I saw Nosferatu last night and it only made me love Dracula even more. Nosferatu was my most anticipated movie for well over a year, but in my opinion was a huge step back from Eggers' previous films. I left the theater with Dracula on my mind, and how to this day there's no vampire tale to top it.
I remember going to the theater to see this when it came out. This is the movie that I fell deeply in love with Gary Oldman. He’s such a brilliant actor. I think this is my favorite vampire movie of all time but I haven’t seen the new Nosferatu yet.
Thanks for your honesty, Yes Francis Ford Coppola is the best movie adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula like you said it is timeless as most now Pink Floyd Dark side of the Moon is to Progressive Rock. That is the true test of a Masterpiece that may never touched by another adaptation in my opinion. I was a projectionist when this came out and got to keep the original poster one my best from my framed collection of movie posters. The next best adaptation is the most recent Dracula Untold also very good and different take on the Vlad the Impaler's history tied to the Dracula story, but I am not really interested in this new one after seeing the best back from the 90s . But if you haven't watch the Francis Ford Coppola making on here about hour and some change long you would really appreciate it more , it is one of his first stories as a child that he adores that's why it is so good and the way he shot it is one of the last motion pictures done all of it that way.
Yes, yes it is. Vampires are meant to be alluring until they rip you apart, not sparkle all over the place and be all sweetness and consideration for those poor humans. Im all for the romantic side of the Bram version being as he legitimately has a reason he falls in love with her, however he doesn't have much problem with killing or using other humans for whatever he needs them for. So I think the best vampire isn't exactly the vicious killing machines of the Lost Boys variety, (Though I'd do enjoy those too). And they definitely shouldn't be the sparkling lovebugs of that awful Twilight. But something in-between like the Bram version or even the Lastat or Armand type as in Interview. But that's just my own opinion though.
i enjoyed renfield nicholas cage as dracula was hilarious 😂 😂😂 and bram stokers dracula is a classic in my opinion winona ryder and keanu reeves did a great job iknow it's not for everyone but i did enjoy it
They revealed in the Monster's Assemble movie poster of a undead or ghoulish looking Wendy crawling out of her grave. So that's already been "spoiled" basically. With that being said, I have just three more questions, if you don't mind. It you could just copy/paste the questions and answer under them so I know what you're corresponding to and comprehend it better that would be great. 1. If it isn't a zombie, is it at least some kind of ghost or ghoul? Or is it some kind of undead creature (yes I know you said not zombie, but there are still other kinds of undead creatures also). In other words, are they still material or now non material? 2. I know you can't give details, but one thing that has been bothering me is why Peter Pan is an adult in this instead of a kid?! Yes I know it's all creative liberty, but we've never seen anything like this! Does the movie at least answer the question (no spoilers) of why Peter Pan is an adult instead of "the boy who never grew up"? A simple "yes" or "no" is all I want to know. 3. Does the movie answer the question of why Peter Pan's face is so fucked up and how it became so fucked up?
@ 1. So is it some kind of undead creature? Could you at least answer that question? 2. Damn. I still don't really know what you mean by that, but I find it kind of hard to grasp a "grown up Peter Pan" that doesn't have some kind of follow up plot where he was a child at first and then something happened that made him grow up like Robin Williams' version of Peter Pan in the movie "Hook" for example. 3. Ok good. I just find it kind of weird for that to be something in a Peter Pan movie and for him to look like that. I get that this is a reimagining of sorts, but still. Even Winnie The Pooh: Blood And Honey 1 & 2 were still kind of faithful to the original story (except the timeline, Christopher Robin having a brother, and of course the most obvious of them being monstrous killers), but with a twist. This, however doesn't seem to even have a shred of faithfulness to even remotely identify it as being Peter Pan if you didn't have the names of people and places from the original. Even in WTPBAH 1 & 2, if you took pictures of Pooh you could still identify him as a fucked up Winnie The Pooh without saying a word, whereas you could have as many pictures as you want with this one and would never be able to even guess him as Peter Pan if it wasn't explained beforehand. I just hope Scott Chambers has good explanations for all of this and I don't wind up being disappointed with it. I don't mean to come across as racist (I am anything but), but I already was kinda pissed at the fact that he has a black lady playing Tiger Lily instead of a real authentic Native American woman. I don't mean that to be offensive. Have as many black people as you want in it, including her but just not as Tiger Lilly or any of the characters that were originally a different race. Put as many blacks and even other races in it if you want and may they all succeed and prosper and be treated fairly as fellow human beings, but just be faithful to the races of the main characters in the original is all I ask. It just kind of feels like he's going with "Woke" propaganda in this film and I hope he isn't. Just like I'm white and I wouldn't want a white person or any other race than a black man portraying Martin Luther King Jr. in a movie about MLK. It's about faithfulness and authenticity, you what I mean? I get it's a reimagining, but at least keep the foundation intact and don't overhaul that.
I just love anything with Gary Oldman he's frigging awesome
I saw Nosferatu last night and it only made me love Dracula even more. Nosferatu was my most anticipated movie for well over a year, but in my opinion was a huge step back from Eggers' previous films. I left the theater with Dracula on my mind, and how to this day there's no vampire tale to top it.
I remember going to the theater to see this when it came out. This is the movie that I fell deeply in love with Gary Oldman. He’s such a brilliant actor. I think this is my favorite vampire movie of all time but I haven’t seen the new Nosferatu yet.
I always thought this was a great film, really well done. Oddly, I remember the movie originally received a lot of criticism?
My fave!
I love this movie it's one of my favorites
Gary Oldman’s best role, Keanu Reeves’ worst!
