purely a monster this time.
You know when shit just doesn’t go the way you think it
will? I’m talkin’ about simple
things. Like you get in the shower and
forget that you’re out of shampoo which forces you to use someone else’s. It doesn’t feel right and it’s in the back of
your mind the whole day that there’s a foreign substance mixed in with your
body. You sure as shit will remember to
pick some of your own shampoo later. Or
let’s say you want to make meatloaf for dinner but you’re out of breadcrumbs. You can’t fucking make meatloaf without
breadcrumbs. You just can’t. So you do something else that night but it’s
not satisfying because you really wanted a loaf of fucking meat. And this discontent doesn’t get corrected
until the next dinner meal so you’re fucked for 24 hours.
What I’m saying is one thing leads to another. I hadn’t seen the ’31 Dracula in a long ass time so it was due and Halloween was the
perfect opportunity to check it out again.
I had never seen a Hammer horror picture and I figured Horror of Dracula (or just Dracula for you UK-ers out there) would
be a good introduction. After that I
remember that I had noticed that the 1979 Dracula
was available on demand (for free too) and thought what the hell let’s do
it. That was the tipping point and just
made me want to see the 1992 Dracula
again because it had been a couple of years since I’ve watched that. These films are pretty much the major
productions of Dracula not counting
sequels, TV movies or foreign language versions like Nosferatu or the ‘31 Spanish Dracula
(I’m curious to check that out though).
Goddamn, I did not expect this whirlwind of Dracula to appear. I’ll tell ya though, it was pretty
interesting to see how these pictures stacked up against one another. I could directly compare since I saw them all
almost immediately in sequence (three one day, one the next). Let’s get started with the ’31 Drac.
Overall not quite as good as I remembered. Lugosi does have the iconic look that we all
associate with the character so that’s the big advantage this one has. However the man isn’t the greatest
actor. It’s really his delivery of
dialogue that’s a little flat. I guess
he was used to doing the play version so maybe it worked better in that context
but on film some of his movements and speech are a bit robotic. With that said it’s impossible to not like
Lugosi in this part. He looks like he’s
enjoying it immensely which is nice to see because he wanted the role very very
badly. The suit, the stare and the way
he carries himself all work well.
The only other role I want to talk about in this version is
Van Helsing played by Edward Van Sloane (Frankenstein,
The Mummy) because he’s handled a little differently in each movie I saw. Here he’s the unshakable sage that knows
exactly what’s going on and how to stop Dracula. We feel safe with this portrayal because he’s
our guide through the darkness and evil.
Sloane does a great job exuding confidence, leadership, etc.
In this one we’re shown Renfield’s journey to Castle Dracula
and that passage and the scenes inside the castle are probably my favorite parts
of any version of the story. The Count
has lured you into his lair and now he’s holding you prisoner. He doesn’t have to chain you up because the
place is so fucked that you’re scared to venture outside your room. It’s brilliant. And we don’t totally get this again until
1992. For the ’31 Dracula the castle sets look fantastic and I appreciate that they
added this part in.
Some interesting bits are that Lugosi doesn’t sport fangs
here, the only blood shown (as far as I can remember) is from the nick that
Renfield gets from a paperclip towards the beginning, this is the only version (of
the ones I saw) that takes place in modern day or at least close to it (1920’s)
and Lucy doesn’t get killed after becoming a vampire.
That last point is very strange. It was in the script to stake her through the
heart like the novel but for whatever reason it either wasn’t filmed or was cut
out during editing and is lost forever. I
mean that’s a pretty big loose end to not tie up. There’s a full-fledged fucking vampire on the
loose out there still.
Also the ending is sorta weird. Van Helsing says he still has some shit to do
before he can join Harker and Mina. We
see the lovebirds walk up the stairs and then it’s over. I’m not really sure what Van Helsing is
alluding to. I mean if he had to cut off
Dracula’s head or burn his body or something why even go there? The audience knows that Dracula’s dead so
leave it at that. Van Helsing’s last
words imply that the movie’s not over which makes the ending seem very abrupt. Maybe that’s nitpicking but it still bothered
me enough to mention it here.
Lugosi being a little stiff at times, the uneven pacing and
the last couple of things I brought up detract from an otherwise good solid
telling of the tale. It’s not my
favorite one but definitely worth watching, especially if you’re a horror buff. In fact I’d probably say it’s essential
viewing if you’re big on film in general.
Creep factor: Just a little.
The castle parts and Carfax Abbey were the only things that looked even
a little scary.
Romance factor: They balanced man and monster ok. Dracula is…sorta…charming? I dunno, he comes off as a weirdo in this one
with his long gaze and distancing demeanor I think. So not that romantic then.
One last thing, for what it’s worth I love the story of Dracula but I like the ’31 Frankenstein better than the ’31 Dracula.
The execution is superior in every area in my opinion.
I hope your Halloween went well and that you’re all safe and
sound. Ok, ready for some post-Halloween
shit? Originally I was going to do
Vampire Mania but things developed into something quite different. Sorry, sometimes this happens. So as a peace offering here’s part of the
segment I had planned, The Addiction.
Abel Ferrara’s vampire picture was pretty good. He’s a spotty director and I was worried that
this was going to be boring but he made it work. It’s a simple story of a newly formed vampire
named Kathy, Lili Taylor (Ransom, High
Fidelity), that struggles with her new identity. She has an insatiable thirst that she can’t
quench no matter how many throats she bites.
The first thing you’ll notice is that it’s filmed in black
and white and I don’t totally understand why.
There was a big resurgence of its use during the 90’s with films like Schindler’s List, Ed Wood, Kafka, Shadows
and Fog, Dead Man and parts of Natural
Born Killers. Maybe Ferrara wanted
to jump on that bandwagon. Most of the
time in The Addiction the use of
black and white isn’t that remarkable but every once in a while you’ll get a
shot or a scene that’s very beautiful and/or eerie. I don’t think it would’ve made a huge
difference to shoot this thing in color but at the same time I understand the
need to change things up creatively and the way Ferrara went about the
cinematography works perfectly fine.
Now I haven’t seen Lili Taylor in that many roles but this
is the best I’ve seen her. She pulls off
being conflicted and tortured well. But
Christopher Walken as the veteran vampire that offers words of wisdom steals
the show. He’s only in this for a couple
of minutes but he nails the part and it made me want to watch a whole movie
just about his character. Other notables
include Annabella Sciorra (The Hand That
Rocks the Cradle) who plays the vampire that turns Kathy and Edie Falco (The Sopranos, Oz) who is Kathy’s friend.
I feel like I should warn you guys that this film is pretty
damn arty and fairly pretentious. The
entire thing is a metaphor for drug addiction. I mean it is called The Addiction after all.
There’s a lot of talk about how vampires are actually kinda weak because
they are defined by their constant need for blood. They’ll walk the streets late at night and consort
with strangers to get what they crave.
Friends, mentors and colleagues are affected as well by the disease
because they are who the addict turns to.
Ferrara even has Kathy go into extreme pain and convulse when she can’t
get a blood fix (Walken actually uses the word “fix” too) and then stumble over
herself wandering on the street all strung out when she’s had too much. I think the parallels are convincing and well
done which makes the movie fascinating and takes away from the pomposity a
little. I like this angle of vampirism
and how Ferrara portrays these creatures as both ferocious and pathetic at the
same time.
This one is more of a thinking man’s movie. There’s a lot of philosophy which went over
my head but there’s also some real cool vampire shit, especially the feeding
frenzy ending. None of it is very scary
or creepy. It’s refreshing though. I think you should see it.
