Last week, I talked about the Dracula
sequel. This week, I'm re-examining the original Dracula...once again
on the big screen. 'Bram stoker's Dracula' directed by Francis Ford Coppola, is yet another adaption of the original story. However,
it is by far the most accurate.
Within this movie, Dracula is known as Prince Vlad the Impaler. When Dracula first appears in present time,
he is a very ancient looking gentlemen. His rather interesting hair
gives him the appearance of medieval times, making him stand out a
little in the current time period.
Dracula's shadow is one of the more
interesting features about Coppola's Vampire. It has a mind of its
own, moving on its own accord and makes itself known before the
actual man himself. In one scene of movie, it even tries to strangle
Johnathan Harker without any success since Dracula's physical body
isn't preforming the action.
The Vampire figure within the film
harbors a hatred for Christian icons. His movements are almost
ghost-like in natures as the film progresses and he still has the
ability to scale the walls like a lizard. However, one difference is
that this vampire can still walk around during the day rather than
sleeping in a coffin and rising only in the night.
His transformation into his true form
is a hideous one. No words can describe his physical appearance,
other than down right scary. Perhaps I should show you instead:
Lovely thing, isn't he? Although the
movie was decent, I personally don't think it does justice to the
novel.
What are your thoughts? I'm eager to hear. Check out the trailer:
My knowledge of vampires goes from Interview with a Vampire to, yes, Twilight. It was interesting to read what most people consider the first vampire, Dracula. This looks like a movie I will have to check out to learn more.
ReplyDeleteI find that the movie is definitely great to watch, if you haven't read the book. Then again, that's how it is with many novel turned movies. I will be looking at both Interview with a Vampire and Twilight in one or two of my later posts. I am particularly excited for Interview with a Vampire, because I have heard many good things about the film.
DeleteGary Oldman <3
ReplyDeleteThis will forever be the standard to which I hold all adaptations of Bram Stoker's. It's flawed, yes, but it's still a darkly twisted romance that's enjoyable to watch unfold.
Thanks for sharing!
-J-
This is probably one of my more favored Dracula tales. Like Jarrod said up there it is flawed, but it's still a fantastic vampire movie. It capitalizes on how powerful and flawed they are while still keeping in check how monstrous they are supposed to be.. unlike the glowing "vampires" of the twilight bastardizations.
ReplyDeleteIf your into Stephen king he has a great vampire novel Salem's Lot, which was adapted to film in 197(something) lol sorry, can't remember the exact year. A few mini seris have come and go too there is a 2007 one that stars Rob Low and is awesome...I'm off topic...anyway great post :D
Thanks for your comment Shane, I am actually going to be looking at Salem's lot a little later on. Stephen King is one of my favourite writers and reading his books are always a treat. Thanks for the recommendation. I'll definitely check it out.
DeleteIt really interesting to read such a rich background behind dracula and vampires, in comparison to err the rather sparkly variety we have now in Twilight. Thanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteI am fully planning on analyzing the Twilight vampire too. I think I'll find that rather amusing, haha
DeleteAngela,
ReplyDeleteThe Dracula movies always scared me when I was younger! I got a little bit into True Blood but that's as far as I have gone in terms of following vampire television series. Thank you for sharing.