Hello? Is anyone home? Should I take my shoes off, or...?
I was told this is where we'd start the eighth season.
Echo! Now batting for the Boston Red Sox...
Jesus, I thought this guy was a count - doesn't he ever clean this place?
Woah. Excuse me! I didn't see you stalking me like a creeper.
I am Dracula.
Oh, sorry - where are my manners. I'm Jonathan Harker... I mean, Jonathan Paula - I'm here
to critique some vampire films.
I bid you welcome.
Eh, you might not be so welcoming after you hear my review.
Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make.
Speaking of music, what are your thoughts on the intro theme?
... okay then! This is Movie Night!
Hello, and welcome a brand new season of "Movie Night" - back, and better than ever, I'm your
host, Jonathan Paula. I've got a new haircut, new suit, and finally - a teleprompter. So
prepare yourself for lots of unbroken eye contact! Tonight, we'll kick off the eighth
season by taking our fourth look at horror films, by focusing on vampire movies. More
specifically, ones about the famous blood-sucking count known as "Dracula", first introduced
by Bram Stoker in his 19th century novel of the same name. Although the Irish author didn't
invent the concept of vampires, this gothic novel helped define and popularize its modern
form - which has led to dozens and dozens of adaptations, including tonight's five movies
which were all instrumental installments in this character's development over the past
century. In chronological order, we'll begin with the picture that started it all - and
the oldest movie we've ever reviewed on the show, "Nosferatu".
Silent, but deadly. The 94 minute German Expressionist horror film from director F. W. Murnau was
released in March of 1922, becoming a huge success in America when it was released stateside
over seven years later. Although "Nosferatu" was not the first film adaptation of Bram
Stoker's famous 1897 "Dracula" novel - it is the oldest version to have survived to
present day. Which is a bit serendipitous, as all copies of the film were supposed to
have been destroyed, after a court decided this unauthorized adaptation infringed on
Stoker's copyright. Prana Films may have been sued out of existence for creating this early
example of gothic cinema - but it was totally worth it.
Nearly a century old, this silent film is obviously a difficult one to judge subjectively
- but the story is still a fascinating one; in 19th century Germany, an unwitting real
estate apprentice - played by Gustav von Wangenheim - becomes entangled with the titular vampire
- who has been killing nearby townsfolk at nightfall. Shot with long wide shots, and
using bright color-tinting to represent day and night - the old celluloid still looks
remarkably well. Plus, there are some genuinely haunting and compelling moments here - especially
Wangenheim's evening scare from the titular vampire.
Despite appearing on-screen for only nine minutes, the pale-faced, big-eared Count Orlock
played by Max Schreck is a terrifying character. As his tall shadow creeps along the walls
of his secluded castle, you can sense the dread from our silent protagonist as this
blood-sucking demon nears. Hardly scary by today's standards, but still decidedly unsettling,
"Nosteratu" is a superbly influential classic with memorable moments and images - and necessary
viewing for all cinephiles; a COOL movie. Next up, "Dracula".
Memorable moments, but dreadfully slow. One of the earliest picture's in Universal Studios'
famed "horror line-up", this vampire-themed picture was released in February of 1931.
Directed by Tod Browning, the $355,000 picture focuses on the reclusive Count Dracula, who
travels to England to prey upon a young woman.
Continuing the role he perfected in Hamilton Deane's stage-version of this story, Bela
Lugosi stars as the ancient vampire in perhaps the character's most iconic portrayal. His
clean cut hair, welcoming charm, and long dark cape provide an air of mystery and intrigue
to the villainous character. When he's tricked into looking at a mirror by Dr. Van Helsing
(played by Edward Van Sloan) his violent reaction plays a bit childish and silly, but turns
to frightening quite quickly. The oft-repeated close-up of Lugosi's unblinking stare are
a bit chilling as well.
During his introductory scene at his large and empty castle, he famously comments on
the howling wolves roaming outside, "Listen to them. Children of the night. What music
they make." - a terrifically memorable quote that has remained a fixture in almost every
adaptation of the story. The same can't be said for the rest of the dialogue however,
which feels kind of hammy; spoken between awkward pauses with decidedly stilted performances.
I'm willing to give older black-and-white films like this the benefit of the doubt,
but some of these line-deliveries really are inexcusable.
