Horror Of Dracula (1958) Vs.Dracula (1992) - Dracula (1958) Discussion

[–] Karl_Wolfgang_47 15 years ago

No. I like 1958-Dracula very much, but 1992-Dracula is still better. It is my all-time favorite movie.

"What is it you guys usually do? Fire a warning shot, right?"

reply

[–] Cimmerian_Dragon 15 years ago

Absolutely. I love Dracula 1992, but I must admit that it drowns its story in soup of overblown stylization, the film of a director who is in love with the director. Even good actors become caricatures of themselves in Coppola's Gothic cartoon. Dracula 1958 demonstrates the height of film craft in its era, and is propelled by two landmark performances: Peter Cushing as Van Helsing and Christopher Lee as Dracula. Every vampire film made after Hammer's masterpiece owes its violence, sexuality, and romance to their groundbreaking work.
--------------------------------------------------------------
If there were reason for these miseries,
Then into limits could I bind my woes.

reply

[–] vamtim 15 years ago

IMHO Coppolla's take pales in comparison to Hammer's version, Hammer's beautiful sets, unprecedented style and of course Lee and Cushing's performances leaves Coppolla's overblown epic in the dust.

reply

[–] Iridescent_Phantom 15 years ago

I have to disagree. I saw Horror of Dracula in 1958, and for years I considered it the ultimate Dracula movie. But time moves on and so have magnificent advances in film technology over the last half century.

Just as the Hammer version improved on Universal's release, Coppola adapted just about every cinematic trick in the book since Melies, wrapped them up in a magical package and poured the entire concoction across the screen in a fantasmagoric waterfall of nightmarish sights and sounds.

It isn't a perfect Dracula movie (what is?), but it is the most lavish and magical adaptation of the book ever committed to the screen.

reply

[–] rstonesfan 15 years ago

Horror of Dracula is my personal favorite. The 1992 version is not for me at all, it is way to gothic fo rmy taste, and the 1931 version, although good for it's time is abit slow and obivously dated. The Horror of Dracula is the I enjoy the most, much of it is do do with Peter Cushing and the sets.

reply

[–] vamtim 15 years ago

I personally think Hammer's DRACULA is more gothic. I think Coppolla's was a good film but for me Hammer's is way better.

reply

[–] KimberlyShaw 15 years ago

As much as I enjoyed the 1992 version (and the Langella Dracula too), the Hammer production is right up there with the 1931 universal classics

"There's my buttercup!"

reply

[–] rustynail925 15 years ago

how bout nosferatu 1979 by herzog?

reply

[–] victorsuk 15 years ago

I want to see Dracula 1958. I saw prince of darkness 1966 and want to know which one i like best. I love peter cushing so i probably will like dracula 1958 best. I saw it quite a few times but cant remember it exactly.

Quote
"To tell the truth, i could beat anybody in the world"

-Bruce Lee

reply

[–] alan-cole6 15 years ago

I prefer Hammer's Horror of Dracula from 1958..

I love most of the Hammer Dracula/Vampire films. There is something special/unique about them. My favourites are 'Horror of Dracula', 'The Brides of Dracula', 'Kiss of the Vampire', Dracula, Prince of Darkness', Dracula Has Risen from the Grave' and 'Taste the Blood of Dracula'. I wasnt so keen on the films after this period, but the ones i mentioned, i can watch over and over again and never tire of any of them..

The old Hammer films were so classy..

reply

[–] kevin_crighton 15 years ago

There is no denying the Coppola version is certainly a more faithful version of the novel, despite the silly love reborn nonsense. However, for me the Hammer Dracula is the better movie. It's more exciting, and yes better acted than the Coppola one.

But then I am biased. I saw the Hammer one as a child and it scared the hell out of me at the time. Saw the Coppola one on it's released and it simply didn't. And one last thing. Cushing is a better Van Helsing than any actor to play the part. And that includes Hopkins and Olivier!

