Unseen Terror 2015: Day 8

It is the year 1462, and Vlad Dracula has returned from a long, hard-fought battle to find that his wife Elisabeta, despondent over a false letter telling of her husband's demise, has committed suicide. Incensed over the fact that she is now most likely damned, Dracula defiles the chapel he stands in, renouncing the lord while swearing that he will rise embedded with the power of darkness on his side. Four centuries later, paralegal solicitor Jonathan Harker receives a request from a fellow colleague to take on one solitary, if not slightly unusual person as a client, and he travels to the land of Transylvania to meet with the mysterious individual. Upon arrival, "Count Dracula" greets Harker, but catches a glimpse of a photograph with the visage of Jonathan's fiancee, who bears an uncanny resemblance to his own long lost love, and whom he will do anything to reunite with.

Generally, after I compile my list of entries for every year's iteration of this marathon (of sorts), I keep my choices hidden from my friends and family. This year, I did stick to my guns, save for perhaps a tiny amount of people. Their primary reaction was usually something along the lines of "How the hell have you never seen Day Of The Dead?" The secondary one was "You haven't seen Bram Stoker's Dracula? What is wrong with you?" So, at the behest of these various inquirers, I decided to go with Francis Ford Coppola's (The Godfather, The Outsiders) reimagining of the beloved piece of literature for the 1992 "day," rather than the science fiction oddity known as The Lawnmower Man. Did I make the right choice?

Well, I'd like to say that I did indeed you silly ninnies. Though this certainly wouldn't be the only modernized update of a classic monster story to be released in the 1990s (Kenneth Branagh's adaptation of Frankenstein is something I will seek out one day), it was one of the first to expose my generation to the classic Dracula mythos and to paint him as a tragic villain, rather than that of an ungodly, evil beast. Its opening sets this in stone, with a quick backstory and voiceover that thankfully doesn't go on for too long, yet doesn't feel criminally short. Mind you, the narratives in Dracula are seen and heard in droves, to the point where it almost becomes comical or irritating. Of course, if you want to talk comical, most of Dracula's initial controversy came from its casting for the "lovebirds" that nearly every horror fan knows about: Jonathan Harker and Mina Murray. While Winona Ryder does a commendable job as the woman being pursued and seduced by the prince of darkness, she already had a good enough track record to ride off of, and had been established as a credible performer. As for Keanu Reeves? Well, despite some breakout roles in the likes of Point Break and My Own Private Idaho, this seemed like too large of a task for him to handle. Truth be told, I've always found the character of Harker to be a bit a bit on the bland side, but jeez, he should never be portrayed as a block of wood. Sadly, both players do noticeably suffer with being able to maintain a proper English accent, and it was no wonder that Mr. Reeves was the butt of numerous parodies through animation and live action programs of that decade. Perhaps if they had decided to tell Keanu at the last minute that him and Cary Elwes (The Princess Bride) were switching places, most of those would've never occurred.

However, somebody who can always persevere in even the lousiest or sketchiest of movies is the amazing Gary Oldman (The Professional, Harry Potter, The Dark Knight). It did shock me a tad to discover that the only award he seemed to receive for his representation was a Saturn Award, which is by no means an insult, but for anyone who can combine romanticism, creepiness, and sadness as well as Oldman did, it's still marginally baffling. He taunts and teases with the idea that vampirism and eternal life could be quite enchanting, but has to suddenly remember that it can be equally horrific, with the latter's painful effects permeating through the loud, anguished, and often erotic cries of transformation into something beyond human (relative unknown Sadie Frost does this to great effect as Lucy Westenra). Anthony Hopkins (The Silence Of The Lambs, Thor) also shows up as Abraham Van Helsing, the legendary archenemy to the strigoi. To say that he's good is to say that water is wet, and nothing more needs to be mentioned of it. Oh yeah, and it has musician Tom Waits as the mentally unstable Renfield. No, that wasn't a typo.

Hit or miss acting aside, what did draw me to Coppola's Dracula was ultimately the visual and technical aspects of the flick. The various forms of makeup and costuming that our count dons throughout the picture is a thing of beauty, enabling him to fully immerse himself in the role, no matter the situation. Many toasts should be given to the trio who worked on this aspect of the film, as their track records of such classics like The Howling, Edward Scissorhands, and Quest For Fire show that they were ready for the job. The set locations and designs of Transylvania and London are the pure definition of glamorized horror, proving to be equally eerie, strange, and compelling. Unfortunately, there are points where it feels like those who finalized these decisions were in love a little too much with their own ideas, but as they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I can see why Bram Stoker's Dracula divided so many moviegoers upon arrival in 1992. It's unexpectedly over-the-top at times, which is all the more shocking when you consider the track record of its director. Some of its casting borders on being called perplexing, and the final results reflect it. Still, I can't quite figure out why none of that bothered me a great deal by the time its two hour running time had ended. Perhaps it was my desire to see another truly engaging vampire film that I could one day add to my DVD or Blu-Ray collection? Or perhaps it was solely because of how god damn good Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins are in their roles of the antagonist and hero? In the end, I believe that the total package's positives FAR outweigh its negatives. And for that, I can cast no real ill feelings towards it. Bram Stoker's Dracula is currently available to stream for $2.99 on Amazon Prime, and can be purchased in assorted formats on home video.

