christoph404

Well we have already had Holmes v Jack the Ripper in "Murder by Decree" as mentioned in another thread here, I love the idea of combining Holmes with other fictional characters of the same period and why not, it would be highly entertaining I think.

Hanseat

Lee was my first Dracula (and you always remember your first, or so they say ...) and he certainly had a special quality which made him quite mesmerizing, even in the most childisch films. That "genuine european aristocratic appearance", as you call it, describes it very nicely - Lee's Dracula always stands out, is always rather fascinatingly different from everyone else, especially the other men, and always with that hint of danger but also the promise that the pleasures he will show you will surpass anything you can imagine. Lee really brought that across, although to this day I can not say how as he didn't do anything much (in fact, in later films he practically sleepwalked through his part). I still remember how well this worked in Dracula A.D. 1972, for example, where you can just imagine following him to a graveyard instead of partying with all those goofy Swinging London boys.



Langella simply took your breath away when the film first came out. He was just sooo beautiful, very romantic as well as much more openly and physically sexual. Lee vs. Langella was a bit like Astaire vs. Kelly. And yes, Olivier is rather good, too, in what is a sadly underrated and practically forgotten movie.

I must admit, though, for me the most impressive Dracula is Gary Oldman who is really the only one able to portray all the different aspects of the bloodsucking fiend, the shape-shifting as well as the abrupt changes from weirdly charming to deadly dangerous and back and thus, possibly, comes closest to Stoker's vision. He, more convincingly than any other actor, captured the fact that Dracula is something different for everyone who encounters the Count. It's just a shame that he was lumbered with that unbelievable mess of a film.

Hanseat

No I'm not in Spain, dear, I'm in agony, that's where I am!

batman

My favourite Dracula has to be Lugosi. He was the first and almost all the other screen Draculas have taken something from his portrayal. His diction is perfect for the role in that film and I only wish the film itself had been a bit better. Langella I thought was extraordinary. Romantic, scary, beautiful and horrific all in one dynamic package. I agree that this his is a sorely underrated film and performance. I agree with you about the Coppola version but I disagree about Oldman though .... the film is overblown, dull and totally unscary and IMHO contains one of Oldman's worst performances. He comes across like Lugosi's wayward father in the early scenes and is totally unconvincing when he tries to be all romantic and gentlemanly.

Bats.

I wish I had claws.

Hanseat

Lugosi, I am ashamed to admit, leaves me utterly cold. I can appreciate his performance in artistic terms, in historical terms, in genre terms etcetera, etcetera ... But on a purely personal level I find him just completely unattractive which turns his "look into my eyes, look into my eyes" moments of supposedly sheer animal magnetism into something slightly distasteful and pathetic. But, as I've said, that's just me.

As far as Oldman is concerned, I can see what you mean, and you are certainly not the only one who doesn't like him in that part. He definitely has to chew his way through some of the most awful dialogue ever written, especially in the big romantic scenes. But I have sat too often amidst large numbers of positively slobbering women sighing deeply at the words, "I have crossed oceans of time", so I know that he pulls it off ...

Hanseat

No I'm not in Spain, dear, I'm in agony, that's where I am!

Windthrop

My favourite Dracula has to be Lugosi. He was the first and almost all the other screen Draculas have taken something from his portrayal. His diction is perfect for the role in that film and I only wish the film itself had been a bit better. Langella I thought was extraordinary. Romantic, scary, beautiful and horrific all in one dynamic package. I agree that this his is a sorely underrated film and performance. I agree with you about the Coppola version but I disagree about Oldman though .... the film is overblown, dull and totally unscary and IMHO contains one of Oldman's worst performances. He comes across like Lugosi's wayward father in the early scenes and is totally unconvincing when he tries to be all romantic and gentlemanly.

I agree with you on the charge that the Lugosi movie is poor - it is primitive even by early sound standards - look how much more cinematic James Whale's 'Frankenstein' is by comparison. Though not a real fan of Lugosi I cocede that he is the only reason to see the movie now. As for Coppola - yeah have to agree with you - special fx fest but not real atmosphere & Hopkins reduced to playing VH as a cipher instead of a real performance. Cushing particularly in 'Brides of Dracula' is a stylish and dynamic VH.


Bats.[/quote]

christoph404

I hated the Coppola version of Dracula and thought Gary Oldman was miscast, Daniel Day Lewis was Coppolas first choice, he wisely declined but I doubt if his presence would have improved things and the dialogue was indeed awful, I just burst out laughing at "the oceans of time" blurb from Oldman, its ludicrous as is Keanu Reeves silly English accent. And why is it called Bram Stokers Dracula? Its not particularly faithfull to the book with all that daft back story about Vlad the Impaler etc etc. No....not scary at all, visually quite interesting in places but thats all for me Im afraid. And I never liked Lugosi either, I think even at the time his performance was theatrical and mannered and does not stand the test of time at all, its so OTT , there is no subtlety there for me, its all wide eyed over cooked ham as far as I can see, sorry to all of you who like Lugosi, its only my own humble opinion! The best has got to be our own Chris Lee, now he scared me as Dracula and still does, I would really like to see the recent restoration of the film.

batman

While Lugosi is my favourite, and I am an unashamed Lugosi fan ... over cooked ham and all ... , I will say that Lee is the most effective Dracula on screen. He has the presence and the dynamic to really make it work in the Hammer productions. He gives a very different performance in the Spanish film he did, restrained and Lugosi-like in some ways, but still very effective. The original Hammer Dracula is one of my favourite horror films and is one of the best of all time.

Windthrop's comparison of the Lugosi version with Whale's Frankenstein is spot on. They look like they have been made ten years apart, not just a few months. I think if Lugosi hadn't fallen out of favour with Universal he could have made some good sequels. In subsequent years his diction and command of English improved and he became more relaxed in front of the camera. Sadly, by then he had fallen into the low-budget rut that he rarely was able to crawl out of. At least we have his last hurrah in the Abbot and Costello movie to enjoy, because in that he is superb.

Bats.

I wish I had claws.

christoph404

I do think Lugosi was a fascinating figure all the same, he is depicted very well by Martin Landau who I believe won an oscar for the performance in Tim Burton's "Ed Wood." The depiction of the filming of "Plan 9 from Outer Space" is hilarious especially Lugosi's fight with the octopus in the fish pond! Classic stuff.

Lord Brett

OK, I'll be the party pooper - the fight with the Octopus is from Bride of the Monster, which is well up there with Plan 9 in the good/bad stakes.

christoph404

You are obviously a big Ed Wood fan....

christoph404

Was "Plan 9.." Lugosi's last film,? didn't he pass away during filming to be replaced with a stand in simply holding a cloak up over half of his face to conceal the fact that it wasn't him!

batman

He died before they started making it .... the footage of him is home movie stuff shot by Wood in Lugosi's front garden!

Bats.

I wish I had claws.

Aaryk Noctivagus

People like me. I've written a Vampiric screenplay... feature-length. I went back to the original folk tales... and then moved/twisted in something of a different direction.

As far as I am concerned, I'm of the school which considers that every fiction must be based in research... how ever twisted it becomes to fit the story.

Steve Crook

I just had to edit the title of this thread. it's been bugging me for ages.
It should be "Onscreen Draculas", not "Onscreen Dracula's"
Another case of an aberrant apostrophe

Steve

Joenoir

To be absolutely right, should it not be "Onscreen Dracula"!

Start every day with a smile and get it over with.