Even though sound had been married to picture four years prior, it's evident that this film
was produced during the early years of "the talkies"; besides the opening credits scored
to "Swan Lake" there's virtually no music throughout the short 74-minute film. The result
is huge, unbroken sections of silence. Even true 'silent' films at least have ambient
background music - whereas "Dracula" suffers from distracting 'dead air'. Allegedly, the
reason for this is because it was believed the audience would not accept or understand
non-digetic orchestration. So indeed, the only scene in the entire movie with music
is during a visit to the theater.
Fortunately, what "Dracula" lacks in sound, it makes up for with sight - as every scene
is impeccably, and beautifully lit, with the 4:3 frame shadowed by a vignette. The set
design is especially impressive - with large examples of gothic architecture on display.
Strictly speaking, this is a 'horror' film, but I have a hard time believing even those
in the 1930s would have been scared by anything seen here. Disappointingly, the movie never
actually shows the 'deed' - with each act of neck-biting proceeding at a comically slow
pace before fading out to the next scene.
After a compelling first act, the remainder of the picture fails to deliver any more intrigue.
Mandatory viewing for horror-fans, this pioneering effort may not be very entertaining or frightening,
but it's still quite memorable. "Dracula" isn't as enjoyable as its lofty reputation
would suggest - but it's an ALRIGHT film.
No official sponsor for tonight's episode - so I thought I'd do some self-promotion
for Jogwheel's official merchandise store, ThatReference.com. If you want to be comfortable,
show off your favorite movie quote, and help support "Movie Night" - check out the 25-custom
T-shirts, personally designed by yours truly. They're available in sizes from small to double-XL,
can ship internationally and start at just $19 each. So click the link below to pick
up some cool movie-inspired clothing! Okay, thanks for indulging me, let's talk about
"Horror Of Dracula".
Straightforward and competent. Produced on small budget of only £81,000, this Terence
Fisher horror film was released in May of 1958. Unsurprisingly, this updated remake
was an international hit - and helped Hammer Films secure the rights to Universal's entire
library of horror classics. The first entry in a nine-picture series, the short 82-minute
feature wastes no time getting right to the blood-sucking action; which is on display
in vibrant Technicolor. After vampire hunter John Van Eyssen going missing after accepting
a job at the Count's lavish castle, Peter Cushing as Dr. Van Helsing begins an investigation
to find him.
Although top-billed, the sharply-dressed Cushing doesn't appear until a third of the way into
the 82-minute picture - but his commanding presence and authorities intellect make him
a worthy hero. There have been dozens of interpretations of the Van Helsing character over the years,
but Cushing's steadfast turn is definitely my favorite.
Opposite him as the titular vampire is English legend Sir Christopher Lee. His menacing performance
is outstanding and occasionally scary, but he's regretfully absent for most of the middle
hour. Beneath his welcoming facade is a layer of contempt and lust, as he almost mockingly
wishes his guest goodnight with a dismissive, "Sleep well, Mr. Harker." - one of only thirteen
lines for him in the entire film. The two future Star Wars villains make for an excellent
pairing - especially during their intense final showdown, capped off with some marvelous
special effects work.
Elsewhere is Michael Gough - whom you likely know as "Alfred" in the Michael Keaton Batman
films - as the husband of Dracula's victim. His partnership with Cushing borders on a
full-on bromance, but their analytic approach to the mysterious forces at work is reasonably
interesting. There's nothing particularly showy or even memorable in this picture - but
it's even-keeled approach means it doesn't make many mistakes either. "Horror Of Dracula"
is a serviceable and fascinating vampire procedural - and a GOOD film. Now, my review of another
remake, "Nosferatu The Vampire".
Boring and unnecessary. From acclaimed director Werner Herzog , this West German vampire horror
film saw limited release in France in 1979, before expanding internationally later that
year. A stylistic remake of the silent film from 1922, this PG-rated feature closely follows
the same story; after imprisoning a real estate clerk in his Transylvanian castle a vampire
embarks towards Germany to feast on his next victim.
After opening with a decidedly creepy credits montage of real-life mummies and skeletons,
the 107 minute film settles in, and practically falls asleep. I know I almost did. Unlike
every other adaptation - which introduces Dracula within the first few scenes - this
movie starts off extremely slow, with nearly 30 minutes passing before we see the pale-skinned
vampire. This opening act may help draw the viewer in, and set the mood - but at a certain
point, it's like, "just get on with it already".
