Dracula 1931 vs Dracula 1992....ish?

going with the Stamp to start this review out. I'd hate to start out the review like this because this is a comparative work, but it's funny to think of how much Bela Lugosi influenced our image of vampires and how little that's changed in almost 100 years now. Before Bela Lugosi's Dracula vampires were not sexy, I would like to point out THIS is what people used to think of vampires.

How Max Shreck EVER got laid as a vampire is beyond me. But Bela Lugosi? you can see it in his trip to the opera in like the third scene of Dracula from 1931, women were just DYING(haha) to polish his stake? oh my god that sentence made me want to kill myself and almost die laughing at the same time.

Ok, so it's easy to say Dracula from 1931 is the better film, but honestly is it? the 92 dracula had some GREAT and I don't use that term lightly but it had some absolutely wonderful aspects to it. this is going to be a rant, so hold on and let's look at which is better at least for this time of year.

Score: this is an easy place to start, Dracula from 1931 barely had any music and what music they did have was reworked and remastered for 1992 just to show you the comparison of the main theme here. 1931 vs 1992 the 1992 vs is more ominous, I think the 1931 version is the better song, but the score through out the film is better and borrows just enough to tie it to the original while in it's own way making something new. so score goes to 1992. BTW, the Phillip Glass score that comes with the 1931 universal edition, 1992 still wins.

1992:1 1931:0

So comparing the Dracula's Gary Oldman vs Bela Lugosi

This is almost a draw, Gary Oldman really did a wonderful job in the most recent adaptation (that was memorable and not awful) of Dracula, he was sexy, he was evil, he was gary oldman 20 years ago. I'd hate to be predictable here, but Bela Lugosi really is the only reason Gary Oldman was able to portray Dracula the way he did. point goes to 1931 and Bela, this did end up being the role that defined him, no one else has had the same effect on cinematic history.

1:1 TIE GAME!

Special effects: this is another easy one, the 1992 version had practical effects but at no point did you think everything was fake. A lot of the special effects in the 1931 version take place off screen meaning they're not special....or even effects...they're just people going "look a wolf over that way!" They have some incredible transformations, a significant amount of the budget was put in to costumes and scenery and it shows. If anything can be said about the 1992 version of Dracula, it's a BEAUTIFUL film, problems? yes, but pretty? FUCK YEAH! point here goes to 1992.

2:1

side Characters: The presence of Reeves as Harker, and Ryder as Mina make me just want to say 1931 and move on. I'll also say Dwight Frye does a WONDERFUL job as Renfield. BUT then again Anthony Hopkins is the superior Van Helsing. while Edward Van sloan was maybe more believable as a professor who spent his life studying the undead, Anthony Hopkins could more believably fuck shit up, and Lucy, who has literally 1 scene in the old one, takes a more important role in the 1992 film and you actually feel for her when she's killed by the wolf Gary Oldman. I'm gonna go tie here based on the strength of side characters from both films. this is in fact was the only one that wasn't clear cut for me, despite Keanu Reeves trying to speak in an english accent for 2 hours....seriously 2 hours of trying to listen to that man speak in an english accent! FUCK IT!

2:2 point goes to 1931 for side characters FUCK YOU REEVES! Yeah! I totally owned you on my blog...yeah.

Story? it's pretty much the same, 1992 adds more motivation for Dracula making him a more believable character and making the movie more understandable as a result. The 1931 version is pretty much just Van Helsing VS Dracula and it's hard to care about anyone in it. Don't get me wrong, I watch this film pretty regularly, I like it A LOT! Personal bias aside the 1992 film was just better scripted.

3:2 1992

While the original is well worth seeing, and in it's own right a great film, the 1992 one, while it is flawed as well is the better film. I know this doesn't seem to convincing, and a lot of fans of the 1931 film will argue that it's the superior film, but while I won't deny the other it's place in cinema history, I won't sit her deny a film, which was great in it's own right, it's place in history. If you're looking for 1 dracula to watch this halloween, watch the spanish version.....wait! I still haven't Reviewed that one!

Don't Be Afraid of the Dark

My position as a member of the media allowed me to gain access to a special screening of the newest film from Guillermo Del Toro's production company......and by that I mean it came out today, or yesterday when I saw it and it's carried over until today. So I got to see it, meerrghghg. That's frustrated for I guess it was ok but I was kinda hoping for more.

