Bram Stoker's Dracula 2 disc set

Bought the blu-ray. Works fine. Not sure why I bought it, since the film sucks, but the lure of Tom Waits in HD was too much to pass up.

I am going to remake this film and call it DEVIN FARACI'S FRANCIS FORD COPPOLA'S BRAM STROKER'S DRACULA

A Tyler Perry film.

Is the transfer better than the Superbit version?

You bought it because it's a great bad film.

I guess I'll rent the piece of shit instead of buying it, for fear of a defect.

I need to save my money anyway, but something about the hazy memories of the last time I watched it plus the new cover-art and the wolf rape brainwarshed me into thinking I needed to buy the shitty thing. shit.

Oh no. I absolutely love this film. It is however a bad one.

When I was a young teen I watched this film in french so it took me quite a while to realize how terrible Keanu Reeves is in this.

Yeah, every disc I try on your player screws up. Fix that already! Scheesh.

I love it too, but my reasons are a love love mixed with love hate. I love Gary Oldman, so that's part of my bonus there. And aside from that, it's one of those bad movies that's lots of fun in its badness.

Keanu's terrible acting is simply covering for Wynona's bad acting.

I never saw the Superbit one -- I haven't owned any DVD of the film. The DVDTalk review of the blu-ray is mixed: http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=30820

To my eyes, the transfer looks the way the film should look -- pushing up the detail and color would be counter to the feel Coppola was going for.

Hmm, I thought her huge tits were covering for her bad acting.

Aside from Keanu Reeves' tortuous attempt to keep his performance from being just above the level of a total fucking disaster, I've never understood why people have it in for this film. I really do love it.

It lurches all over the place. There's no consistency, no straight line of movement in it at all. Feels like it was created by ten different filmmakers working with no communication on different sequences.

I got it last week for some reason, but have yet to pop it in the dvd player. Guess I'd better.

I've never felt that. Visually, it's a very, very busy film, but that's a large part of what I like about it; as Coppola says in the commentary: "the film never stops doing stuff."* It's mercilessly inventive, histrionic, and just gorgeous to look at, and that's what makes it special to me. Now, it's actually not my absolutely favorite Dracula film, per se, (I'm far more partial to the Lee/Cushing Hammer films) but it's certainly my favorite "direct" adaptation of the source material.

*I also appreciated that Coppola was pretty open to discussing all of the behind-the-scenes drama, placing most of the blame on himself.

What happened exactly?

An Oldman / Coppola Molotov cocktail. There's behind-the-scenes footage on the DVD and they don't shy away from showing Coppola on his less than better days. As I said, Coppola admits to bringing a lot of baggage on set, and when you see Oldman ask for a little support from his director, Coppola's reactions aren't exactly measured, he's very resistant (Anthony Hopkins also butted heads with Coppola, but not the extent of Oldman). There's also one piece of Oldman / Coppola footage that isn't on the DVD, but it shows them going at each other's throats in rehearsal and Keanu Reeves doing exactly what he does in the film, standing around looking absolutely lost.

Pretty much. I wanted to love this film, and gave it something like three tries (two in the theater, one on laserdisc). It's a mess. A big, beautiful, empty mess. Made a pretty good coffee table book about costumes, though.

My copy has pixelation problems at the start of some of the chapters. Most notably Chap. 19. I've heard other people have had the same problem.

Seems like it's not that limited to a few cases.

I'm with Jackknife on this film. I've always liked it. I love the look, the sets, the costumes, and especially the throwback special effects. Seeing those techniques used in a modern film gives it a unique feel. Yes, it could use some trimming; trying to fit all of the characters into a normal film running time was suicide. But all in all, I still consider it the strongest adaptation of Dracula yet. I should say, though, that I think that the definitive adaptation has yet to be made.

Costumes: great. Effects: great. Sets: often amazing.

But there's just no way this is a stronger adaptation of Dracula than NOSFERATU. (The silent, not Herzog's, though that has moments.)

Fuck it, I guess I have to write a new retrospective series to argue this point.

Coppola didn't help by pimping this as a "true adaptation of the novel", then tacking on a reincarnated love story lifted from Dark Shadows, for fuck's sake.

The movie is eye porn, no more or less. Best casting of a Reinfield ever, though.

I'd consider that, if he had fuckall to do in the movie. Love Dwight Frye.

