BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA
hopscotchee: winona ryder score: 32.5 rating: R time: 128 minutes
let's make one thing perfectly clear: if this was not for our hopscotch, we would've shut this shiz down.
going into bram stoker's dracula with our normal, hashtag panic @ the disco, high, high hopes, we were let down within the first 15 minutes - NO!! even sooner than that!! taking on the popular tale of its iconic vampire, we thought that this film would've held up to its name - especially for being a francis ford coppola film. like, aren't those supposed to be good?? one may argue that this was just bad because of the time difference, but home alone 2: lost in new york came out in the same year, and that still doesn't disappoint. it's practically the one best home alone (hot take, you may have your own opinions). all we know is that, on top of an eczema flare-up, this was one of the most painful moments in our life, and we encourage others to avoid this film at all costs. seriously, read the book first.
the first person that needs to pay for our therapy is francis ford coppola. before we get started with our reasoning for this, let's not feel bad for him. he's just fine and cushy with his godfather series to care about what we have to say about this ONE movie of his. that said, this one movie was utter trash. presumably, the main fault of that was his. being behind a film with a hodgepodge mess of directing aesthetics that resulted in no clear direction in the story, he is the obvious first to blame. but how could he not be?!?! switching from slow, hand-crank-styled filming to fast, time lapse, stop-motion-y shots and then crossing those over with the confusing combo of dark, silhouette cinematography and then some brown, tan, old-timeiness, the film's artistic theme was middle-school-ish. however, the most offensive act on his part was what he let get away. for one, anthony hopkins was clearly bitter about not getting the role of dracula, because he kept going in and out of his attempt of a 'dracula voice' and his character's actual accent. YET the most criminal offense was how francis literally let an actor get away with placing their hand on the wrong side of their neck after being bitten?!?! like, wtf!! it's not okay.
another portion of our therapy is going to have to whoever decided to make this film a poorly done erotica, featuring horny vampires with weird blood fetishes. that would be at the fault of the script writers and, oh, right, that would also be francis ford coppola, again. we understand that vampires are supposed to be alluring and enticing, but edward cullen's monologue about that in twilight seemed to work fine. plus, this film was struggling to maintain a feasible plot, so it didn't help that random sexy or actual sex scenes were just popped in without purpose. especially when (spoiler) keanu has his wacky beddy-time with (what were apparently) dracula's brides. they just start seducing and biting him and his d!ck?? HELLO!! then dracula comes in a stops whatever was happening to then just feed them a baby?? and, let's not talk about the awfulAF close ups on keanu. those were just gosh darn icky to watch!! obviously this whole scene was crazy - and not in the cool britney "(you drive me) crazy" or byler "we'll go crazy together" way. we blame this on the screenwriters, because the story was certainly questionably written to begin with before it was randomly adapted by francis, but both teams didn't help the cause.
lastly, if the visuals in this movie weren't enough to want us to gouge our eyes out, the audio would've done the job for both eyes and ears. the thought that this film even included audio transitions is very strange to think of. primarily because the scenes and shots so often-ly just cut off abruptly. either in the middle of someone's breath or some background noise, the disruption of "did they just really...." was too frequent to allow this film to be the slightest bit enjoyable. we'll just say, this edition to the picture was the cherry on top to make this one of the worst movies we've watched. it was just rough. the audio was just rough, and you can't have both bad footage and bad audio in one film. that's a double doozie in the pants immediately.
all in all, bram stoker's dracula didn't end soon enough for us. it was miserable and lacking any redeemable cause (minus keanu of course). but, like the warriors we are, we suffered and survived this one, so that we could write a honest review. if you felt like we were too harsh, you try watching it. we promise you it isn't good, and we highly DO NOT recommend it. but if you want to bite in to prove us wrong, go for it. it'll be your undead funeral.
-- thanks, winona xo (we still love you, nonetheless)