Haunt Forum banner
Not open for further replies.
1 - 1 of 1 Posts

· Premium Member
7,080 Posts
This is a tough one for me to call. I really think both movies have strong points and weak points. Let's start, shall we?

Bram Stoker's Dracula
Gary Oldman as Dracula was a fantastic choice. He brings a more unique creepiness to the role than any of his predecessors did. Likewise, Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing was another excellent choice. He seems to excel in the role by seeming to take great joy and pride in all things macabre, especially vampire lore.

The choices in Winona Ryder as Mina and Tom Waits as Renfield were less than perfect however. I guess Ryder was "ok" as Mina (Helen Chandler was just "ok" as well), but Waits' Renfield doesn't hold a candle to the insanity of Dwight Frye's portrayal of the immortality-focused madman.

I've never read Stoker's original story, so I can't lay out any comparisons to that, but I think the way the story played out in Tod Browning's original was superior to this one, and that was without the benefit of a soundtrack to enhance mood.

The effects are top-notch as is the score. A very well put together production, despite the flaws I mentioned above.

Interview With the Vampire
I'll start this by saying I'm no fan of Anne Rice. I have a deep dislike of her books and her style in general. Despite that, I actually enjoyed this movie considerably. I hated the book, but loved the movie.

The decision to stray from the book in quite a few areas was very welcome. The homoerotic elements weren't nearly as rampant in the film as in the book, which is fine because it's not really something I'm interested in. I could have done without that stuff altogether, to be honest.

The choice in Tom Cruise as a bloodthirsty vampire seemed odd to me before I saw the movie, but afterwards it just seemed to make sense. Hell, even Pitt's portrayal of the more sympathetic Louis was very well done. The very young Kirsten Dunst also turned in a noteworthy performance.

My only gripe with this movie is it seems to drag in a few places. I think some scenes could have been cut down to move them along better. Also, there were a few encounters Louis had in Europe (in the novel) that could have been included to spice up that portion of the movie. Namely, the encounter he had with the nasty monster-vampire in eastern Europe (I forget exactly where he was). The whole vampire underworld also kind of bored me.

This movie also had a good score and effects. Looking at Neil Jordan's other films, I must say this is the only one in his arsenal that I can say I enjoyed him as a director.

I think I gotta go with Bram Stoker's Dracula. It's a classic story that I think I'll never tire of, whereas the Anne Rice story is something I can take in small doses and in viewings that are few and far between.

Bram Stoker's Dracula - 2
Interview With the Vampire - 0
1 - 1 of 1 Posts
Not open for further replies.