 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's funny how this worked out: Dracula (1897) is a much better novel than Frankenstein (1818). Dracula has some corny paragraphs here and there, but it sweeps along like a modern read. You can get right into it. Frankenstein as I recall is more of a slog, with overly formal, labored prose, and lengthy descriptions of things that don't matter.
But the 1931 films flipped the script: Frankenstein still plays well, while Dracula is more of an acquired taste, with stodgy direction, and Lugosi coming off as a hammy stage actor who over-plays the hell out of it. Just my view.
Incidentally, while watching The Raven (1963) recently, I formed the opinion that Boris Karloff was by far the best actor in that movie. He was subtle and genuine, and all but lit up the screen when he was on. And I say that as someone who thinks highly of Vincent Price. (I thought Peter Lorre was terrible in The Raven, and apparently so did Karloff.)
The other Frankensteins I liked best were Bride of Frankenstein and Frankenstein: The True Story. I would say that Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) was a mixed bag, but it had some really great moments. I'm not as familiar with the Hammer films, but I know they have their high points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's funny how this worked out: Dracula (1897) is a much better novel than Frankenstein (1818). Dracula has some corny paragraphs here and there, but it sweeps along like a modern read. You can get right into it. Frankenstein as I recall is more of a slog, with overly formal, labored prose, and lengthy descriptions of things that don't matter.
But the 1931 films flipped the script: Frankenstein still plays well, while Dracula is more of an acquired taste, with stodgy direction, and Lugosi coming off as a hammy stage actor who over-plays the hell out of it. Just my view.
Incidentally, while watching The Raven (1963) recently, I formed the opinion that Boris Karloff was by far the best actor in that movie. He was subtle and genuine, and all but lit up the screen when he was on. And I say that as someone who thinks highly of Vincent Price. (I thought Peter Lorre was terrible in The Raven, and apparently so did Karloff.)
The other Frankensteins I liked best were Bride of Frankenstein and Frankenstein: The True Story. I would say that Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) was a mixed bag, but it had some really great moments. I'm not as familiar with the Hammer films, but I know they have their high points.
It's been decades since I've read Frankenstein and Dracula, but IIRC, my impression was similar to yours. Dracula is a much easier read; it's interestingly written as a collection of diary entries, letters, etc. The 1931 Dracula was of course an adaptation of the stage play, which in turn was based on Stoker's novel, so the movie was "stagey" and theatralic, whereas Boris Karloff's incarnation of Frankeinstein was purely a cinematic one. Lugosi's Dracula is of course just as iconic as Karloff's monster, so I'm not going to weigh them against each other, but Karloff was great in many other things as well, he sure had more "reach" as an actor.
Haven't seen the RAVEN in decades, but remember that it was quite a fun and enjoyable movie. The Hammer version of Dracula (Christopher Lee) was my "introduction" to the character way back, so that will always be special to me.
I always thought that Coppola's 1992 version of DRACULA is one of Coppola's best films and one of the best films of the 90s,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well Zap, comparing those two originals, it's also fair to say that as well as performances, the directors make a hell of a difference.
James Whale pushed each of his productions to the limit of what was technically possible. Frankenstein is incredibly absorbing, and the progression with Bride is truly impressive. Whale had incredible flair. His composition is great, and his sense of humour prevents any dryness. And his supporting casts are first rate.
By contrast once past the first part in Transylvania, Dracula is really stagey. Both the actor and director of Frankenstein are in a different league. Still, I am a fan and could never understand why Lugosi never played the part again until the Abbott and Costello comedy.
But thanks to you I'm now in the mood for my two Bride cds, from La La Land and Silva Screen. A great start to a day off. Thanks!
Oh, and while I'm here, Ray, it was Sons of the Dessert night last night with the Brats of Sheffield. We watched Busy Bodies, Pack Up Your Troubles and Busy Bodies. A terrific evening topped off by winning the nice 2025 Al Kilgore Laurel and Hardy calendar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Nov 12, 2024 - 4:55 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
Incidentally, while watching The Raven (1963) recently, I formed the opinion that Boris Karloff was by far the best actor in that movie.
Perhaps, but Jack Nicholson was the best actor to come OUT of that film.
