Originally Posted by shape22
Argento's is the worst for me because it has nothing to add and no redeeming qualities. He must really need money. I can't imagine any other reason for phoning in such a half-assed take of a story that's been beaten to death. C'mon Dario. When you're making a cash grab at least feign interest like Michael Caine did for The Swarm.
Although a technically superior film, I'd throw Coppola's mess into this discussion. The art direction, cinematography, and old school effects are sensational. But the atrocious casting of Reeves and Ryder, the manic over-acting of Hopkins, and the outrageously misguided decision to turn Stoker's book into a tawdry romance make it all-but-unwatchable for me. Yeah, it includes more of Stoker's plot points than most (but not all) other adaptations. But it turns Dracula himself into something far less interesting. The stink of Anne Rice is all over it. Or is it the stench of the Lifetime channel? I could easily imagine the screenplay being written by the same guy who produced the endless string of Lifetime originals that saw Crystal Bernhard battle bulimia, spousal battery, cancer, etc.
Spot on on both counts. Argento's Dracula gets my vote because it is still so fresh in my mind. I just tried watching it again this past weekend but only made it 20 or so minutes in before I shut it down. Well, at least that was 10 minutes longer than I made it the first time I tried watching it last year. Maybe it's growing on me?!
As for Coppola's, yes it looks great but what a disappointment. I was so excited to see it when it came out- I took the afternoon off of work so I could catch a matinee opening day. I probably would have had more fun at the dentist (which is where I told my boss I was going!)