|
|
Post by johnnymains on Jan 3, 2020 17:14:22 GMT
The first episode of Dracula was misconceived on many levels. For every good idea (the flashback structure), there is a bad one (the vampire baby). In any event I will keep watching it. Tonight's episode features a Lord Ruthven, the name of the title character from "The Vampyre" (1816), probably an in-joke from Mark Gatiss. To give him his due, his version of "The Tractacte Middoth" is an okay version of an okay original and his "Martin's Close" may well be better developed than the original. I still would like to see his long-planned version of "Count Magnus" that, if Dracula gets good ratings, is more likely to be filmed. Crikey. This Dracula is getting more 'king mad by the minute. But nice to see a Devil Rides Out homage during episode two. I enjoyed Martin's Close, The War Of The Worlds, The Turn Of The Screw (2009), "Susan Hill's Ghost Story"(sic), some of A Christmas Carol, Worzel Gummidge and am sort of enthralled by Dracula. Haven't watched so much telly in ages. Hats off to the Beeb. And (I suppose) Channel 5. Gavin and Stacey was the highlight for me - not watched Dracula yet - going to wait till all the hubbub dies down |
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoig on Jan 3, 2020 19:59:05 GMT
Crikey. This Dracula is getting more 'king mad by the minute. But nice to see a Devil Rides Out homage during episode two. I enjoyed Martin's Close, The War Of The Worlds, The Turn Of The Screw (2009), "Susan Hill's Ghost Story"(sic), some of A Christmas Carol, Worzel Gummidge and am sort of enthralled by Dracula. Haven't watched so much telly in ages. Hats off to the Beeb. And (I suppose) Channel 5. Watched the first episode of Drac last night and it is completely over-the-top - entertaining viewing, with quite a few laugh-out-loud moments. |
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Jan 3, 2020 20:06:27 GMT
I was somehow reminded of this:
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Jan 4, 2020 13:50:32 GMT
Crikey. This Dracula is getting more 'king mad by the minute. But nice to see a Devil Rides Out homage during episode two. I enjoyed Martin's Close, The War Of The Worlds, The Turn Of The Screw (2009), "Susan Hill's Ghost Story"(sic), some of A Christmas Carol, Worzel Gummidge and am sort of enthralled by Dracula. Haven't watched so much telly in ages. Hats off to the Beeb. And (I suppose) Channel 5. Watched the first episode of Drac last night and it is completely over-the-top - entertaining viewing, with quite a few laugh-out-loud moments. : Episode One: Erratic Dracula: Episode Two: Ingenious. Dracula: Episode Three: Misjudged. Yet another "improvement" that misfires. The second episode is easily the best. The money would have been better spent on a faithful adaptation of the original novel. Three hours would have been enough for that. The upcoming DVD release has a commentary on the third episode, which might explain what the writers were trying but failed to do: www.amazon.co.uk/Dracula-Blu-ray-Steven-Moffat/dp/B082XVRDSN/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=dracula&qid=1578145338&s=dvd&sr=1-2 The 1977 Count Dracula (at £4.99!) looks even better now: www.amazon.co.uk/Count-Dracula-DVD-Louis-Jourdan/dp/B000R343N0/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=count+dracula&qid=1578145513&s=dvd&sr=1-1 |
|
|
|
Post by helrunar on Jan 4, 2020 17:27:26 GMT
I obviously haven't seen any of it apart from the trailers, and I may never take that five hours or however long the whole thing is to watch it, but it's been interesting to read various opinions about it in the past couple of days. Some folk love it, others hate it--the most thoughtful group seem to think the first two parts were good and the third was "pants."
The most interesting opinion, to me, was the view a Hammer horror fan expressed that what the miniseries really is, is a kind of bricolage meditation on the Hammer Dracula cycle, with the third part being both an homage to and a send-up of Dracula AD 1972 and Satanic Rites of Dracula. That actually made me interested in sitting through it. It does sound like quite the spectacular, EXPENSIVE mess.
cheers, H
|
|
|
|
Post by helrunar on Jan 4, 2020 17:30:28 GMT
The Louis Jourdan BBC film from '77 is brilliant and, to me, essential viewing. I'm also quite fond of the 1968 Mystery & Imagination version with Denholm Elliott--it's pastiche rather than adaptation but love the atmosphere, and Elliott was surprisingly good for me in the role. (It's on you tube.)