I would say that Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) was a mixed bag, but it had some really great moments.
I think it's the best film ever made about Dracula, one of Coppola's best efforts and one of the best films of the 90s. That's how highly I rate it.
I've never been a particular buff of either Dracula or Frankenstein, but if it goes deep and mythological, I'm game. While there have been some good Drac films over the years, Frankie hasn't been so lucky. I think the old Whale film, and (to a lesser extent) the BRIDE sequel, have charm and heart, but nothing that ignites me. The Brannagh film is okay, but somewhat overblown (and unlike most other people, I'm not a big fan of Doyle's score). Maybe the best Frankenstein is Rory Kinnear's take in PENNY DREADFUL.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's funny how this worked out: Dracula (1897) is a much better novel than Frankenstein (1818). Dracula has some corny paragraphs here and there, but it sweeps along like a modern read. You can get right into it. Frankenstein as I recall is more of a slog, with overly formal, labored prose, and lengthy descriptions of things that don't matter.
But the 1931 films flipped the script: Frankenstein still plays well, while Dracula is more of an acquired taste, with stodgy direction, and Lugosi coming off as a hammy stage actor who over-plays the hell out of it. Just my view.
I never read the books. but I agree about the films. Dracula, after the opening act and the Demeter docking, just lies there. The Spanish version filmed at the same time at night on the same sets, is far more cinematic. Frankenstein is, IMO, the crown jewel of the Universal classic monster films. While 99% of everyone rates Bride more highly, Frankenstein is and was a true chiller. There wasn't even a pretense at horror in Bride, with only a few moments of chills at her introduction. Una O'Conner's hamming and the (admittedly amazing) Waxman score take away from the uncompromising atmosphere of the best pre-code horror films.
Bride of Frankenstein may be a more enjoyable and even fun movie with some delicious pantomime and great dialog, but Frankenstein is a more balanced and accomplished horror film - which never needed a score to work. Dracula needed one desperately. With Frankenstein, it's an intrusion.
But everyone's mileage varies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coppolla calling his film Bram Stoker's Dracula is an insult.
If the changes he made to the novel were minor I'd be okay with the title, but they were not: they were major plot/character alterations, and the film was worse because of them.
Like others have said, the film is a mixed bag.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coppolla calling his film Bram Stoker's Dracula is an insult.
If the changes he made to the novel were minor I'd be okay with the title, but they were not: they were major plot/character alterations, and the film was worse because of them.
I would disagree. First of all, it's very faithful to the novel. The one major element added by Coppola (and James V. Hart) is the re-incarnation of Mina as his deceased love and the resulting love story. Was that in the book? Nope, but it worked well for the movie (that particular movie actually worked better because of these changes), and nevertheless it was by far one of the more faithful adaptations of the novel. Changes are made when you transfer a book to the screen, depending on what you want to emphasize. Coppola's movie was a fever dream, and as such, I love it. Was it actually "Francis Ford Coppola's version of Bram Stoker's Dracula" as opposed to Bram Stoker's? Well, yes, but you'd have to read the book to get the latter. Perhaps the movie should have been called "Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula", but that's trickier on a teaser poster. :-)
It's like Peter Jackson's LORD OF THE RINGS, which is also a very faithful adaptation, yet the movie changed some elements and emphasized different points and as a result changed certain characters.
These movies are not 100% Stoker or 100% Tolkien, but nevertheless I would say they are fairly faithful adaptations where you can at least recognize the underlying novel, something that cannot necessarily be said for many previous Dracula adaptations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I grew up with the Universal Frankenstein series and still absolutely love them all. To a lesser extent with the Hammers too but had seen all the Universal before I was a teenager, and only relatively recently completed the Hammers.
Bride is absolutely a black comedy compared to the much straighter Frankenstein, but for me both masterpieces. Karloff is incredible in both.
Dracula hasn't fared as well. Both Universal and Hammer take a patchier path. But at least Christopher Lee managed to do most of their series.
