Spoiler Alert. Enjoy the movie before reading further if you don not want another's opinion of the movie.
This movie could have been quite stylish and I have the feeling that it was shot then re shot to add some interesting scenes. The whole beginning of the movie where stills similar to "The 300" where live action and stills were mixed to interesting effect screamed potential..
But alas. It stinks. The scriptwriter was caught between writing a legitimate, alternate telling of the Dracula story full of mysticism, occult, symbolism and sexy lesbos who never really get it on but wander around being on the verge of orgasm all the time and a pratfall comedy that just never got going. Either way it;s a disaster dialog-wise and cinematically.
Maybe undead lesbians who crave sex as much as blood is the basis of the attractiveness of vampires. The amount of unrestricted sex people think they get certainly hypes the interest of prepubescent boys and girls. After all, who is going to try to restrict the actions of a fifteen year-old dead boy or girl? All the social ramifications of his/her actions are gone. They are free to have sex with whomsoever they please and are constantly on the prowl for new conquests in literature of this ilk. Aah, the romance and stench of the undead. Just turns you on doesn't it?
But back to the movie. Dracula has always been overtly sexual ever since Bram Stoker penned the character. Maybe only Nosferatu is the only non-sexual vampire. This one is as tortured as any of the enormous cadre of cohorts. He is a poor troubled soul who has lost his true love and must compensate by having sex with a bevy semi-attractive women. I guess the budget, after paying for Voight, must have been dramatically reduced so the bevy was of the bargain basement variety. .
Voight is a good actor. He has given some superior performances and some real scenery chewers. This role, as Van Helsing, could have been a powerful one but his dialog was so hackneyed and his direction so over the top that one yearns for the character he created in "Anaconda." But here is something about this actor: He can create a character and bring that character to life. This puts him so far above the rest of the cast craft wise that's it's almost painful to watch them mouth lines that must have sent him wrenching to whatever substituted for a trailer or dressing room. I hope he cashed his check right after he got it.
Here there was potential to take the movie to a new look at this well known Dracula character but both the writers and the director totally failed to realize any kind of concept and as much as Lugosi set the mold for the character, his depiction soars in comparison. Hell, even Brandon Lee's characterization was superior and that was a total disaster. The producers should have brought "The Bringer of Light" and had him illuminate the script because it just doesn't work.
One of the things a director can do with a movie like this is add a concept or subtext that is metaphorically presented through the movie. But I fear only Voight understands how such a thing can be done and he wasn't directing the movie. Hell, he was barely acting in it and his performance was the best the movie had to offer.
The movie reminds me of people who put on plays and opera in small towns. They advertise that they are going to have a fantastic production with all kinds of ideas brought out in the dramaturgy. But they end up being stock versions with period costumes and they fall as flat as some of the scenery. If this was a play, it would have been as dark as the dark prince after opening night.
This movie could have been quite stylish and I have the feeling that it was shot then re shot to add some interesting scenes. The whole beginning of the movie where stills similar to "The 300" where live action and stills were mixed to interesting effect screamed potential..
But alas. It stinks. The scriptwriter was caught between writing a legitimate, alternate telling of the Dracula story full of mysticism, occult, symbolism and sexy lesbos who never really get it on but wander around being on the verge of orgasm all the time and a pratfall comedy that just never got going. Either way it;s a disaster dialog-wise and cinematically.
Maybe undead lesbians who crave sex as much as blood is the basis of the attractiveness of vampires. The amount of unrestricted sex people think they get certainly hypes the interest of prepubescent boys and girls. After all, who is going to try to restrict the actions of a fifteen year-old dead boy or girl? All the social ramifications of his/her actions are gone. They are free to have sex with whomsoever they please and are constantly on the prowl for new conquests in literature of this ilk. Aah, the romance and stench of the undead. Just turns you on doesn't it?
But back to the movie. Dracula has always been overtly sexual ever since Bram Stoker penned the character. Maybe only Nosferatu is the only non-sexual vampire. This one is as tortured as any of the enormous cadre of cohorts. He is a poor troubled soul who has lost his true love and must compensate by having sex with a bevy semi-attractive women. I guess the budget, after paying for Voight, must have been dramatically reduced so the bevy was of the bargain basement variety. .
Voight is a good actor. He has given some superior performances and some real scenery chewers. This role, as Van Helsing, could have been a powerful one but his dialog was so hackneyed and his direction so over the top that one yearns for the character he created in "Anaconda." But here is something about this actor: He can create a character and bring that character to life. This puts him so far above the rest of the cast craft wise that's it's almost painful to watch them mouth lines that must have sent him wrenching to whatever substituted for a trailer or dressing room. I hope he cashed his check right after he got it.
Here there was potential to take the movie to a new look at this well known Dracula character but both the writers and the director totally failed to realize any kind of concept and as much as Lugosi set the mold for the character, his depiction soars in comparison. Hell, even Brandon Lee's characterization was superior and that was a total disaster. The producers should have brought "The Bringer of Light" and had him illuminate the script because it just doesn't work.
One of the things a director can do with a movie like this is add a concept or subtext that is metaphorically presented through the movie. But I fear only Voight understands how such a thing can be done and he wasn't directing the movie. Hell, he was barely acting in it and his performance was the best the movie had to offer.
The movie reminds me of people who put on plays and opera in small towns. They advertise that they are going to have a fantastic production with all kinds of ideas brought out in the dramaturgy. But they end up being stock versions with period costumes and they fall as flat as some of the scenery. If this was a play, it would have been as dark as the dark prince after opening night.