H.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Jan 4, 2020 18:25:08 GMT
We live in the age of Claes Bang. Everywhere you turn, there he is. Did you know he also makes music:
|
|
|
|
Post by fritzmaitland on Jan 4, 2020 18:47:18 GMT
Dracula: Episode One: Erratic Dracula: Episode Two: Ingenious. Dracula: Episode Three: Misjudged. [/quote] Well. *spoilers* Most of me enjoyed a lot of it. A little bit of me is very annoyed that I was caught out twice so feel that the whole thing was a bit of a shabby confidence trick/ridiculous practical joke/outrageous pisstake. Them's the breaks. After being appalled at the ending of episode two, I enjoyed episode three more than I thought I would although I can't help thinking using a digger to smash up someone's house to threaten Dracula with sunlight is a bit much.The use of Lucy Westernra revived aspects of the original novel via a love letter to Dracula AD 1972
|
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Jan 4, 2020 22:55:00 GMT
Oh boy, where to begin? When I watched part 2 today on Netflix I found myself contemplating using the fast forward button because I was so bored. Not a good sign.
I don't mind sequels. Quite the contrary. I have read so many versions of Dracula, from Marv Wolfman to Jeanne Kalogrides. They can be entertaining and worth your time. I have seen most of the movie adaptions, from Friedrich Murnau to Dario Argento. Some boasted to be true to the novel, some didn't even care, nobody did achieve it.
The Gatiss/Moffat production borrowed some motives and set-pieces from the Stoker novel and made the rest up. Which itself is absolutly okay. Unfortunatly in a not very interesting fashion or outright badly. An exercise in contemporary empty storytelling. I have to give them extra points that they didn't even try to pretend to do a period piece, as far as characters are concerned. Like in a superhero movie these were hollow characters in costumes with no connection to the historical epoch they originated in whatsoever, neither in terms of history, sociology or ideology. Alternately giving either monologues or (supposedly) witty or cool one-liners. (An astonishing lot fell flat, a few were amusing, not one was appropriate. This is not Freddy Krueger.) Never, you know, communicating in a relatable way with each other. Or being believable. The rest is a lot of unconvincing plot and incessantly meta-references of old genre-movies. A few horror set-pieces which were mostly okay, maybe even a bit daring for prime-time tv. (I don't know how the BBc ticks in this regard.) And bafflingly prude considering the source material.
Part 1 was erratic, an apt description. I couldn't even groan about Sister van Helsing. It is not as groundbreaking as it maybe believes, it is nothing new, see Helsing (Anime 2001) or Helsing (american comic 2014). So who cares. I didn't mind Claes Bang, at least he wasn't such a terrible Dracula like the one in Van Helsing, the movie. Aside my above critique I liked this most in its pseudo gothic approach.
Part 2 I found boring and remarkably pointless. (I always wondered why all Dracula movies keep the Demeter sequence short. Now I know. Because it has nothing interesting to say except Dracula killing off the crew. Which merits 5 but not 90 minutes.)
Part 3 gave the impression to be a rejected Dr. Who or Torchwood script with an astonishingly dumb and miss conceived ending.
If you want to see a treatment of the topic which at least takes itself seriously, go see Penny Dreadful. (Okay, their Dracula didn't work either, but at least it tried to do the originals justice it plundered).
Maybe someday will explore the still controversial topics aside the horror elements of Stoker's novel in a appropiate and interesting fashion. But I wouldn't bet on it. This in any case didn't even came close.
|
|
|
|
Post by helrunar on Jan 4, 2020 23:11:50 GMT
Thanks, Andreas. I was thinking that Tomb of Dracula back in the Seventies had a female van Helsing--am I remembering correctly, this time, that it was Rachel van Helsing? So no, not all that radical at this point in the scheme of things.
I thought Penny Dreadful was a lot of fun but I never watched series 3 which is when they did a Dracula treatment. What I read about it just did not appeal to me. It did have very good characterizations with Eva Green front and center but the entire cast was excellent--I had a soft spot for Lyle, played by Simon Russell Beale. Rory Kinnear made an amazing Frankenstein Monster.
