MovieChat Forums > Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) Discussion > Hopkins'' Helsing

Hopkins'' Helsing

posted 11 years ago by mam13143
16 replies | jump to latest

My personal opinion naturally. Anyone else think Hopkins went way over the top playing Van Helsing. Love Hopkins, but thought he made Van Helsing look too loopy for lack of a better word. All that casual nonsense about cutting out Lucy's heart and cutting off her head was a bit silly. Everyone else pretty much acted as they did in that time (or at least tried to)- he was more of a present day "House" doctor, and even he wouldn't be so jaded when talking to a member of the family. He was not that way in the novel if I remember it, and he was not the narrator in the book too. He seemed to want to put his own stamp on the character and I think he went over the top when he didn't have to.

One of the replies below mentions he or the producers wanted to continue the Hannibal flippent speech pattern -- that could be. But can you imagine a person of that time period talking like that. A wonder he didn't call the american "dude" !

[–] hbenthow 11 years ago

It's not really Anthony Hopkins' fault. That's how the character was written in the screenplay, and likely how Coppola directed him to act.

Courage, men! We've not sunk before, and we'll not sink now!

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin22 11 years ago

Helsing should be Eccentric, but this wasn't Hopkins best performance.

I think the most accurate Van Helsing is the 70s BBC miniseries. But Sloan's performance in the 31 movie is also fantastic.

"It's not about money.... It's about sending a Message..... Everything Burns!!!"

[–] dyahrmarkt 11 years ago

Remember, this film came out hot on the heels of Hopkins' best actor award in Silence of the Lambs - before that film he wasn't very well known (at least in the ol' USA). So I don't doubt there was some pressure on Hopkins to milk that 'gory', over-the-top thing for all it was worth.

Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dyahrmarkt 10 years ago

Well, 37 years old here, "bitchez". And I wouldn't call "Magic" or "Audrey Rose" BIG films of any sort of significance. The only film I was familiar with with Hopkins before "Silence" was "The Lion in Winter"....and I believe he was in that Cimino disaster "Desperate Hours", which I remember seeing.

So do yourself a favor and be tactful. We can disagree without frothing and spewing, no?

Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -

[–] wylieperlitz 11 years ago

Its an interpretation of the character from the novel....Von Helsing has a breakdown in the novel where he appears insane to Seward... he is vibrant, hyper at times and even a bit leering towards the young girls... he also provides comic relief... I think Hopkins captured all of this well...Von Helsing, the wise hero, yet perhaps a bit more unhinged by the events than the younger gents.

[–] king_of_bob 8 years ago

How can we take you seriously when you consistently spell the characters name wrong?

The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/

[–] catcreswell 11 years ago

Considering the historically BAD acting from Keanu, and the general overtly sexual tone of the movie, Hopkins gave the performance the movie deserved. Any thing less, or more, would not have fit the movie.

[–] snickz 11 years ago

Obviously the intention was to have Hopkins's Van Helsing provide comic relief, but I agree they overdid it. I found his character annoying.

[–] rscott24 10 years ago

I found his performance one of the very few that wasn't annoying. There are a few actors who should never do period pieces or accents, and most of them are in this film.

[–] Mimapopaluck 10 years ago

You should watch Laurence Olivier's Van Helsing in the 1979 Dracula movie with Donald Pleasance and Frank Langella. He's much better.

[–] CharlieCane 10 years ago

I think Anthony Hopkins was brilliant as Helsing, in fact he's the best rendition of van Helsing.

You need to understand the character of Van Helsing is a very learned & very open minded individual who has studied occult & myths. So when he is called up by Harker to investigate & finds actual proof of a Vampire & not just any Vampire- the King of Vampires, he cannot at times contain his excitement.

Like a kid who's found actual proof of a Santa Claus, he is in absolute awe & even has a respect for Dracula.

[–] angelosdaughter 9 years ago

Stoker wrote Van Helsing as a bit eccentric, to say the least. He laughs at inappropriate times and seems callous at others. I thought Hopkins' interpretation spot on.

I could be a morning person if morning happened at noon.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Wombstar 9 years ago

No I didn't like his performance, it was a bit bland and too comedic.