Badham's 1979 version is just the average, but the Coppola's 1992 version was somehow underrated by the critics and Oldman's performance is maybe too theatrical, but that's the way Dracula should be played...
Movie remakes compared to original
http://www.movie-remakes.com
Nah.
Coppola's was a freak show of gaudy colors and weird sexuality. Too post-modern and MTV for my taste. Langella's good looks, and the romantic storyline is much more my speed.
1992 version's setting blows this one away by far. it's darker as well. though this was a good one, just not as much depth or plot development.
share[deleted]
Exactly... and although they didnt use the actual locations.... atleast Whitby exists in this version (unlike De Palma's which has Whitby appear only in the Demeter's Log Book). and that makes this Whitby Dracula nut happy.
shareYou think Coppola it's too MTV influenced?
shareI personally MUCH prefer Frank Langella's Dracula, but the 1992 version has a beautiful score. Plus, when I watch it at home, I can fast forward past the objectionable scenes -- for example, some lamentable British accents and acting by certain cast members, and unnecessary sex scenes. (NO I could not personally do a better accent, but then I'm not getting paid to, now am I?)
shareThe more I watch Langella's version, the more I seem to dislike Coppola's. I'm watching the latter right now -- and what can I say? I'm on a forum! The 92 version is just... gaudy, and MTV-ish. I used to like it way back when, but not anymore. I think my tastes have changed to a more subtle approach.
shareI prefer this version. It feel like it stays more true to the book in the tone of the film. Coppola's is much too bloody and ugh don't even get me started on Winona Ryder as Mina. I did like Sadie Frost as Lucy.
shareFar as I’m concerned, there IS NO comparison to Coppola’s struck-out, nonsense version of this classic tale. His film was just plain HORRIBLE. In fact, we walked out sometime mid-way through it or just after, it was so bad. The costumes were beautiful [as said so with the Oscars that year]. But that fact certainly did NOT JUSTIFY Coppola’s adaptation. Poor Anthony Hopkins gave his all to VanHelsing’s character, but overall his efforts were in vain, as Coppola’s direction was poor, at best. Hopkins’ talent was certainly wasted here. And don’t even get me going on the ridiculously over-acted Lucy-turned-vampire/demon scene with VanHelsing. It was plain awful.
And sorry for all you Gary Olsen lovers out there – but HIS Dracula was doofy. Especially that hat he had to wear. Olsen has been very fine in the many other films he made after Coppola’s Dracula, but not so with THIS film.
PEANUT
[deleted]
I wasnt insinuating that Oldman's PERFORMANCE was bad. It was his performance under COPPOLLA'S DIRECTION that was poor. That Dracula film was not one of Coppolla's best movies as director. There were several areas that were jokingly stupid or downright rip-off in the film. The costumes, as I iterated were great, but most everything else was a downer.
PEANUT
prfrmr sez:
And don’t even get me going on the ridiculously over-acted Lucy-turned-vampire/demon scene with VanHelsing. It was plain awful.
Terence:
Yeah, Hopkins was ready to throw Winona down and fornicate with her, right there in the holy circle of protection or whatever, till he realized her overtures were vampiric in nature; Then he suddenly finds religion again! That scene was an embarrassment for all involved, it made me cringe.
prfrmr furthermore sez:
And sorry for all you Gary Olsen lovers out there – but HIS Dracula was doofy. Especially that hat he had to wear. Olsen has been very fine in the many other films he made after Coppola’s Dracula, but not so with THIS film.
I sez:
I'm still trying to figure out, all these years later, why Oldman's Drac is supposed to be perceived as sympathetic. He twists his hands together and cackles in satanic glee after offering up the newborn infant to his brides midway thru the film, and commits a number of other perversely unecessary outrages, (such as turning himself into a wolf just before raping and murdering Lucy's best friend.). In my neck of the woods it's considered rude to murder babies and rape people in dog-form, but when the Count dies at the end, (spoiler, by the way,) I got the impression I was supposed to care. I didn't.
Despite being films based on Stoker's 'Dracula', it may be a bit unfair to compare them as the 1979 film is based on the stage play by Deane and Balderston (hence it is like the 1930s version in many ways: they are based on the same script) and the 1992 version is a direct adaptation of the novel.
Regards,
The Count
The Apple Scruffs Corps, 07
"Imagine"
mmm Gary Oldman??
shareHopkins acted quite poorly in the 1992 version, I don't know how you can compliment him. And Coppola is a very good director, I cannot fathom how you can say otherwise.
shareThe Coppola, while closer to the novel, has a lot of problems, principally the over-the-top performances by Oldman and Hopkins, and the teribble hash Keanu Reeves made of the role of Jonathan Harker.
The Badham has consistently better performances by all the actors.
I would have loved to have seen the cast from the Badham version, and the script from the Coppola.
I would have loved to have seen the cast from the Badham version, and the script from the Coppola.
sorry.....but Langella's 1979 adaption was the BEST dracula film, next to Legosi's original 1933 version. LOST BOYS is a very close second.
End of story.
OPRLVR
Just where in Badham's 79 film do you recall Dracula dragging an unconscious Lucy?
The garden you are mentioning was a nice little romantic interlude between Lucy and Harker, just before Dracula kills Mina, at the beginning. So I don't understand why you would think that was ill-class or disgusting. The "unconscious Lucy" you might be thinking of is the big seduction scene where Dracula visits Lucy's bedroom and they "make love". Only it wasn't disgusting or ill-class. In fact, it became one of the most memorable moments in the film.