For my closing comments, I leave you with this animated piece for what I assume was a proposed followup to this piece of nostalgia.

Tomorrow, Chris Griffin and Carlton Banks try to survive against mutated, bloodthirsty arachnids.......I sure know how to choose em.......

Stoker (2013) Review

During the week of her eighteenth birthday, a young lady by the name of India loses her father in a car accident. While at his funeral, she is introduced to her Uncle Charlie, whose presence she was unaware of until that day. Though India is emotionally distant and still quietly reeling from the loss, it matters not as the newly introduced family member comes to stay in the house almost immediately, with India increasingly becoming more and more suspicious of his true origins and connection to the family.


If you know me decently well enough, you know that I was quite intrigued by the idea of director Park Chan-wook finally making the transition to American cinema after years of excellent overseas work. True, not all Asian directors find success over here. Some get latched onto projects that are simply beyond repair, and others have their own masterpieces remade in order to appeal to simpler audiences (Park's own Oldboy has a remake set for release in the fall). However, I had an unusually good feeling about this one. The man seems like the type who doesn't buckle under pressure, and he can set up diabolically twisted scenes better than most out there.


Perhaps the first shocking thing about Stoker was that Park had nothing to do with its screenplay. Rather, Prison Break actor Wentworth Miller is the man responsible for the film's dark turns, moments of great symbolism, and quiet script. True, he isn't directing himself, but the fact that this screenplay was floating around Hollywood for several years in the "Best Unproduced" category means he may have contributed enough. As I mentioned above, the film is very quiet, almost at times TOO quiet. Mia Wasikowska plays India like a more disturbed, serious version of a Winona Ryder character, or like an older version of the female vampire from the excellent Let the Right One In. Her avoidance and hesitation around the entire cast is utterly convincing, even if her main emotion doesn't seem to change much throughout the first half of the film. Every development she and Charlie go through is fascinating, be it good, bad, or much, much worse.


Charlie himself is played by Matthew Goode, who I can officially say only ruined Ozymandias because of Zack Snyder, and not because of his own acting chops. He is damn good as the new "stranger" to the household, equal parts complex, creepy, charming, and at times sympathetic. Nicole Kidman plays India's mother, and though the Aussie is good like usual, I felt that she was a tad bit underutilized. Her character is clearly struggling to get on her daughter's good side after years of being more or less known as just "the other parent." Her transformation, for what we see of it, could serve as a good side story if we had been given more time. I'm certain that you'll hear a band in the aggressive music scene sample her brilliant ending speech to Goode in a future song (assuming I don't just up and do it myself. Nyah nyah nyah).


As great as the development with the main characters is, the side characters do feel rather paper thin or lifted out of the big book of drama/thriller cliches. The scenes with India at school being harassed by jock bullies feel particularly ancient, and one potential love interest in the film seems to do a 180 for seemingly no rhyme or reason in near record time. I understand high school students are an erratic and occasionally unstable bunch, but this took even me out of the film for a moment. Thankfully it doesn't last for an outrageous amount of time, as Stoker only runs for ninety nine minutes and they ensure you that they are going to try their damndest to pull you back in.


Wook's direction in particular scenes (like a moment with mother and daughter conversing while one uncomfortably combs the other's hair) are signs of a man who's been doing this long enough to make a simple scene work eerily than expected. And on that note, it wouldn't be a CWP film without scenes of great discomfort, and Stoker may turn some viewers off with a couple of scenes that occur midway and towards the end of the film, one of which seems to receive no closure. While nothing matches the Vivaldi teeth-pulling scene of Oldboy, there are some symbolic shots and sequences which could haunt you depending on sensitivity towards the subject matter at hand. The movie's ending has also been up for debate as well, though I may leave that up to you as to how to interpret it.


After I started Stoker, I was sure that the theme at hand was going to be mystery. By the end, I was proven to be dead wrong. Stoker's theme, if you had to narrow it down to absolutely one, is growth. We watch not just the title character(s) grow up or down through odd means, but we're also witnessing the growth of a director who may finally find the recognition among mainstream audiences that he's gotten from the small faithful (i.e. us) throughout the last decade. I'm almost certain that I'll revisit Stoker again in the near future, as there are some moments of symbolism (I apologize for the overuse of that word in this review) that I didn't get upon first glance, but it will have to wait in order for other pictures to be rented and reviewed. If you're in the mood for a criminally overlooked picture from this year, with occasional dips into gothic, demented territory, this is absolutely worth a watch.