I absolutely LOVE this film due to Gary Oldman.Have watched it many times over the years,
Definitely still a masterpiece. Happy christmas and merry new year from Ziggy puppy pup and myself 😊💜🐾👍🥳🎄🍾🎉🎊🎈
Gary Oldman was awesome playing Dracula. For all I love Keanu Reeves it wasn’t one of his best performances in Dracula
Just watched it again a few weeks ago. Holds up to this day, and Oldman put in some of his best work.
My favorite movie in 1992. Still my favorite movie as 2025 approaches.
I really enjoyed it,visually brilliant with some cool ideas.
gary oldman plays a great dracula
It's a noisy, ridiculous fun ride rather than a creepy vampire movie.
Thanks for your honesty, Yes Francis Ford Coppola is the best movie adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula like you said it is timeless as most now Pink Floyd Dark side of the Moon is to Progressive Rock. That is the true test of a Masterpiece that may never touched by another adaptation in my opinion. I was a projectionist when this came out and got to keep the original poster one my best from my framed collection of movie posters. The next best adaptation is the most recent Dracula Untold also very good and different take on the Vlad the Impaler's history tied to the Dracula story, but I am not really interested in this new one after seeing the best back from the 90s . But if you haven't watch the Francis Ford Coppola making on here about hour and some change long you would really appreciate it more , it is one of his first stories as a child that he adores that's why it is so good and the way he shot it is one of the last motion pictures done all of it that way.
ngl, i couldn't finish it.
Reeves’ kept me from enjoying it.
Still? Of course it is! It’s the most amazing movie ever
There's a great "What Went Wrong" episode on the making of this.
Bela Lugosi will always be the best Dracula. The 1931 film took liberties with the source material, but that worked to that film’s advantage.
Yes, yes it is.
Vampires are meant to be alluring until they rip you apart, not sparkle all over the place and be all sweetness and consideration for those poor humans.
Im all for the romantic side of the Bram version being as he legitimately has a reason he falls in love with her, however he doesn't have much problem with killing or using other humans for whatever he needs them for.
So I think the best vampire isn't exactly the vicious killing machines of the Lost Boys variety, (Though I'd do enjoy those too). And they definitely shouldn't be the sparkling lovebugs of that awful Twilight. But something in-between like the Bram version or even the Lastat or Armand type as in Interview.
But that's just my own opinion though.
i enjoyed renfield nicholas cage as dracula was hilarious 😂 😂😂 and bram stokers dracula is a classic in my opinion winona ryder and keanu reeves did a great job iknow it's not for everyone but i did enjoy it
OK Luke is making me reconsider my anti-xmas-sweater stance💀🎄💀
Season's Greetings, Earthlings!👽
but i enjoy dracula untold alot more then bram stokers dracula
They revealed in the Monster's Assemble movie poster of a undead or ghoulish looking Wendy crawling out of her grave. So that's already been "spoiled" basically. With that being said, I have just three more questions, if you don't mind. It you could just copy/paste the questions and answer under them so I know what you're corresponding to and comprehend it better that would be great.
1. If it isn't a zombie, is it at least some kind of ghost or ghoul? Or is it some kind of undead creature (yes I know you said not zombie, but there are still other kinds of undead creatures also).
In other words, are they still material or now non material?
2. I know you can't give details, but one thing that has been bothering me is why Peter Pan is an adult in this instead of a kid?! Yes I know it's all creative liberty, but we've never seen anything like this!
Does the movie at least answer the question (no spoilers) of why Peter Pan is an adult instead of "the boy who never grew up"? A simple "yes" or "no" is all I want to know.
3. Does the movie answer the question of why Peter Pan's face is so fucked up and how it became so fucked up?
1. Material being
2. Nope, just a dude who's been messed up for a long time.
3. Yes they explain why his face is messed up
@
1. So is it some kind of undead creature? Could you at least answer that question?
2. Damn. I still don't really know what you mean by that, but I find it kind of hard to grasp a "grown up Peter Pan" that doesn't have some kind of follow up plot where he was a child at first and then something happened that made him grow up like Robin Williams' version of Peter Pan in the movie "Hook" for example.
3. Ok good. I just find it kind of weird for that to be something in a Peter Pan movie and for him to look like that. I get that this is a reimagining of sorts, but still. Even Winnie The Pooh: Blood And Honey 1 & 2 were still kind of faithful to the original story (except the timeline, Christopher Robin having a brother, and of course the most obvious of them being monstrous killers), but with a twist.
This, however doesn't seem to even have a shred of faithfulness to even remotely identify it as being Peter Pan if you didn't have the names of people and places from the original. Even in WTPBAH 1 & 2, if you took pictures of Pooh you could still identify him as a fucked up Winnie The Pooh without saying a word, whereas you could have as many pictures as you want with this one and would never be able to even guess him as Peter Pan if it wasn't explained beforehand.
I just hope Scott Chambers has good explanations for all of this and I don't wind up being disappointed with it. I don't mean to come across as racist (I am anything but), but I already was kinda pissed at the fact that he has a black lady playing Tiger Lily instead of a real authentic Native American woman. I don't mean that to be offensive. Have as many black people as you want in it, including her but just not as Tiger Lilly or any of the characters that were originally a different race. Put as many blacks and even other races in it if you want and may they all succeed and prosper and be treated fairly as fellow human beings, but just be faithful to the races of the main characters in the original is all I ask. It just kind of feels like he's going with "Woke" propaganda in this film and I hope he isn't.
Just like I'm white and I wouldn't want a white person or any other race than a black man portraying Martin Luther King Jr. in a movie about MLK. It's about faithfulness and authenticity, you what I mean? I get it's a reimagining, but at least keep the foundation intact and don't overhaul that.
Its too romantic for my liking i prefer Nosferatu