I weep for originality in Hollywood

reply

[–] johnnyparker 15 years ago

Coppola's Dracula is more faithful to Stoker's novel than Hammer's 1958 version, agreed, but it is still a long way from being a faithful adaptation. It plays just as fast and loose with Stoker's vampire mythology as does Jimmy Sangster's Hammer script, but it has none of Sangster's narrative economy. Gary Oldman's performance in the title role is very good - he captures the sadness of Dracula very well, I think - but it is nowhere near as memorable as Christopher Lee's iconic performance. Lee is the definitive Dracula, just as Peter Cushing is the definitive Van Helsing.

Hammer's Dracula is, making allowances for its age and budget, a much better film. It doesn't have any Americans trying to sound English, for a start! Apparently Warners, who put up half the cash for Dracula, wanted Hammer to use a yank in one of the lead roles, but the budget didn't stretch to getting a big name, so they used Cushing and Lee instead. Thank God. Not that I've anything against American actors, mind - after all, Van Helsing is supposed to be Dutch, and Dracula Romanian!

If they move, kill em!

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kschumac 14 years ago

Oh dear God, talk about Hammer fanboyism. Horror of Dracula is good but horribly dated, so much so that any comparison to a movie in the 1990's is unfair (apples and oranges).

That said, Horror of Dracula is paced very leisurely (like most Hammer films) to use a nice word. The dialogue is super stiff (especially in the early scenes) and which I can only describe as very "British" in tone. Christopher Lee hadn't quite grown into the part yet, and the actor who played Jonathan makes Keanu Reeves seem like Laurence Olivier.

reply

[–] richard-III 11 years ago

I don't like all Hammer films, but I sure like some of the old ones. They have an atmosphere and energy and brick house safety that I miss in later movies.

Pacing - depends on what you compare it with. Dracula is edited slower than modern action films like Quantum Of Solace or The Bourne Identity, but it tells its story rather fast. In the reviews of its time the pacing was called 'brisk'.

Stiff dialogues? They're formal, and I like that. I think Lee was better here as Dracula than in his later films. And it saddens me that John van Eyssen, whom I consider a darn fine actor, only played in a few films. No no, Keanu really pales in comparison with John.

"I don't discriminate between entertainment
and arthouse. A film is a goddam film."

reply

[–] jaywolfenstien 14 years ago

how bout nosferatu 1979 by herzog?

Strangely enough, the Nosferatu films seem like a whole different world than the Dracula films ... even if they are all based on the same novel and tell the same basic story. It really demonstrates that in film, like any artistic medium, the "how" is more important than the "what."

I have all of the above in my DVD collection, and would watch most of them in a heartbeat. But then again I'm a film nut.

---
Truffaut: Do dreams have a bearing on your work?
Hitchcock: Daydreams, probably.

reply

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 15 years ago

Never say you are wrong when telling the truth. One of my friends worked on the '92 version and thought it a muddled mess. He was the lighting director. It was too overflowing with mush,but had a few tiny things most vampire films ignore. Tra la.

What is the sound an imploding pimp makes?

reply

[–] vesa_karppinen-1 15 years ago

I agree wholeheartedly.

Sh!tkicker from Finland

reply

[–] Great_Gazoo 14 years ago

Coopola's Dracula is superior but mostly because it had the chance to be.

Let's start out with Lugosi's Dracula. He was good but the film is dated and Lugosi could not make the Count as evil as he should have been because of the time period. Hammer's Dracula then improved upon that. They were able to use blood, more spooky atmosphere, etc. Coppola's rendition is wonderfully gothic and Oldman gave a brilliant performance that captured the Count as evil, powerful, sad, pathetic, aristocratic, and beastly. He played it all.

And the creatures that Dracula turned into in Coppola's rendition are some of the most gruesome monsters ever put to screen(the giant bat and wolf monster). But like I said, that's because the film had the possibility to do so. Back when Lugosi was around, blood could not be used and back when Lee was around, it could only be done sparingly. When Oldman played Dracula, he could go completely out without film censors. With that said, Hammer's Dracula is quite brilliant. Love the atmosphere and sets, really good acting as well. Anthony Hopkins is my favorite Van Helsing with Peter Cushing coming in second.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kryptonripper 14 years ago

Yes, if only because Keanu Reeves isn't in it.

reply