NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/vampyres/1516

Text File | 1992-11-19 | 3.7 KB | 80 lines

Newsgroups: alt.vampyres
Path: sparky!uunet!uchinews!uchinews.uchicago.edu!covin
From: [e-mail] (David Covin)
Subject: Re: Dracula Criticism (some Spoilers)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News System)
Organization: University of Chicago Computer Science
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:45:25 GMT
Lines: 69


Just to add my own opinions to the fire...

Coppola's Dracula was about what I expected.  My expectations are
lowered by as much hype as this flick had; and, being but the last of
many-many retellings of Stoker's retelling of a vampire myth, I didn't
expect that there was much new, interesting, and exciting he could do
with the story.

There were a lot of little details about the movie that I liked.  The
initial historical bits about Vlad, even if they weren't accurate for
the historical Vlad, were at least in the right spirit, I thought.  I
liked the tragic origin of his vampirism; this is not in Stoker's
book, but Stoker's book says little about the vampire's origins, so it
is within Coppola's purview to fill that in for the movie, if he
wants.  I *loved* the hubris of gathering up the blood dripping from
the holy icons and drinking it.

The rings of blue flame that the coach passed on the way to Dracula's
castle are actually from Stoker's book, as I recall; however, in the
book they are actually *explained* (as a weird mystical phenomenon
that occurs on the feast of St. Somebody-or-other, marking the sites
of buried treasure).  I was amused to see them, but expected that they
would confuse lots of people in the audience.

I liked Dracula's wolfman-form, since the old legends merge werewolves
and vampires.  Again, however, I wasn't sure that people in the
audience would be other than just confused by it.

I loved Anthony Hopkins's crazed Van Helsing.  I've read Fred
Saberhagen's The Dracula Tapes, a retelling of the story from
Dracula's point of view, so I liked the intimation that Van Helsing
might be at least as mad and dangerous as Dracula.  This was
reinforced by the love-story theme that pitted Van Helsing against the
star-crossed lovers, Mina and Vlad.

I liked the bit with Dracula's shadow strangling Jonathan Harker, just
because.

I loved the scene where vampire-Lucy, startled, turns suddenly around,
dropping the baby she'd been carrying like a forgotten sack of
potatoes.

My major gripes with the movie were its "cartoony" feel in spots,
and the obvious commercial breaks (was this made-for-TV?).  I found
Keanu Reeves distracting as Harker, since in my mind he's Ted Theodore
Logan; his English accent just reminded me of the other movie's
attempt to pick up "historical babes."  However, I don't wish to damn
him to a single part for all eternity; it's just my prejudice.

I didn't like Vlad's weird ribbed armor; it might be historical,
though I've only seen the like in ornamental armors.  Looked like
rubber to me, actually.

And the ending, where Mina is let off the hook for her fated romance
while somehow satisfying everyone, seemed a little too pat.  I'm not
sure if there could have been a more satisfying ending, though, given
the plotlines that had to be tied off at that point.

All in all, it was an ok movie.  It wasn't worth $6.50 except to
a serious vampire fan; serious vampire fans will easily get $6.50 or
$7.00 worth of gripes out of it.  ("How can Coppola do that?!
*Everybody* knows vampires don't work that way!  Why, in _Son of
Dracula Meets Frankenstein's Daughter_, they...").  It wasn't up to
its hype; but then, if you believed the hype, in this day and age, you
probably got what you deserved.  Next time you'll know better.

--
David Covin                           [e-mail]