...Ew

[vr_trakowski]

I haven't seen the Coppola Dracula in years, and barely remembered anything about it.  I'm not sure why I didn't remember that it's terrible.  Not only is the acting awful--even Anthony Hopkins isn't trying--but they can't so much as remember that they turned Harker's hair grey. 

I did try to read the book once, but it bored me out of my proverbial skull.  I suppose I should try it again, but my enthusiasm is at a low ebb. 

Comments

[felisdemens.livejournal.com]

God, I hate that version. Not even Gary Oldman in pretty outfits can distract me from the rest of that monumental puddle of steaming Fail.

[vr-trakowski.livejournal.com]

I almost enjoyed the way Mr. Hopkins sort of threw professionalism to the wind and danced around like a madman, but it certainly didn't add anything to the quality. The funny thing is that I remember people being very excited about it when it came out. Maybe my brain is just failing.

[felisdemens.livejournal.com]

Anthony Hopkins' drunk screeching loony was the high point of the whole thing for me. There's a startling number of people that really *like* this movie - completely baffling to me.

[aspidites.livejournal.com]

That version is so very disappointing... It was more closely based on the book than any other movie, and it had some nice bits (albeit few and far between), but I just couldn't get past the uneven pacing, bad performances, and outrageous costuming choices (meat armor for Vlad, Victorian's Secret nighties, and that weird clown ruff thing Lucy wears). Even stunt casting like Tom Waits as Renfield couldn't have saved it.

The book? well, the basic story is fine, but I think the word that best describes it is "turgid".

[vr-trakowski.livejournal.com]

The clown ruff just about gave me nightmares. I couldn't for the life of me figure out what exactly that outfit was supposed to be.

Well, I'm fond of late-Victorian literature, so I can work with turgid. I really should try it again, since it's such a fantasy classic, so to speak.