The one thing about the film that I really enjoy is that Dracula is portrayed as a potent supernatural force, something not well conveyed in other adaptations. I like Sommer's The Mummy for similar reasons, though I readily acknowledge that neither film is good.

Please do. I'd like to read it. And participate in the debate to follow.

For the record, I love Nosferatu, but the key alterations to the story and characters prevent it from being a proper adaptation of Stoker's novel. I love Lugosi as Dracula, but not so much the film itself. The Hammer films were a little too shy on budget to do the scope of the character real justice for me. And while the 1979 version has its charms (Frank Langella, John Williams), it has too many minuses (Laurence Olivier chief among them) to amount to much.

Okay, so nobody else had any problems with the disc?

Sony's often got compatability issues with players. Dunno if this is connected, but there's an 800 number in this article you could try.

Can't comment on the disc, but I'd happily pick this up any day of the week. It is, as stated above, a beautiful looking film and, while it seems to be populated with actors that are just not up to the job (Reeves, Ryder, Sadie Frost, Cary Elwes), there are moments of unfettered brilliance. Oldman is my very favourite Dracula ever, particularly in his seductive moments. The "See me now" sequence in London and the way he holds Ryder when she drinks his blood for the first time are magnificent and it was pretty much the first time Dracula had been shown as a seducer, rather than just an evil spirit.

Also, Hopkins overacting all over the shop is a joy, particularly his "Ja, ja, she was in great pain so we drove a stake through her heart and cut off her head!" line delivery. And, of course, the three secret weapons of the film: Tom Waits and Monica Bellucci.

Always loved the score and the visual flourishes - Coppola may not have been at the top of his game, but damn if he didn't try - but ultimately, the whole film is undone by a terribly weak final act and those awful casting choices (I smell studio intervention, no?).

No on the casting choices, if you're referring to Reeves. He was a friend of Ryder's, and Ryder was the one who brought Dracula to Coppola to apologize for dropping out of Godfather 3. By the by, outside of Dracula, I'm a Keanu Reeves supporter to a certain degree; I just don't believe he understood his limitations at the time, and he couldn't have done anything with "Jonathan Harker" to save his life.

Swap out Reeves for Depp, and Ryder for ...someone (Uma? Looking at top grossers from 91 and 92, not a lot of 20 year old leading ladies to choose from), clean up that third act, and you'd have something. Much like Lugosi's version, loved that first act.

I'm in the middle of re-reading Dracula and, to be fair, there's not a whole lot to do with the character of Jonathan Harker. He's a milquetoast character, a quintessential reserved Victorian, if ever there was one. Any interesting aspects of the character are over at the point he escapes from Castle Dracula. The rest is up to Van Helsing, Dr. Steward and the others.

Also, I read in an interview awhile ago Keanu Reeves saying he'd been working a lot before Dracula and was very tired. He was supposed to take some downtime but accepted the role because he'd get to play under Coppola. He also said he regretted having accepted the role.

Oh, that's what I was saying, there really is nothing to Harker as he is in the book or in Hart's script, I just think a stronger actor could have sold him better, and maybe, just *maybe* have projected a little more depth. The film itself doesn't have any real emotional depth to it, that much I gladly admit, but I never got the impression that perpetrating relevance was ever even in the back of Coppola's mind anyway.

I was forced to purchase the Blu-Ray version because of the cardboard slipcover. Damn extra packaging. It does me in every time. And because it was only $16.99 - which I wasn't expecting.

The opening scenes really show how easy it is to become a member of the undead. I bet if I said all that stuff I wouldn't become a vampire, I'd just be an asshole.

The movie's easy on the eyes, romantic and introduced me to Gary Oldman and Keanu's sense of humility. I can't help but love it.

Leave it to chud to have countless threads devoted to universally hated movies where everyone admits they have a soft spot for it...


having said that...I LOVE THIS MOVIE AS WELL.

How does the Blu-Ray quality affect Winona Ryder's various see-through nightgowns?

Not significantly. As the review I linked mentions, it's really a standard DVD transfer, but it doesn't pixellate all to fuck when you view at 1080p. There's no significant amount of new/extra detail. Like nipples.

Well, to be fair, you'd probably also have to drink blood from a punctured crucifix.

I thought that opening sequence was spectacular, and really the only worthy thing they added to Stoker's mythology. The follow-through on it with Mina being the resurrection of his wife was weak, but the origin story itself was great.

Thanks Russ. I now know I have no need to upgrade.