Movies: Dracula, Nosferatu, and other vampires

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

IS the new Nosferatu movie any good?

See the first post of this thread for my thoughts. It mostly has positive reviews.

 

[kihei]

Also, seeing Interview with the Vampire in the same tier as Twilight is wild to me.

As the guy who believes that they belong in the same tier, let me explain my reasoning. I was more bored in Interview with the Vampire than I was in the first Twilight chapter, obviously a very low bar in itself. Why? The only time I got interested was when the Kirsten Dunst part of the narrative was central to the plot. I thought the young Dunst was by far the best thing in the movie, and was the only part of the book that Neil Jordan nailed. Her fate was genuinely troubling, haunting even, the others not.

To me the movie just spun its wheels most of the time, a sketch of the book rather than a convincing adaptation. I was metaphorically twiddling my thumbs a lot of the time while watching it as I remember. Cruise's look was silly, but he did create a character, just not the one from the book. It hurt that there was a potentially great Lestat sitting right there in the movie--Antonio Banderas who had all the darkness, sensuality, and presence that Cruise lacked and that Lestat needed.

Meanwhile, Pitt was still in his teething stage on his way to becoming a real actor, but not there yet, and he seemed like a whiny schoolboy most of the way. The relationship between the two vampires jettisoned the erotic connection in the book and instead portrayed them as bickering flat mates. A lot to this I blame on director Neil Jordan who never really found a satisfactory or cohesive style for adapting the novel. On the whole, despite the occasional striking image, I found the movie a chore to sit through and certainly not superior to at least the first Twilight in any way, shape or form which, while trash, was competently presented.

 

[HanSolo]

As the guy who believes that they belong in the same tier, let me explain my reasoning. I was more bored in Interview with the Vampire than I was in the first Twilight chapter, obviously a very low bar in itself. Why? The only time I got interested was when the Kirsten Dunst part of the narrative was central to the plot. I thought the young Dunst was by far the best thing in the movie, and was the only part of the book that Neil Jordan nailed. Her fate was genuinely troubling, haunting even, the others not.

To me the movie just spun its wheels most of the time, a sketch of the book rather than a convincing adaptation. I was metaphorically twiddling my thumbs a lot of the time while watching it as I remember. Cruise's look was silly, but he did create a character, just not the one from the book. It hurt that there was a potentially great Lestat sitting right there in the movie--Antonio Banderas who had all the darkness, sensuality, and presence that Cruise lacked and that Lestat needed.

Meanwhile, Pitt was still in his teething stage on his way to becoming a real actor, but not there yet, and he seemed like a whiny schoolboy most of the way. The relationship between the two vampires jettisoned the erotic connection in the book and instead portrayed them as and bickering flat mates. A lot to this I blame on director Neil Jordan who never really found a satisfactory or cohesive style for adapting the novel. On the whole, despite the occasional striking image, I found the movie a chore to sit through and certainly not superior to at least the first Twilight in any way, shape or form which, while trash, was competently presented.

I guess that's fair but I could leverage some of the same complaints against Twilight. Sure the plot structure is functional but while Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart have become good actors over time, both their performances were laughably bad and they carry the bulk of the movie. And to me, I'll agree that Interview is dull and a weak adaptation, Twilight as a whole whether you're talking about the book or the movie is badly written both in terms of plot and dialogue. And I'd go a step further and argue that the premise pisses on the mystique and dark nature of vampires in the first place.

Yes both sexualize and make vampires out to be objects of lust and Twilight makes some half assed attempt to present the idea that love with a vampire is dangerous but the Cullen clan is portrayed to be more akin to angels than monsters in the form of people. Meyer, and whomever adapted her novel for the film, bend over backwards to present them as pure hearted "good vampires" who are more like to protect Bella than present any kind of danger to her themselves and it's all done to create a group of otherworldly characters for people to swoon over and fantasize about without any real potential that any of them might be problematic or dangerous. On top of the fact that while a lot of vampire fiction toys with the rules of their vampires' powers and weaknesses, Meyer writes her vampires to have very few to the point that they're basically just superheroes that sparkle in the sun (I never watched or read past the second book, but I have seen reviews and near the end it's revealed that they basically are with different vampires having unique superpowers)

To me Twilight in both forms is little more than schlocky romantic fantasy where the concept of vampirism is more of an afterthought where the Cullens could have been any other kind of otherworldly beings of beauty and charm (say, humanoid aliens like Clark Kent/Superman) and the story wouldn't need to change all that much.

To me, Twilight barely belongs on a list of vampire movies and I do think interview with the vampire is better at least to the extent that the writing is more competent and the mythos dangerous side of vampires is a lot more prominent. But our feelings are subjective so I appreciate the response either way.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

...

