Still, I wonder: critics loved Coppola‘s approach, but hated Branagh doing basically the same heightened theatrical style (despite Branagh working with a much better script).
While I really love both of these films, I think the easiest conclusion to come with this question is that Coppola did it first and better. And according to both screenwriters of this Frankenstein movie, Branagh was very unfaithful to their words and what they had put on the script. While both films are of heightened theater and camp, Coppola's is almost pure cinema. It's techniques and design probably rewarded such a viewing in a big theater. I was unfortunately too young to see it in theaters at the time, but I think that it visually presents a dense experience while, as good as it is, the Branagh movie never can match.
I saw both in the theatre, and while both for me offered visual spectacle and a rich atmosphere, I still consider Coppola’s adaptation as a narrative failure. It is not Keanu Reeves‘ fault that the important Jonathan Harker plotline completely falls flat, it is Coppola being overwhelmed by his visuals.
Branagh, however, keeps the story moving and layered.
Still, I wonder: critics loved Coppola‘s approach, but hated Branagh doing basically the same heightened theatrical style (despite Branagh working with a much better script).
While I really love both of these films, I think the easiest conclusion to come with this question is that Coppola did it first and better. And according to both screenwriters of this Frankenstein movie, Branagh was very unfaithful to their words and what they had put on the script. While both films are of heightened theater and camp, Coppola's is almost pure cinema. It's techniques and design probably rewarded such a viewing in a big theater. I was unfortunately too young to see it in theaters at the time, but I think that it visually presents a dense experience while, as good as it is, the Branagh movie never can match.
I saw both in the theatre, and while both for me offered visual spectacle and a rich atmosphere, I still consider Coppola’s adaptation as a narrative failure. It is not Keanu Reeves‘ fault that the important Jonathan Harker plotline completely falls flat, it is Coppola being overwhelmed by his visuals.
Branagh, however, keeps the story moving and layered.
Branagh camerawork is also sumptuous (those circular travellings...), but I get what you´re saying.
It helps that both movies were shot by two of the most excellent master cinematographers of their times: Michael Ballhaus on Dracula and Roger Pratt on Frankenstein. As a huge fan of Coppola's Dracula, I personally don't think it is a narrative failure. Even in Stoker's novel I don't find Harker or his sections very compelling and no film even to this day can manage to make Harker an interesting viewpoint character (hence why so many disregard that character or use Renfield as the proxy, etc.). Hart's script was obviously more intent on developing the fateful love story (drawing influence from a few early adaptations, including John Badham's awesome film from 1979). I think both of the leads in the Coppola film, Gary Oldman and Winona Ryder, are so good in the film that the narrative does a great service resting on them and allowing the supporting cast to either embrace camp (Tom Waits, Anthony Hopkins, Richard E. Grant, etc.) or get lost in something they aren't well-suited for (key point on Reeves, who even Coppola admits he was too in love with to realize he was asking the wrong thing of Reeves). While the Coppola film was more successful in its moment, and its cult status has continued, Branagh's film grew in cult status as its audience discovered it on home video or cable (or streaming). There are so many factors in why some films don't "strike" when they first release and someone already highlighted the publicized romantic troubles Branagh faced at the time but also consider Columbia/Tri-Star may have just not marketed the film right, or the "star power" wasn't as impactful as it had been in a Dracula film from the director of The Godfather starring Winona Ryder, Gary Oldman, Anthony Hopkins, and Keanu Reeves. Consider the perspectives.
It helps that both movies were shot by two of the most excellent master cinematographers of their times: Michael Ballhaus on Dracula and Roger Pratt on Frankenstein. As a huge fan of Coppola's Dracula, I personally don't think it is a narrative failure. Even in Stoker's novel I don't find Harker or his sections very compelling and no film even to this day can manage to make Harker an interesting viewpoint character (hence why so many disregard that character or use Renfield as the proxy, etc.). Hart's script was obviously more intent on developing the fateful love story (drawing influence from a few early adaptations, including John Badham's awesome film from 1979). I think both of the leads in the Coppola film, Gary Oldman and Winona Ryder, are so good in the film that the narrative does a great service resting on them and allowing the supporting cast to either embrace camp (Tom Waits, Anthony Hopkins, Richard E. Grant, etc.) or get lost in something they aren't well-suited for (key point on Reeves, who even Coppola admits he was too in love with to realize he was asking the wrong thing of Reeves). While the Coppola film was more successful in its moment, and its cult status has continued, Branagh's film grew in cult status as its audience discovered it on home video or cable (or streaming). There are so many factors in why some films don't "strike" when they first release and someone already highlighted the publicized romantic troubles Branagh faced at the time but also consider Columbia/Tri-Star may have just not marketed the film right, or the "star power" wasn't as impactful as it had been in a Dracula film from the director of The Godfather starring Winona Ryder, Gary Oldman, Anthony Hopkins, and Keanu Reeves. Consider the perspectives.
