I can't understand why everyone raved about this film. The art direction wasn't so great. Its only purpose was to give an MTV gloss over to an incurably weak film and try to sell it to teenyboppers. A ploy which, I'm sorry to say, worked. It shouldn't have, however, because everything looked completely cheesy like it was some kind of live action cartoon. The movie was done entirely on sound stages, and it shows. Like we would be fooled when everything looks plastic and fake. Maybe thats OK for made-for-TV movies and mini-series, but for a major theatrical release I'd expect some effort(actually, it was originally intended for the small screen until SOMEONE(you know who you are)had the bright idea to make it into a theatrical release). Coppola, who has admitted to directing films via radio from a bathtub, has realy gone downhill since......the invention of film!! Neither Keanu Reeves or Wynona Rider have convincing accents. They're probably proud of themselves too; infuriating, isn't it? Another point I find....interesting...is that Bram Stoker not only wrote the book(which isn't that great, I barely could get through the first quarter) he also wrote the stageplay which was adapted into the 1931 version. Yet Coppola's version(which was adapted into a new screenplay, which they take license with anyway)is called "Bram Stoker's Dracula", when the 1931 version was the one actually written by Bram Stoker! The poor devil is probably turning in his grave. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that "Bram Stoker's Dracula" was an aweful movie, and I wish it never had to exist, and if YOU are one of the people who likes it...STOP IT, NOW! There might still be hope for you. There are plenty of good movies out there, WHY THIS ONE!? WHYYYYY!? I mean, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I swear, if I have to listen to one more person try and tell me "Oh, Bram Stoker's Dracula was SUCH a good movie" and "That Wynona Rider is SOOO talented" I'll just scream.
Reviews
3 Reviews
Zulu
(1964)
Puts most American movies to shame
18 August 2001
1964's Zulu is one of my favorite movies of all time. Its an almost flawless film full of drama and action, and the musical score sends chills down my spine. It also makes me ashamed of being an American, not because of any nostalgia for the hero's of the movie, but because I know Americans could never make(or appreciate)a film this good. American film-makers would feel unexplainable urges to butcher this story in some of the following ways: Because Americans are offended by the color red, the film-makers would have to alter history enough to change the army tunics from red to khaki. As we all know, the hero HAS to be your standard macho American, it wouldn't matter how they get him into the plot(take U-571, revisionist history is NOT a problem). Also, all of the British characters would HAVE to be portrayed as complete buffoons. The original makers of Zulu did insert a pretty girl into the plot, but thats not enough for American audiences, she would need to find herself unable to resist the animal magnetism of our gratuitously placed American good ol' boy. To give the film a post-1993 feel, we might need more girls and include some lesbianism for no apparent reason. A hip alternative sound track by Moby would also help. Ah, I make myself laugh. Oh, one more thing, while I don't think there's any active or malicious racism present in the 1964 version, to easily offendable Americans the inherent racism of the subject matter(Americans are incapable of grasping concepts like British vs. Zulu, they can only grasp white vs. black) would require constant apologizing throughout the film. The native levies would have to stick around, and at least one of them would need to be more heroic than anyone else. There would also need to be a PC discussion on the negative impacts of colonialism. Oh, sure these changes would rob the film of any historical accuracy or artistic merit it ever had, but that never stopped Hollywood before, and the sad part is that a butchered remake like this would end up being a hit in the US, compared to the original anyway. In short, 1964's "Zulu" is a great film, and nothing that is created in the bowels of American pop culture will ever be able to truly compare with great movies like that. I probably should have spent more time in praise of the real "Zulu" rather than condemn the hypothetical one, but from reading the other reviews I see no reason to preach to the converted.
The Jesus Film
(1979)
So simplistic its comical
13 August 2001
To make an inspirational or religious film is one thing, but to insult everyones intelligence while you do is truly impressive (on second thought, its not). This film was unintentionally humorous throughout and the repeat-after-me prayer part at the end was just uncalled for. In the movie "The Greatest Story Ever Told" Max Von Sydow portrayed Christ as a truly thoughtful and philosophical man, with a genuine interest in helping people. The guy in "Jesus" came across as an insolent braggart who didn't even have anything interesting to say. Not just what was said, but how he said it. When Max Von Sydow said the line about the ravens in the field it sounded very deep and meaningful, when Brian Deacon said it he just sounded like a jerk. Jesus as a jerk; they should have made him an overgrown bodybuilder and it would have been perfect. Of course, then he wouldn't have looked like in the Sunday school pictures, which they based their visual style on absolutely. Which brings up another point: this film wasn't atmospheric or artistically done at all. There was no interesting camera work, no close-ups of authentic looking objects, nothing ever looked dirty, lived in, or scratched up. Just a (barely) 3-D version of a Sunday school lesson. Preachers should leave film-making to the film-makers, and vice-versa. For some reason when they team up they do a worse job together then either could do alone
Tell Your Friends