Outside those series, I think Frankenstein the True story is pretty good, and Copollas Dracula is too. Special mention for the BBC Louis Jourdan classic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Nov 12, 2024 - 9:30 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Octoberman
(Member)
|
I would disagree. First of all, it's very faithful to the novel. The one major element added by Coppola (and James V. Hart) is the re-incarnation of Mina as his deceased love and the resulting love story. Was that in the book? Nope, but it worked well for the movie (that particular movie actually worked better because of these changes), and nevertheless it was by far one of the more faithful adaptations of the novel. Changes are made when you transfer a book to the screen, depending on what you want to emphasize. Coppola's movie was a fever dream, and as such, I love it. Was it actually "Francis Ford Coppola's version of Bram Stoker's Dracula" as opposed to Bram Stoker's? Well, yes, but you'd have to read the book to get the latter. Perhaps the movie should have been called "Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula", but that's trickier on a teaser poster. :-)
This.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dang, I was hoping this was another breakfast cereal thread. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
I grew up with the Universal Frankenstein series and still absolutely love them all. To a lesser extent with the Hammers too but had seen all the Universal before I was a teenager, and only relatively recently completed the Hammers.
Bride is absolutely a black comedy compared to the much straighter Frankenstein, but for me both masterpieces. Karloff is incredible in both.
Yeah agreed, you summed up Bride for me better than I could. thank you!
Dracula hasn't fared as well. Both Universal and Hammer take a patchier path. But at least Christopher Lee managed to do most of their series.
Lee was great in all of them, but, things did get a little weird as they went on. I still have a soft spot for the two "modern day" 70's films though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coppolla calling his film Bram Stoker's Dracula is an insult.
If the changes he made to the novel were minor I'd be okay with the title, but they were not: they were major plot/character alterations, and the film was worse because of them.
I would disagree. First of all, it's very faithful to the novel. The one major element added by Coppola (and James V. Hart) is the re-incarnation of Mina as his deceased love and the resulting love story. Was that in the book? Nope, but it worked well for the movie (that particular movie actually worked better because of these changes), and nevertheless it was by far one of the more faithful adaptations of the novel. Changes are made when you transfer a book to the screen, depending on what you want to emphasize. Coppola's movie was a fever dream, and as such, I love it. Was it actually "Francis Ford Coppola's version of Bram Stoker's Dracula" as opposed to Bram Stoker's? Well, yes, but you'd have to read the book to get the latter. Perhaps the movie should have been called "Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula", but that's trickier on a teaser poster. :-)
It's like Peter Jackson's LORD OF THE RINGS, which is also a very faithful adaptation, yet the movie changed some elements and emphasized different points and as a result changed certain characters.
These movies are not 100% Stoker or 100% Tolkien, but nevertheless I would say they are fairly faithful adaptations where you can at least recognize the underlying novel, something that cannot necessarily be said for many previous Dracula adaptations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coppolla calling his film Bram Stoker's Dracula is an insult.
If the changes he made to the novel were minor I'd be okay with the title, but they were not: they were major plot/character alterations, and the film was worse because of them.
I would disagree. First of all, it's very faithful to the novel. The one major element added by Coppola (and James V. Hart) is the re-incarnation of Mina as his deceased love and the resulting love story. Was that in the book? Nope, but it worked well for the movie (that particular movie actually worked better because of these changes), and nevertheless it was by far one of the more faithful adaptations of the novel. Changes are made when you transfer a book to the screen, depending on what you want to emphasize. Coppola's movie was a fever dream, and as such, I love it. Was it actually "Francis Ford Coppola's version of Bram Stoker's Dracula" as opposed to Bram Stoker's? Well, yes, but you'd have to read the book to get the latter. Perhaps the movie should have been called "Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula", but that's trickier on a teaser poster. :-)
It's like Peter Jackson's LORD OF THE RINGS, which is also a very faithful adaptation, yet the movie changed some elements and emphasized different points and as a result changed certain characters.
These movies are not 100% Stoker or 100% Tolkien, but nevertheless I would say they are fairly faithful adaptations where you can at least recognize the underlying novel, something that cannot necessarily be said for many previous Dracula adaptations.
The idea of Dracula, young, handsome, sophisticated, traipsing about London with Mina could not be further from Bram Stoker's Dracula (the book). If you like it, fine, but it's not Stoker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