This time around, the Count is portrayed by Klaus Kinski in a lonely and somewhat sympathetic
turn, as he laments, "Not being able to grow old is a terrible thing." This is a more timid
and soft-spoken vampire than we've seen before. Wearing his best Willy Wonka cosplay, Bruno
Ganz stars opposite as the familiar estate agent - whom just isn't given much to do besides
reacting to his increasingly bizarre surroundings. Speaking of the environments though, they're
actually quite beautiful and haunting. The picturesque European countryside is on full
display in the steady 16x9 frame, while dark shadows hang throughout the gothic interiors.
Normally, you'd think adding sound, more locations, color, and additional backstory would make
any remake quantifiably better - but you'd be wrong. Compared to the inventive original,
this is a drawn-out, self indulgent imitation. And you can tell the film is poorly-paced
as this exact same plot worked perfectly fine with a narrative half as long. It's clear
Herzog has reverence for the material (even claiming in a radio interview that "Nosferatu"
is the greatest German film of all time), but this adaptation unfortunately offers nothing
new. Indeed, the film's most effective moments come when it's directly recreating scenes
from the 1922 version. Seriously, that scene of Dracula creeping up on Ganz's bed is the
stuff of nightmare fuel.
But cutaway shots of slow motion bats with the moody sounds of a church hymnal playing
in the background? Much too avant-garde for me. This poorly conceived, overly indulgent
and largely unnecessary remake just isn't something I enjoyed watching. But that's just
me! If you think there's something about this so you can appreciate them by all means check
it out. Especially if you can tolerate its glacial pace. Many of the allowances and slack
I gave the original, sadly don't apply here - so I have to score "Nosferatu The Vampyre"
a THREE out of ten. Our last film of the evening is "Bram Stoker's Dracula".
Detrimentally ambitious. Directed by legendary auteur Francis Ford Coppola, this romantic
horror film collected a $215 million dollar cume above its $40 million dollar budget.
Released in November of 1992, the R-rated story follows the title character during a
trip to England, where he attempts to seduce a visitor's fiancée because she resembles
his long-lost love.
The high-profile adaptation is loaded with a star-studded cast; Gary Oldman is truly
believable as the tortured villain, even beneath layers of make-up and hair; Winona Ryder is
beautiful and conflicted as his young girlfriend; Anthony Hopkins is commanding as the resourceful
vampire hunter; while Keanu Reeves - and his shoddy English accent - is badly miscast as
the dumbfounded gent caught between all three. Special attention needs to be made to Oldman
and Reeves - the former brings heartfelt anguish and gravitas to his complicated role, while
the latter is grossly out of his depth in every scene they share. Coppola reportedly
cast the young actor because he needed a hot star that female audiences would fawn over.
Oops.
The 128-minute narrative opens with overtly artistic imagery of an ancient battle with
soldiers and corpses silhouetted against a large orange sunset. The film remains visually
unique from then on; from the vibrant costumes to the lavish set design. The style is dark
and gothic, but also saturated and alive. With special attention made to the film's
many transitions and dissolves. These effects are especially impressive since they were
all achieved with in-camera techniques like forced-perspective miniatures or double-exposure.
In fact, there's just a single post-production effect in the entire movie. The film also
faithfully incorporates the multiple diary narratives from the novel as well.
Indeed, as its name would suggest - this adaptation breaks with decades of cinematic tradition
by strictly adhering to Stoker's original story, and unfortunately - it's not always
for the best. The multitude of 'rules' and world-building inherent to that expansive
story tend to bog-down the already overloaded film. There's just too many moving parts.
Some of the long-dormant elements re-introduced include Dracula's ability to turn into a green
mist, or survive in daylight unharmed.
By focusing more of the story on Dracula's romantic desire, Coppola gives the narrative
some emotional weight, but the scenes between Oldman and Ryder just don't work. After declaring
that, "I have crossed oceans of time to find you", I can believe this centuries-old vampire
would lust for a cute goth chick that looks like his dead wife - but the chemistry they
share just doesn't sell this passion. And ultimately, a romance without a convincing
relationship cuts out the bottom out of the film.
There's a lot of interesting and engaging moments in this picture - but it's not nearly
as cohesive or rewarding as it should be. The most sexualized and gory adaptation yet,
this is still required viewing for all fans of vampire films. "Bram Stoker's Dracula"
is provocative and inventive, but decidedly inconsistent. I thought it was a COOL film.
That does it for tonight's episode, but my vampire reviews continue next week in part
two of this season-opening special, so I hope you'll join me for that. Until then, you can
click this information-icon if you'd like to watch some related videos. Once again,
my name is Jonathan Paula, thanks for watching and have a good Movie Night!