A while ago I mentioned that I'd somehow bought far too many (I.E. 2) films featuring a certain actor who is not exactly renowned as being very good. I also mentioned that in one case this was because I'd forgotten he was even in the film. Some may find this silly, but at the end of the day when you think about Bram Stoker's Dracula you think about Gary Oldman. It's a simple fact that his performance as Dracula overshadows pretty much everyone else in the movie, for good or for ill.
It's been more years than I'd care to estimate since I'd seen the movie, so when I decided to go old school movie shopping Dracula was basically at the top of my list. There are certain films that you simply need to own or hand in your goth licence. I'm not sure I actually have one of those anymore, but the point still stands. Mainly I wanted to get a few films from adolesence and see how they held up to my now jaded sensebilities.
It's hard to imagine, but the copyright on the credits was 1992. Just let that sink in for a second. Thats, what? 18 years now. It seems unreal when you put it like that. Does the film still hold up these days?
Why do people ask questions like that. There are things that don't have a sell by date, and cinema is one of them. This, by anyones standards (at least anyone that doesn't suck) a good film. As I said before the whole film is rooted in the unterly compelling performance of Gary Oldman, but even beyond that there's the delightfully batshit Van Helsing played Anothy Hopkins. I nearly forgot about him as well. And the Richard E Grant pops up! Seriously, when was he in it. Then of course there's Keanu. Well, bless him, he's trying. Not exactly the most lively character, but then I think he is supposed to be a bit uptight. And the accent could have been worse. Perhaps he's spent the rest of his career since Bill & Ted underacting to make up for overacting in that? I dunno, quite how anyone ever thought he was leading man material I'll never know, but honestly I can't really rip into him too much here. maybe he wasn't as bad I was expecting, maybe it was just that everything else is working so well it kind of makes up for it. It's interesting to note that you get more animation out of him in the extras than I have ever seen him emote on screen.
The extras are worth mentioning as they do add a bit of depth to the proceedings. Particularly the piece on the effects work. I admit I'd never been aware of the focus on in camera effects work that this production had, being young and naive at the time. But now being old and bitter but a tremendous fan of physical effects work this reall added a huge sense of appreciation to what was shown on screen. No green screens or digital trickery, just imaginative and creative work. And of course it looks fantastic. I'd never even twigged before that it was all shot in the studio either. There's something epically grandiose about just BUILDING all that. A lost era perhaps, but one I'm happy to revisit whenever I can.
I don't need to talk about the story, do I? You KNOW the story. Though I will say that I certainly picked up on the subtext a lot more than back when I was just in it for the cool vampires. Which is odd when you consider the sheer amount of boobies in the film. Seriously, how'd I never notice that?
This is still a really good film, but more than that it's one that you really can't believe you don't own when you finally get around to thinking about it. Which is kind of odd I suppose, because it's certainly a classic. It's possibly the only film I'm familiar that rally seems to get both the seductive and bestial natures of the vampire subject matter. Sure, Dracula can be very seductive and sexy and even romantic, but he's still SCARY. I'm sure theres a metaphor for the nature of man in there if you want to look, but I'm tired. Most importantly it's a vampire with some actual balls. Something that seems to be lacking in this day and age.
No comments:
Post a Comment