I am swamped with good stuff to watch at this point so doubt I will be making time for the Mofftiss Drac anytime soon.
Prosit Neujahr!!!
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by David A. Riley on Jan 5, 2020 0:13:33 GMT
Oh boy, where to begin? When I watched part 2 today on Netflix I found myself contemplating using the fast forward button because I was so bored. Not a good sign. I don't mind sequels. Quite the contrary. I have read so many versions of Dracula, from Marv Wolfman to Jeanne Kalogrides. They can be entertaining and worth your time. I have seen most of the movie adaptions, from Friedrich Murnau to Dario Argento. Some boasted to be true to the novel, some didn't even care, nobody did achieve it. The Gatiss/Moffat production borrowed some motives and set-pieces from the Stoker novel and made the rest up. Which itself is absolutly okay. Unfortunatly in a not very interesting fashion or outright badly. An exercise in contemporary empty storytelling. I have to give them extra points that they didn't even try to pretend to do a period piece, as far as characters are concerned. Like in a superhero movie these were hollow characters in costumes with no connection to the historical epoch they originated in whatsoever, neither in terms of history, sociology or ideology. Alternately giving either monologues or (supposedly) witty or cool one-liners. (An astonishing lot fell flat, a few were amusing, not one was appropriate. This is not Freddy Krueger.) Never, you know, communicating in a relatable way with each other. Or being believable. The rest is a lot of unconvincing plot and incessantly meta-references of old genre-movies. A few horror set-pieces which were mostly okay, maybe even a bit daring for prime-time tv. (I don't know how the BBc ticks in this regard.) And bafflingly prude considering the source material. Part 1 was erratic, an apt description. I couldn't even groan about Sister van Helsing. It is not as groundbreaking as it maybe believes, it is nothing new, see Helsing (Anime 2001) or Helsing (american comic 2014). So who cares. I didn't mind Claes Bang, at least he wasn't such a terrible Dracula like the one in Van Helsing, the movie. Aside my above critique I liked this most in its pseudo gothic approach. Part 2 I found boring and remarkably pointless. (I always wondered why all Dracula movies keep the Demeter sequence short. Now I know. Because it has nothing interesting to say except Dracula killing off the crew. Which merits 5 but not 90 minutes.) Part 3 gave the impression to be a rejected Dr. Who or Torchwood script with an astonishingly dumb and miss conceived ending. If you want to see a treatment of the topic which at least takes itself seriously, go see Penny Dreadful. (Okay, their Dracula didn't work either, but at least it tried to do the originals justice it plundered). Maybe someday will explore the still controversial topics aside the horror elements of Stoker's novel in a appropiate and interesting fashion. But I wouldn't bet on it. This in any case didn't even came close. Excellent summary of the Dracula adaptation. I couldn't better it. Straight to the point. I probably enjoyed part 2 more than you because I like claustrophobic stories with a limited cast, as in either version of The Thing or either version of Assault on Precinct 13, but that aside I can see why you and a lot of others found this boring. The ending was sheer unadilterated drivvle, and I can only imagine that Moffat and Gatiss must have worked on this in the pub over quite a few rounds, laughing at their amusing inventiveness! It was as if this part had been written by completely different hands than those involved with parts 1 and 2. It's not been a good time recently for BBC genre productions. I just hope this won't spell the end of any more - though if any more were to be as badly done again... perhaps that would be for the best. Whatever, they need to get other people than writers for Peaky Blinders or Doctor Who involved. |
|
|
|
Post by cauldronbrewer on Jan 5, 2020 0:17:05 GMT
I was thinking that Tomb of Dracula back in the Seventies had a female van Helsing--am I remembering correctly, this time, that it was Rachel van Helsing? Right, she was part of the vampire-hunting team. |
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Jan 5, 2020 23:33:20 GMT
Excellent, Steve! Let me return the greeting! |
|
|
|
Post by Dr Strange on Jan 6, 2020 10:17:45 GMT
Re: Dracula, I completely agree with the comments so far. The final episode was a huge letdown - despite saying in an interview that they weren't doing a Sherlock-style update, in the end that is exactly what they did do and it just didn't work. The first two episodes were OK though, and I liked Claes Bang as Dracula.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Connolly on Jan 6, 2020 13:45:41 GMT
|
|
