Ok, but Coppolas is the best Dracula adaptation!
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Film and Television Discussion
SinisterCreep — 17 years ago(June 15, 2008 10:13 AM)
I've seen a few people say that this is the most faithful Dracula adaptation but even though it is more faithful than most other Dracula flicks I think it's watchable but a bit dull and Louis Jordan like in just about every other Dracula flick has the cape and fangs routine [as if they're all copying the now silly looking Lugosi Dracula] which i think looks camp and pantomime like as it's been parodied so many times and it's also nothing like the books description.
In fact I'd argue that Coppolas Dracula is no less faithful to the book than this film, possibly even more so. they both have their pro's and cons when it comes to faithfulness to the book but even though it has its faults [like all the other Dracula films] Coppolas captures the spirit of the book more than any other adaptation and it's also beautifully filmed. People keep pointing out there's more romance in Coppolas flick and maybe that's true but Dracula still goes after the women in just about every film adaptation and they portray him as a sort of tall dark and handsome womaniser [which is hardly anything like the book] including this one.
It's also more realistic and includes the different incarnations such as the aged Dracula, young Dracula which this version and other film versions don't do.
Spielbergs WOTW is an insult to HG Wells and Russell T Davies is the worst ever Dr Who writer! -
vamtim — 17 years ago(July 17, 2008 09:00 AM)
I agree Wesker26 I was in Whitby in March it's absolutely beautiful, there's such a cool vibe to the place!
Count Dracula in my opinion is a lot truer to the spirit of the book than Coppola's and more entertaining too, the parts with Lucy in Count Dracula are genuinely creepy almost believable. Coppolla in my opinion went way over the top, I do like his film but as good or better than Count Dracula? please. -
eugene1001us — 17 years ago(September 07, 2008 08:07 PM)
I'm sorry. But Lugosi. NEVER wore fangs. Dracula did (Again. You amateur critics must read the book. The fangs and cape WERE there).
Read the book. Then re-watch this movie. Then re-watch the F.F.Copola version.
Then re-post. When you have an intelligent comment to post! -
TheSolarSailor — 16 years ago(May 20, 2009 03:04 AM)
Coppola took lots of various ideas from the book, but basically constructed his own story. It was more faithful than most, but certainly not as faithful as this BBC series was. Coppola did indeed go over the top, and we don't need a love story between Dracula added to the mix in an effort to fix what isn't broken. I was very impressed with the BBC version, though even it is flawed to a degree.
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
-
Gary-161 — 16 years ago(August 06, 2009 05:35 AM)
Coppola's version has a reputation for being the most ridiculous adaption, especially the production design and costumes. I've yet to get past half an hour of it so I can't give a considered judgement but that moment when Dracula grabs a sword and screams "Yeeeargurgle* It is no laughing matter!" at a confused looking Keeanu Reeves, was enough to make me hit the stop button.
I did read a story - maybe apocryphal - that Coppala shut down the set one day when Hopkins and Oldman were trying to out-camp each other. I also recall a documentary on the film which depicted Oldman complaining to Coppola that he couldn't "wing" his performance. He needed guidance. I guess he didn't get it. -
Xcalat3 — 11 years ago(March 24, 2015 04:08 AM)
Coppola took lots of various ideas from the book, but basically constructed his own story. It was more faithful than most, but certainly not as faithful as this BBC series was. Coppola did indeed go over the top, and we don't need a love story between Dracula added to the mix in an effort to fix what isn't broken. I was very impressed with the BBC version, though even it is flawed to a degree.
I agree with this.
Libera te tu temet ex inferis.
pro ego sum diabolus, pro ego sum nex. -
Cult_of_Kibner — 10 years ago(October 22, 2015 10:33 PM)
In fact I'd argue that Coppolas Dracula is no less faithful to the book than this film, possibly even more so.
I'd argue against that vehemently. Coppola's may or may not be the
best
adaptation, but it's definitely not the most
faithful
. It may preserve some details that the 1977 version doesn't but the entire heart of the movie is a love story that didn't even exist in the book. The '77 version is a straight up dramatization; Coppola's version is a reinterpretation. -
MinJeta — 3 months ago(December 28, 2025 02:57 AM)
Coppola's version is completely a reinterpretation, which makes it so aggravating that he insisted on calling it Bram Stoker's Dracula, claiming how faitflhful it was to the novel.
First and foremost Dracula by Bram Stoker is NOT a love story. It is a horror story, with romantic elements. Coppola turned it into a love story with horror elements.
Also Stoker's novel did not have a Vlad the Impaler backstory! Infact the novel had nothing to do with Vlad, whether you agree or not that Stoker took inspiration from there.
The 1977 version remains the truest adaptation - or at least it is as far any I have seen.
"The trouble is most people are twats or cunts. Or both." -
Chicxulub — 3 months ago(December 28, 2025 03:10 AM)
It's a shame, because the Coppola version does have some neat details that were in the novel.
But, I really despise the added love story and the lame origin story for Dracula.
Plus, that armor Gary Oldman wears looks like it's made of pasta shells.