reedermike

First, for those who complain that this is really NOT Bram Stoker''s Dracula, give it a rest. It is Coppola's take on Stoker's novel, and he's entitled to his own creative license. That said, this is undoubtedly the most faithful adherence to the major elements of the novel, as well as it's narrative structure, ever put on screen. As for the film, it is from start to finish a tour de force in cinematic genius. Coppola's use of archaic special effects in place of the ubiquitous CGI contributes to the gothic feel of the movie, and the set pieces, score, and costumes lend it an operatic quality that is quite simply astounding. The pace is relentless, driving you toward the dramatic finish that with the exception of the PBS version starring Louis Jourdan has never been put on any screen. Oldman does something with the role that until now would have been deemed impossible. He replaces Bela Lugosi as the big screen's iconic version that everyone will now always associate with the character. For my money and many others, Oldman is the greatest actor we've seen since Lawrence Olivier, and the emotional depth and technical brilliance he brings to this role is beyond compare. It is also remarkably faithful to Stoker's vision of the count. And for those who complain about the romantic and occasionally erotic elements Oldman and Coppola bring to the character and the script, go back and read the book, and don't just do so literally. Read between the Victorian-era lines. When Dracula''s brides tell him he's incapable of love, he replies,, "I too can love, and can love again." (The movie lifts that line, as it does so many others, directly from the book.) And as Stephen King has noted, the scene with those brides and Harper in the book leaves no doubt than in addition to being drained of his blood, Harker is in the throes of sexual ecstasy. All Coppola does in his few departures from the book is fill in the blanks. This is the definitive Dracula and is highly unlikely to ever be surpassed. Oldman should have walked away with the best actor Oscar, and it is one of the great injustices in Academy history that he was not even nominated. Put it down to the Academy's pretentious disdain for both horror and comedy. Bottomline, this is by far the greatest film adaptation of the greatest horror novel ever written. It puts to shame in every way the boring, repulsive and pretentious 2024 remake of "Nosferatu." It is a visual treat, a relentless thriller, and a showpiece for one of the greatest dramatic performances you wlll ever see on screen.

Finally got around to watching this last night after having intended to see it in the theater. I'm glad I saved the money. How anyone could be rating this tedious redux above Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" is inexplicable. First, it's even more obvious watching this than the 1922 original why Stoker's widow filed a lawsuit for copyright infringement. It really does follow 90% of the plot line of Stoker's novel, with the few changes obviously intended to avoid legal action. Unfortunately, those changes are also the weakest part of the story line, making this a pale imitation of Stoker' plot. The failure that represents is most obvious with its ending. I won't go into details to avoid spoilers, but while Stoker's climactic ending is thrilling and fulfilling, this is simply a repulsive letdown. Suffice to say that while Stoker gives us an intrepid band of vampire hunters willing to put their lives on the line to protect Mina's immortal soul, this plot relies on the main vampire hunter allowing the heroine to prostitute herself to save his skin. Really uplifting. "Nosferatu" does have some redeeming qualities. It's well shot with some excellent cinemaphotography and costuming that provides a genuinely gothic look and feel. But again, it pales in comparison to the lush, operatic production of Coppola's film, and the swift pacing and cinematic flourishes Coppola delivers leaves this film in the dirt. And then there's the one character any "Dracula" movie hangs on, and that is the count (or in this case "nobleman") himself. In place of the charismatic and multifaceted Dracula that both Coppola and Gary Oldman gave us, Bill Skarsgard gives us a one-note, rotting corpse. He's menacing, but that's all that he is. In the book, when Harker initially arrives at Dracula's castle, he finds him strange and weird, but he is also charmed by the count's old-world manner and is enchanted by his enthusiasm in recounting the deeds of his ancestors and the history of his country. If you haven't read the book, just watch Oldman's performance, because he captures the character perfectly. We also see Dracula grow younger as he arrives in London and feeds off Lucy, and in his encounters with Van Helsing and the other vampire hunters we see the power of his personality and intelligence. Again, with Skarsgard, we get a shuffling, wheezing, rotten corpse. The end result is that "Nosferatu" pulls off what until now I would have believed impossible. It makes the story of Dracula boring. And that is this movie's biggest sin. Bottomline, it's a bore. It's not really terrible, but it's certainly not very good, and by the time you're midway through it, you're simply bored to tears. What a letdown after such a huge buildup.

This is the first of three films starring Warren Williams as Perry Mason (two others would follow sans Williams). Mason author Erle Stanley Gardner famously disliked Hollywood's treatment of his stories and character, and while the other movies in this series strayed pretty far into comedic territory, I honestly don't know what Gardner's problems were with this one. As a fan who's read nearly every one of the books, this movie nails the plot and Williams gets every essential of Mason right, including his willingness to go right up to the line of the law and a little beyond to serve his client. For some reason the producers/writers used a different name for the D. A. and while several detectives work on Mason's behalf, there's no Paul Drake. Mason also runs a larger office than he does in the books, but those are pretty minor departures considering how much they got right (including Sgt. Holcomb). Despite a complicated plot (mirroring the book) the movie is well-paced, well-acted and keeps you riveted throughout. Nice ending, too, which would probably never have been allowed once the Hayes office started ruining pictures with its ridiculous censorship. All in all, a really good entry in the Mason pantheon.