...and not just blood. On multiple occasions I had attempted to watch this film for its reputation, and on every one of those occasions, I had the pleasure of a taking a 45 minute nap 15 to 20 minutes into the start of the movie. For this review, I was able to stay awake...I wish I hadn’t. At least when I slept through the film, there was always the possibility that my Art of Film professor from a few years ago and all the raving reviews from critics and film buffs were right in calling this thing a masterpiece. Now that I’ve seen it in its entirety, I know that’s not the case. I know they were just caving to the de facto standard when rating historical films, i.e. overrating; unfortunately, this vampyr has no clothes.
I generally like classic movies, including several silent films, Metropolis comes to mind instantly, but this is just bad. The acting is bad; Hutter’s character is more Bozo the Clown than charming fop, and unfortunately he gets the most screen time. The adaptation is bad; except for the addition of intertwining the plague’s presence with the vampire’s, all the changes made from Stoker’s novel were to the detriment of the film. For the most part, even the mise-en-scène is bad. The one worthwhile scene is the shadow hand of the titular monster creeping up from between poor Ellen’s legs and grasping her heart. Too bad the rest of the film survived after it had been ordered to be destroyed as part of the copyright infringement lawsuit against our visionary filmmakers. Even the segments that were supposed to add elements of the supernatural, the tilting, the dropped frame rate, the use of negatives, were used inconsistently and were overall ineffectual.
While vampire movies are typically bad (a real shame too since I really like the lore) this has to be one of the worst. The filmmakers relied heavily on the fact that they knew their audience would have been familiar with the Dracula story so they neglected to tell their own or even tell what was familiar. Of the terrible changes, the vampire's death has to be one of the worst. Orlock’s death has to be one of the dumbest scenes in film history; having a highly intelligent creature who knows his own weakness is sunlight willfully stand in front of a window just before sunrise makes absolutely no sense, unless of course the damn thing was wanting one final hurrah with a hottie before committing suicide.
While it may be unfair to compare this to modern cinema, or even to the previously mentioned Metropolis, which came out about 7 years later and supersedes it in every way imaginable, it is not unfair to compare this to other similar forms of entertainment of the period that it would be competing with. I’m of course talking about live theater, which was actually entertaining and had performance standards. In fact, 90 years prior to the release of this tripe, Van Goethe had just finished his reworking of Faust, which is equally creepy and still holds up today.
1.5 out of 5 bats in the belfry.
I generally like classic movies, including several silent films, Metropolis comes to mind instantly, but this is just bad. The acting is bad; Hutter’s character is more Bozo the Clown than charming fop, and unfortunately he gets the most screen time. The adaptation is bad; except for the addition of intertwining the plague’s presence with the vampire’s, all the changes made from Stoker’s novel were to the detriment of the film. For the most part, even the mise-en-scène is bad. The one worthwhile scene is the shadow hand of the titular monster creeping up from between poor Ellen’s legs and grasping her heart. Too bad the rest of the film survived after it had been ordered to be destroyed as part of the copyright infringement lawsuit against our visionary filmmakers. Even the segments that were supposed to add elements of the supernatural, the tilting, the dropped frame rate, the use of negatives, were used inconsistently and were overall ineffectual.
While vampire movies are typically bad (a real shame too since I really like the lore) this has to be one of the worst. The filmmakers relied heavily on the fact that they knew their audience would have been familiar with the Dracula story so they neglected to tell their own or even tell what was familiar. Of the terrible changes, the vampire's death has to be one of the worst. Orlock’s death has to be one of the dumbest scenes in film history; having a highly intelligent creature who knows his own weakness is sunlight willfully stand in front of a window just before sunrise makes absolutely no sense, unless of course the damn thing was wanting one final hurrah with a hottie before committing suicide.
While it may be unfair to compare this to modern cinema, or even to the previously mentioned Metropolis, which came out about 7 years later and supersedes it in every way imaginable, it is not unfair to compare this to other similar forms of entertainment of the period that it would be competing with. I’m of course talking about live theater, which was actually entertaining and had performance standards. In fact, 90 years prior to the release of this tripe, Van Goethe had just finished his reworking of Faust, which is equally creepy and still holds up today.
I have a fond place in my heart for Dracula, and this film does it shame. After watching this for the first time, German audience’s were probably the ones to coin the phrase, “the book is better.” In fact, Dracula Dead and Loving It is better.
1.5 out of 5 bats in the belfry.
Dracula was a pretty good book. :D
ReplyDeleteLaugh out loud (good) review.
ReplyDelete