|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 11, 2020 5:22:01 GMT
Anyone else confused by this one? Hard to tell what was happening during the london scenes, in other words the majority of the film. Seems like there were scenes missing.
I haven't seen the spanish version of it.
It's still good though.
My issue is how one dimensional dracula feels as a conception |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Nov 11, 2020 6:48:03 GMT
He comes across as a sinister Valentino. In the novel he is more like a general and demonic.
Also, David Manners is one bad ass vampire hunter.
Just kidding.
I am sure a reason for the reception to the 1958 version (though to be honest I am not really a fan) is they combine all the characters into Van Helsing so he can jump on drapes and put up more of a fight.
Imagine though if somene had spend big $$ on a 1960s Dracula had a cast that included Sean Connery, Michael Caine, Stanley Baker etc..
|
|
|
|
Post by claudius on Nov 11, 2020 9:05:44 GMT
To be sure I believe Van Helsing’s athleticism in the Hammer films were ad-libbed by Peter Cushing to give it “a Douglas Fairbanks” moment” (as he paraphrased). It was his decision to improvise the candlesticks rather than the script’s ‘got another crucifix in his coat’ decision.
The only later times big $ was spent on Dracula were the Badham and Coppola versions.
|
|