...

I've only read the third Anne Rice novel (why the third one? couldn't say), in which Lestat is more comic than dark, so I really can't evaluate the value of Jordan's adaptation. I liked the film (and Cruise's Lestat) quite a bit, but I haven't seen it in such a long time. I appreciate your different positions. Obviously, if you've read and liked the book, a lot of things become inexcusable when they stray away without justification. I thought Twilight was a pretty bad film (and I wouldn't compare it to either Jordan's vampire or (great) werewolf film!), but if you'd just examine it on the spectre of the relationship between sex and vampirism, I think it brings a lot of interesting (even if normative) elements.

 

[DingerMcSlapshot]

IS the new Nosferatu movie any good?

Just watched it. Sucks fairly bad. Started off great. But by halfway things turned bad. Getting continuously worse. Until a laughable ending.

 

[shadow1]

Two whole pages and no one mentioned Dracula in Love?

I've seen a lot of vampire movies, but I think the great ones have all been mentioned. A good one that wasn't mentioned was Brides of Dracula (1960), the second Hammer picture. The first 30 minutes are all-time classic material, but then things become formulaic and predictable. I also like the third Hammer one, Dracula: Price of Darkness (1966). Again flawed, but the scenes in the castle have a great gothic feel. I also think John Carpenter's Vampires (1998) has a strong opening 20 minutes (everything through the motel part) before completely falling apart.

A personal blind spot that I intend to remedy this year is movies from the 1930s and 1940s. Within the context of this thread, Mark of the Vampire (1935), Dracula's Daughter (1936), and Son of Dracula (1943) have positive reputations and were already on my list. I'll report back.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Two whole pages and no one mentioned Dracula in Love?

I've seen a lot of vampire movies, but I think the great ones have all been mentioned. A good one that wasn't mentioned was Brides of Dracula (1960), the second Hammer picture. The first 30 minutes are all-time classic material, but then things become formulaic and predictable. I also like the third Hammer one, Dracula: Price of Darkness (1966). Again flawed, but the scenes in the castle have a great gothic feel. I also think John Carpenter's Vampires (1998) has a strong opening 20 minutes (everything through the motel part) before completely falling apart.

A personal blind spot that I intend to remedy this year is movies from the 1930s and 1940s. Within the context of this thread, Mark of the Vampire (1935), Dracula's Daughter (1936), and Son of Dracula (1943) have positive reputations and were already on my list. I'll report back.

I was waiting for you to come in here!

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

John Carpenter's Vampires (1998) has a strong opening 20 minutes (everything through the motel part) before completely falling apart.

YES! Give me that prequel.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

My recent addition to my vampire watching was ... Twilight Breaking Dawn Part 2.

I'd seen the first movie in this series. The kindest thing I can say is that it's not meant for me. I acknowledge that. I am no where near the target audience. But, even conceding that I would argue it's an objectively poorly made movie. Won't detail its sins, but I do think it is poor quality on top of not being something aimed at me. So I never continued with the series. Never felt compelled to continue with the series.

But over time a few different podcasts I listen to would tout the second Breaking Dawn as a weird and entertaining movie in its own right. So I figured f-it and just jumped right into it and you know what ... it WAS weird and entertaining.

Now, it isn't good. God awful CGI between it's speed running in the adult baby (I'll get back to this). It remains poorly written and oddly paced. I know enough to know they had to be pretty slavishly faithful to the books (unread by me) so I chalk a lot of the flaws up to having no freedom to actually make a movie. You gotta hit the checkpoints. This is, partially, why there is some entertainment value here. There's a long stretch in the middle where they're recruiting vampires from around the world who all basically seem to be the X-Men with their own individual powers. Feels like it's written by a 10 year old kid. It both grinds the movie to a halt (bad) but is also WTF enough to entertain (good). Even features a few recognizable and good actors. They're not good here (though they're not required to do much) but they are recognizable.

So the main characters had a baby in the previous movie. And the wolfboy "imprints' on the baby which means they'll grow up to be a couple which also means it seems like he wants to f*** the baby? THIS IS WEIRD! And they CGI a face on the baby in her various stages of growth. This is bad! But also good.

There's a climactic battle that is very silly, but again, entertaining. I won't spoil but it was genuinely gnarlier than I would have expected from this. And Michael Sheen is a big ol' plate of ham as the big bad guy. This is also good.

So, vampires right?

Still not going to watch the others.

 

[shadow1]

I was waiting for you to come in here!

Completely missed this thread!

 

[Osprey]

Completely missed this thread!

Vampires can't see themselves in mirrors. Perhaps they also can't see threads about them.