Well argued. And I did not mean to put the two films against each other, I like both despite their shortcomings, although I prefer Branagh‘s Frankenstein for its fearless and dynamic storytelling.
In the end, during its cinema run, Dracula was clearly capturing audiences‘ interest and Frankenstein did not. That is interesting to me. But maybe the romance aspect of Dracula is just more palatable than the morbidity of Frankenstein.
Well, the plot thickens. Apparently, according to the german forum soundtrack.de, somebody asked Doyle´s team on Facebook why he didn´t do this Branagh film, and the answer was that the coronation duties kept him busy with late minute changes despite the brevity of the piece, so he didnt have enough time to do his old friend new film.
Of course, no verifiable source exists to back this up (no links to Facebook were provided), but neither it does in the case of our fellow FSMer.
Well, the plot thickens. Apparently, according to the german forum soundtrack.de, somebody asked Doyle´s team on Facebook why he didn´t do this Branagh film, and the answer was that the coronation duties kept him busy with late minute changes despite the brevity of the piece, so he didnt have enough time to do his old friend new film.
Of course, no verifiable source exists to back this up (no links to Facebook were provided), but neither it does in the case of our fellow FSMer.
Who is telling the truth?.
Who knows.
It does sound so true. So I will go with that.
If Branagh´s next film employs another composer again, however...
Well, the plot thickens. Apparently, according to the german forum soundtrack.de, somebody asked Doyle´s team on Facebook why he didn´t do this Branagh film, and the answer was that the coronation duties kept him busy with late minute changes despite the brevity of the piece, so he didnt have enough time to do his old friend new film.
Of course, no verifiable source exists to back this up (no links to Facebook were provided), but neither it does in the case of our fellow FSMer.
Who is telling the truth?.
Who knows.
It does sound so true. So I will go with that.
If Branagh´s next film employs another composer again, however...
Doyle personal team (assistants and so on) is of course trustworthy and the coronation explanation fits (and make sense), so I´ll go with that too and will choose to believe it (again, we have no sources).
The way I see it, there are more chances of the complete human race being destroyed by angry aliens next week, than are for Doyle and Branagh to have a falling out. They are so, so close...
Only thing I'm going to say is that the music I heard was dreary. Ugh.
J
It appears the review embargo is lifted so I'm going to post what I thought from the test screening I saw back in June.
Because the film is an adaptation of a lesser known Christie novel "Hallowe'en Party," it has the benefit of not having a comparison to previous versions which didn't help Branagh's two previous Poirot films.
As I stated, Hildur Guðnadóttir's score is dreary. I mean there's nothing memorable about it at all. I miss the days when Branagh had a gorgeous Patrick Doyle score which hasn't happened in years & years.
The film also relies on too many jump scares and loud sound effects to elicit scares and most of the supporting cast is wasted. The biggest supporting role goes to Tina Fey, who seems to be channeling Rosalind Russell in "His Girl Friday" to annoying affect.
The cinematography is also annoying with lost of fish eyed lense shots that only make sense later in the film but are completely distracting in the first half.
All that said, I did like it better than Branagh's last two Poirot films but nothing will ever top Lumet's "Murder on the Orient Express."
It's a LOT better than the last two, partly because it gets to stand on its own, without other films to compare it to, as pointed out.
The tone is also VERY different. The first two were heavily Marvelized, with TONS of bad CGI, broad comic bits, pantomimey characterizations and over the top action beats. This film is completely different. It's sedate, calm, and much more elegant and melancholy. It's also clearly filmed on location for all the exteriors, which helps a lot, since in the last film Egypt was all a backlot in England.
It's very strong, but it still doesn't come close to Lumet's masterpiece Orient Express film, which I think is the greatest Christie film ever, managing to be fun, yet also chilling and even heartbreaking.
The Gudnadóttir score is very effective within the film but I barely even noticed it existed. It's certainly present, but I wish I could have seen what Doyle would have done with this.
I just hope they haven't had a permanent falling out. I hope we see Doyle back with Branagh very soon.
Spotify today has a listing for it, but all the cues are actually from "Death on the Nile"...so...maybe Spotify has made a place holder and used the "...Nile" cues as filler. .
