Its a trend....

[Despare]

I don't understand why people lack the inability to enjoy a good popcorn flick once in a while. Jerry B. doesn't churn out classics but he has some fun flicks and it seems like everybody needs every movie they watch to be an instant classic. I try to mix my movies up, watch something fun and stupid just for he hell of it. Some people are just too picky.

[Zero]

Originally posted by The_Return
Ok man, that's my cue.


Dracula, 1931 version, is an anazing film. Lets start with these "bad sets", shall we? From the opening shot of the Transylvanian mountains, to the final shot, John and Mina walking up the stairs of Carfax Abbey, they sets are beautiful. Dracula's castle was filled to the turrets with atmosphere, the cobwebs were a great touch. . . . question be known as one of the best of all time.

Basically, your decision of using Dracula as an example exposes many of the flaws of the modern day horror "fan". The Need to be shown everything, the utter lack of imagination. And, in my own personal opinion, lack of taste [Ok, maybe thats a bit too far;)]

Ok, Im tired...long enough rant for now. Dracula's defender must rest.

[Zero]

OK - sorry for previous - I had written a huge, long response to Return and then stupidly screwed up and deleted it just as I was posting. Out of exhaustion I'll just quickly summarize:

I totally respect your opinion about Dracula - and I would agree that it is the most important horror film in American history. . . but I can't agree that its a masterpiece as a film-in-itself.

The opening act of Dracula sets up with thunder and wonder but then really lets down in the second and third acts. The sets are wooden and the shots are remarkably static (compare to the spanish language version shot on the same sets and one can see how much more dynamic and innovative they were in terms of cinematography). The acting has its moments - Van Sloan is consistently good as is Chandler and Lugos is in his own world - but much of it is either hammy (here I'd put Frye ) or awkwardly wooden (the rest of the cast).

For me, the easy comparison is to Frankenstein, which is much more sophisticated in terms of the visual and the narrative. I don't think Dracula can even begin to compare -as a film- to Whale's Frankenstein. But, that makes Dracula all the more intriguing - why did this film, which even contemporary critics did not embrace and found too stagey and disappointing, become the fountainhead from which American horror sprang?

(p.s. = thanks for the most intelligent discussion I've seen since I've been here).

[The_Return]

Originally posted by Zero
OK - sorry for previous - I had written a huge, long response to Return and then stupidly screwed up and deleted it just as I was posting. Out of exhaustion I'll just quickly summarize:

I totally respect your opinion about Dracula - and I would agree that it is the most important horror film in American history. . . but I can't agree that its a masterpiece as a film-in-itself.

The opening act of Dracula sets up with thunder and wonder but then really lets down in the second and third acts. The sets are wooden and the shots are remarkably static (compare to the spanish language version shot on the same sets and one can see how much more dynamic and innovative they were in terms of cinematography). The acting has its moments - Van Sloan is consistently good as is Chandler and Lugos is in his own world - but much of it is either hammy (here I'd put Frye ) or awkwardly wooden (the rest of the cast).

For me, the easy comparison is to Frankenstein, which is much more sophisticated in terms of the visual and the narrative. I don't think Dracula can even begin to compare -as a film- to Whale's Frankenstein. But, that makes Dracula all the more intriguing - why did this film, which even contemporary critics did not embrace and found too stagey and disappointing, become the fountainhead from which American horror sprang?

(p.s. = thanks for the most intelligent discussion I've seen since I've been here).

Surprisingly enough, I havnt seen Whale's Frankenstein, although I would very much like to. Been meaning to pick up the Legacy collection, but havnt got around to it yet....Anyway, back to Dracula :)

I do agree that the second act is rather slow in many parts, but the opening and climax more than make up for for it, in my opinion.

Yes, Frye is incredibly hammy...but is that not the point? The character is completly, utterly, irrevocably insane! None on this Earth will every be able to play a lunatic as well as Frye. In the opening moments, while Renfield is still realativly sane, we unfortunatly learn that he really isnt a very good actor when it comes to NOT being a lunatic.

I own the Spanish version, but havnt had a chance to check it out. I plan to in the near future, so Ill get back to you on that.

[Zero]

Cool - -

The spanish language version is pretty funny and awful in its own ways- the guy who plays dracula is ridiculous - seems to be playing for laughs. . . . BUT, the camera works is great. The story, as I understand it, is that the spanish crew got to watch the dailies from the Browining shoot and then would copy the cool shots and come up with more daring versions for others.

[filmmaker2]

I liked the Spanish language version quite a little bit!