NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/horror/4996

Text File | 1992-11-18 | 3.5 KB | 66 lines

Newsgroups: alt.horror
Path: sparky!uunet!destroyer!fmsrl7!lynx!nmsu.edu!usenet
From: [e-mail] (THORIN NIELSON)
Subject: Re: BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: New Mexico State University
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:39:32 GMT
Lines: 54

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (mark.r.leeper) writes:

>      As for the acting in this version, it is fairly spotty.  Keanu Reeves
> seems out of place and uncomfortable as Jonathan Harker.  He is the best I
> have ever seen him, but that says very little.  As I said Anthony Hopkins is
> a bit too weird as Van Helsing.  Normally, I would call that the fault of
> the script, but various interviews have indicated that the eccentricity was
> Hopkins's idea and Coppola was amused and went along with it.  Winona Ryder
> really was not too bad as Mina.  Her British accent seemed acceptable to me,
> though likely a Briton might have a different idea.  Of course, she did
> squint her eyes in a scene in which she was supposedly dead, but generally
> she turns in a competent, if lackluster performance.  Then there is Gary
> Oldman as Dracula.  Lon Chaney, Sr., was a very plain-looking man who,
> contrary to expectation, was the best character actor of his generation.
> That same description applies to the man who played Joe Orton, Sid Vicious,
> Lee Harvey Oswald, and Dracula.  This understated actor's range is
> incredible.

This is a very good review.
I saw Dracula at a midnight preview on Thursday the 12th and posted my initial
reactions to it immediately, and this is the first time I have had a chance to
read others' reactions. Since that time, I've thought a lot about the film and
aspects of it that may have seemed unresolved or lacking.

I think what troubles me the most, upon reflection, is the pacing of the movie.
At some moments, it seems to move so slowly, almost lulling one into
disinterest. And at other times, the actions are taking place so quickly,
scenes are blending into one another so abruptly, it takes a marked effort to
keep up. Now this can be rationalized a number of ways, but ultimately it
leaves the ending poorly resolved for my tastes. The chase and subsequent
battle are so exciting, leaving one wondering what exactly he just saw, when
BAM! Hit the breaks, and let the true love motif take over again. I'm not sure
I'm explaining myself well enough, but the pacing was kind of funky.

I agree with the above review of the acting. I do, however, feel like I have a
plausible explanation for the problems. I think all the actors were profoundly
affected by the awesomenes of their endeavour. I think that Reeves and Ryder
were intimidated by the scope of what they were expected to do. I think that
Hopkins reacted with a predictable amount of creativity and verve when faced
with such an interesting person to characterize. And Oldman met the challenge
with all the great tools at his disposal (Oldman fans should watch "Rosencrantz
and Guildenstern are Dead", BTW, for a very different kind of performance).

Criticisms regarding the cinematography, I have to say, I'll dismiss out of
hand. As a graphic designer, I've been faced with many arguments about art and
aesthetic, and Coppola's interpretation is, by far the most interesting and
beautiful that I've seen.

I'm going to go see it again.

Thorin Nielson -