|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Aug 9, 2021 15:27:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Aug 9, 2021 15:28:30 GMT
If we were going just by posters, the 1992 film is an obvious winner.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Aug 9, 2021 15:30:00 GMT
1931 (10/10)
1992 (7.5/10)
|
|
|
|
Post by janntosh on Aug 9, 2021 15:35:14 GMT
1931
the 1992 version is beautifully made but goes for some weird over the top almost campy vibe that curtails it. Similar to Spielberg's War of the Worlds and Peter Jackson's Kong, it's a remake that should have blown the original out of the water but suffers from too many strange decisions
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Aug 9, 2021 15:47:19 GMT
1931
|
|
|
|
Post by Raimo47 on Aug 9, 2021 16:12:34 GMT
1. 1992 - 10/10
2. 1958 - 10/10
3. 1931 - 8/10
|
|
|
|
Post by Spike Del Rey on Aug 9, 2021 17:54:45 GMT
1931 has a creepy atmosphere regardless of its stagieness, and the definitive portrayal...who imitates Lee, Langella, or Oldman when they do a Drac voice? 1992 starts out fantastically, but falls apart once Coppola decides to turn the Prince of Darkness into a lovesick John Lennonesque tragic figure. I'd personally rank 1979 higher than 1992.
|
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Aug 9, 2021 19:34:30 GMT
1931
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Aug 9, 2021 19:43:36 GMT
1931
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Aug 9, 2021 20:59:47 GMT
1931 is not a favorite but better than the 1992 emo fest.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Aug 9, 2021 21:56:15 GMT
31 for sure. It exudes atmosphere. One of my favorite portrayals of Van Helsing as well of course Draculas.
The 92 version does have Monica Bellucci though…
The 58 version is pretty amazing as well.
31 - 10/10
58 - 10/10
92 - 8/10
|
|
|
|
Post by jcush on Aug 9, 2021 22:42:07 GMT
1992
|
|
|
|
Post by darksidebeadle on Aug 9, 2021 23:12:23 GMT
1992
|
|
|
|
Post by phantomparticle on Aug 10, 2021 0:42:11 GMT
This is a tough choice between the brain and the heart.
Lugosi, Frye and Van Sloan, and Karl Freund's eerie photography in the Carpathian scenes, hold the movie together in spite of Browning's lax direction and the decision to follow the Broadway script instead of opening it up for the screen.
As much as I would love to pick the 1931 movie, I can't fault Coppola's version because it had the advantage of 50 years of technical advancement. The director gathered up every cinematic trick since the days of George Melies and created a film of pure magic.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Aug 10, 2021 7:40:29 GMT
1992 version. Gary Oldman did a fantastic job playing the vampire count.
I never much cared for the 1931 film in spite of its fame.
|
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Aug 10, 2021 8:42:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jonesjxd on Aug 10, 2021 10:32:52 GMT
1992
|
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Aug 10, 2021 16:06:50 GMT
Peter MacNicol was so funny in that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zos on Aug 10, 2021 16:20:48 GMT
Keanu makes the later one sadly unwatchable. Could and should have been something special. Should remember that sticking too close to source material can be a mistake, Bram Stoker's book is pretty awful.
|
|