So the movie starts off, I'm kinda assuming it's 1804 because later in the movie Guy Pearce mentions that a coin his daughter found appears to be from 1804. What does this have to do with the plot? I guess it's to help establish its kinda a long time ago, seriously like they just kinda casually mention "hey this coin might be from 1804......weird...so how was your day?" So either way so I kinda assume this part of the film takes place in 1804, that's not really here nor there though so moving along. Either way, a woman is cleaning some old asshole's room when he rings the bell for her and uses a wire to trip her on the stairs removes her teeth and feeds them to little demony things that we don't see at this point in the movie. This part of the film is very gritty, this is good and bad in my opinion. First, this is it, it's as gritty as this film gets. Which, you'd think being like your first scene in the movie you'd want to set precedence for the rest of your movie but you're not. never again is this film that disturbing. For me personally that's a good thing I don't like torture porn, but then why have this there? whatever I don't really know again moving on. Flash forward to many years in the future....I'm not sure where, somewhere between the 1980's and yesterday 1230am. Why? Well they had a polaroid camera and like used it for family photos and what not, but the clothes, the cars, pretty much everything kinda is pretty modern. And I'm not complaining so much, but the polaroid camera becomes a main plot point in this film and who the fuck owns a polaroid camera this day and age? outside of a state fair where have you seen a polaroid camera? Again, not really a big deal but it bothered me at no point do you really know where you are and there's a lot of contradiction and it bothered me, I don't need to be told "this movie takes place in 1995 between may and july" but I would like to see it and think "oh it's sometime in the 80's" a really good example is super 8, at no point did they say "it's 1979" although apparently it was 1979 and I narrowed it down to 78-81 based on some things that were thrown in. So yeah, FUCK YOU! I'm starting a new paragraph because I really gotta move on and I kinda think that will help.

So Yeah, a little girl is on a plane, she meets guy pearce and Katie holmes there. Katie holmes gives her a creepy bear......apart from the teeth removal this is the creepiest thing you'll see in this movie. That's not a stab at the movie, but the bear is fucking creepy as shit. They go back to THE SAME MANSION WHERE THE GUY REMOVED THE GIRLS TEETH! ::duh duh duh:: Guy Pearce is fixing up the house and going to sell it to get his career back on track, they introduce the little girl who's name I need to look up, seriously they say it all the time and it didn't stick at all. Sally, ok they introduce Sally to a construction worker who's as far as I can tell his job was to stand around and look ominously into the distance. He has some sort of story but it's never told, you just know that he's somehow related to Chisel McToothRemover from the beginning. Sally starts talking to her grates Ominous McToothremover is stabbed and it traumatizes her and things get creepy.

What did I like about this movie? The special effects were cool, it was very pretty and nicely shot, the fairy/gnome/gobliny things didn't seem overly CGI and spent most of the time in the dark they took their time showing them and when they did it was creepy. The movie had good atmosphere and a couple nice jump scares just to keep things interesting.

What didn't I like? Well first off the best actor in this fucking movie was 7 years old! the little girl did a good job but I may just think that because the rest of the cast was FUCKING WOODEN AS SHIT! you could've replaced them all with planks and no one would've noticed. It drags in quite a few parts, so you really feel the length. The movie has so many horror cliches it's almost silly, which could be in part that this is a remake and they just kinda kept a lot of the cliches but I haven't seen the original. Speaking of which, I can't prove this, But i kinda feel like the reason they had a polaroid in this movie was because it was in the original and they were just to lazy to change it and so they just left it. Looks completely outta place but whatever, also if you've ever owned a camera that has a reload-able flash this movie will drive you nuts. She continues to use it even though IT RAN OUTTA FLASHES LIKE 8 SHOTS AGO! Oh and befoer I forget this, for most of the movie the creatures whisper, which is genuinely creepy and scary and I liked it, but at one point Sally asks "What do you want?" and one of said creatures pops out at her and screams his answer. Well, I'm 90% sure it was the voice of the kool-aid man! I swear it sounded like the fucking KOOL-AID MAN! you know one sure fire way to make your monsters NOT SCARY? Have them offer you diabetes inducing red flavored juice! I fully expected him to burst through a wall and scream "OH YEAH" and then pour juice in Sally's mouth.....that might have improved the movie.

Ultimately this movie wasn't awful, it had good atmosphere it just drug and there's a lot of bad, most of it isn't even THAT bad it's just stuff that bothered ME! if you're gonna see it do it on a matinee so you don't pay full price, if you're undecided wait til it comes out on DVD and rent it, if you weren't then don't it's not gonna change your mind. Very very pretty film but there needed to be a little more to go on for it to really work for me.