The only half-wolf form thing I think you mean is near the end when Dracula encounters VanHelsing in the library, and then becomes the 'wolf'.
oprlvr
I was referencing Coppola's film, in response to someone who said they would have liked to see the cast from Badham perform the script from Coppola's Dracula.
In case you haven't seen Coppola's version, Dracula has sex with Lucy in the garden while he is half-wolf. It's... not classy. ;)
The Coppola version is one of the few movies I have ever walked out of. I loathed it.
shareWhat possessed Coppola to get Keanu Reeves for Harker? Totally non-British accent dude! And I hated the overly soppy romance scenes- is it a horror or what?? This film is FAR superior to Coppola's nonsense, even though it doesn't follow the book as closely.
share^ To answer your question Winona pushed Keanu on Coppola, and she brought the project to him, so he consented.
Anyway, I am going a Dracula-thon and definetly see why some people would hate Coppola's version. But the reasons I always assumed was a bad actor playing Harker and the painfully inserted love story. But I'd say the love story is far more annoying in this movie and is just as innaccurate. And at least Coppola got all the characters and their relations correct as well as the basic plot.
Sorry, maybe it is I just felt this production was kind of dull. Langella was too wistful and romantic as Drac, Olivier looked bored (both Cushing and Hopkins outdid him, sadly) and the use of Renfield, Harker and "Lucy" was really frustrating.
Ah, Lugosi's is better than either.
I prefer the Badham version to Coppola's (although the latter holds close to the pot of the book, despite that damn love story that was added). It's well mounted, beautifully filmed, and the characters are pretty consistent, unlike the "92 version where Dracula is bad, then sad, then bad, then sad, and on and on. Langella's Dracula is cast in the mold of a Byron like figure and therefore has romantic elements about him, he's still bad news from the first scene to the last.
I do enjoy viewing the '92 version but only for the effects and early scenes with Dracula. It's a once in a while picture for me. Now the '79 Dracula, I see at least twice a year.
Langella's Dracula is cast in the mold of a Byron like figure and therefore has romantic elements about him, he's still bad news from the first scene to the last.
... "pure evil, beginning to end."
I don't know -- I really think he loved Lucy, and I don't believe a person who is pure evil has the ability to love. (I don't think there have been many people born who are pure evil. I'm sure there are some, but I also think most people have SOME redeeming qualities. Not all, but most.)
He showed he cared for her by not turning her into a vampire after he carried her to the safety of his lair, telling her she might come to harm if he did that too soon. It would have been more convenient for him if he had, but with her welfare in mind, he chose not to.
[deleted]
You don't know bad movies.
"Listen, do you smell something?"
Ray Stanz-Ghostbusters
I like and dislike different parts of both.
If you have read the book, then you know the Coppola version is so much closer than any version has ever been. When I read it I was annoyed by the various recording devices used, but seeing them on screen works so well! I can only think of one other version (the BBS mini-series with Louis Jordan) which actually included Quincy P. Morris, and it is the only one which includes all three of Lucy's suitors. Generally the parts are combined (I mean, in the Badham version Dr. Seward is Lucy's father for crying out loud, which I think was also true in the Legosi version!). And Morris is a vile {American) Texan with a huge bowie knife and [shocking!] gun! But he also turns out to be the tragic hero of the novel, being the only one who dies after killing several of Dracula's gypsies at a range. The historical information concerning Vlad Tepes is nice for Dracula beginners, but I do not qualify there. The story of Dracula's wife is a classic fairy tale often told of many wartime rulers of the middle ages, and is fun as background and subplot, but do we really need to invent subplots and scenes not from the book? Surely there is more material than anyone has ever managed to include.
The Badham version is incredibly sexy, so much more than the Coppola, and sometimes it is too much so.
Both are a huge improvement over the Bela Lugosi version, but you can't ignore the fact that it is what really made Dracula what it is today. All versions owe their fascination in the American mind to it.
1992 was more gothic and arty but 79 scared me more
shareInteresting how few posts refer to the 1958 Lee version;
There's no question Lee IS Dracula;
I like a lot of things about the 79 version, but was hugely dissapointed by Copolla's...
Seriously, that Coppola version is unwatchable. Thought it sucked when it came out and am baffled at positive reviews it gets to this day. It the only film Ive seen Oldman overpowered and diminished by his character. This Langella Dracula is pretty tight, hes clever and sinister. C'mon now folks, only myself and the poster right above me here know this or what? Christopher Lee is Dracula.
shareCouldn't disagree more. Christopher Lee is a distant fourth. Anyway, he should be flogged for DRACULA A.D. 1972
shareI think you are spot on in your review of these very different films. I was seriously disappointed in the Coppola version. He had fine actors to work with but somehow drew out some of the hammyest performances ever given by any of them.
Oh, and as far as Frank Lanella's Dracula... very seductive. I can see how women would come under his spell. Gary Oldman is a fine actor indeed but I couldn't see a woman doing anything but run screaming from his character.
Coppola's version = Dracula on acid mixed with bad MTV videography. Ouch. Ugly movie, nothing stately or beautiful about it.
Badham's version = Over-the-top in some places, Olivier badly miscast as Van Helsing, but Langella owns the movie and dominates every scene, even when he's not onscreen. Viewing it in retrospect after a number of years only reminds me how really, really good Langella's Dracula is. That's the way Dracula should be played.
[deleted]
Once again you people are awful and completely wrong in your descriptions of the Coppolla version. MTV-ish is one of the worst and laziest comebacks ever nowadays for not liking a movie.
"Listen, do you smell something?"
Ray Stanz-Ghostbusters
I doubt any of these people who lazily claim Coppola to be MTV influenced have seen any of his other films notable tgf trilogy. If they did perchance see them, I bet they found it boring.
share