Post by Ian on Sept 19, 2010 12:28:28 GMT -5
I re-watched this recently due to illness and decided (since I had a note pad) to write down my thoughts whilst watching it to try and work out why I could not find it a guilty pleasure (I can enjoy bad films). It is a borderline guilty pleasure since I do enjoy the scenes with the werewolves.
Disclaimer: I am sure all these actors and crew are very nice people and capable of much but this film did not work for me.
*****
Sommers's script is witless, juvenile, lacking in depth etc. and full of cliched, well-worn dialogue that almost everyone has heard before. As a director he seems to have made one bad decision after another. The result is a dog's dinner of a movie.
I thought Richard Roxburg's wardrobe and hair was unflattering to the character of Dracula to whom he was (miss)cast. It seems to me he has not got the tone right. He is playing Dracula like a pantomime villain rather than a truly chilling character. The contrast between the black eyebrows and hair and his white face look farcical. He dances around, even pirouetting at one point which is totally 'un-Dracular like' to me.
Neurotic and suffering, his Dracula is too human, too flawed.
There is something Muppet-like about his appearance. I think it is the contrast between his black eyebrows and painted white face which makes him look doll like. Also, his well defined nose creates a puppet look.
Shuler Hensley as Frankenstein's Monster comes across as ungainly and lacking in charisma. I thought physically he was misscast. Too elephantine (as appose to giraffe-like) for Frankenstein's Monster. He just seemed to be a bit of a Heffalump, lumbering along from scene to scene. The shape of his head (with the prosthetics etc.) reminded me of those water-coolers they have in the U.S. I found his performance to be awkward to watch.
I thought Kate Beckinsale did a good job and brought a lot to the film. Unfortunately they cursed her performance with a silly accent and made a pig's breakfast of her hair (fortunately rectified at her own insistence during principle photography). I also found her over elaborate costume to be a bit distracting at times.
All the 'good' characters are playing their roles in a deadly serious way, almost like cardboard characters. The comic Dracula hamming it up in every scene upsets the tonal balance of the film.
Sommers throws in a dandiprat for comic relief (David Wenham) but as Sommers has a simple sense of humour he comes across as irritating and annoying instead of funny (for me anyway).
I really want to like this film as a guilty pleasure but 'Dracula' is so spectacularly misscast that he murders the film for me.
I also found the concept of an organisation of all the religions in the world sending agents armed with James Bond gadgets on missions to be ever-so-slightly 'naff'.
I thought the werewolves were a great design but they looked cartoonish to me. It does not help that they are moving with the comical speed of cartoons (occasionally). However, I do not think the problem is that they are not photo realistic enough I think it is because for some reason computer graphics (if I recognise them as such) do not suspend my disbelief the way models and puppets do. There are times in 'Underworld: Rise Of The Lycans' where I recognise the werewolves as being computer generated and yet they do suspend my disbelief. I am not sure what the difference is but I think it might be that the tone in that film/in those scenes is so well focused.
What CGI monsters have you seen that successfully suspended your disbelief/worked for you?
Disclaimer: I am sure all these actors and crew are very nice people and capable of much but this film did not work for me.
*****
Sommers's script is witless, juvenile, lacking in depth etc. and full of cliched, well-worn dialogue that almost everyone has heard before. As a director he seems to have made one bad decision after another. The result is a dog's dinner of a movie.
I thought Richard Roxburg's wardrobe and hair was unflattering to the character of Dracula to whom he was (miss)cast. It seems to me he has not got the tone right. He is playing Dracula like a pantomime villain rather than a truly chilling character. The contrast between the black eyebrows and hair and his white face look farcical. He dances around, even pirouetting at one point which is totally 'un-Dracular like' to me.
Neurotic and suffering, his Dracula is too human, too flawed.
There is something Muppet-like about his appearance. I think it is the contrast between his black eyebrows and painted white face which makes him look doll like. Also, his well defined nose creates a puppet look.
Shuler Hensley as Frankenstein's Monster comes across as ungainly and lacking in charisma. I thought physically he was misscast. Too elephantine (as appose to giraffe-like) for Frankenstein's Monster. He just seemed to be a bit of a Heffalump, lumbering along from scene to scene. The shape of his head (with the prosthetics etc.) reminded me of those water-coolers they have in the U.S. I found his performance to be awkward to watch.
I thought Kate Beckinsale did a good job and brought a lot to the film. Unfortunately they cursed her performance with a silly accent and made a pig's breakfast of her hair (fortunately rectified at her own insistence during principle photography). I also found her over elaborate costume to be a bit distracting at times.
All the 'good' characters are playing their roles in a deadly serious way, almost like cardboard characters. The comic Dracula hamming it up in every scene upsets the tonal balance of the film.
Sommers throws in a dandiprat for comic relief (David Wenham) but as Sommers has a simple sense of humour he comes across as irritating and annoying instead of funny (for me anyway).
I really want to like this film as a guilty pleasure but 'Dracula' is so spectacularly misscast that he murders the film for me.
I also found the concept of an organisation of all the religions in the world sending agents armed with James Bond gadgets on missions to be ever-so-slightly 'naff'.
I thought the werewolves were a great design but they looked cartoonish to me. It does not help that they are moving with the comical speed of cartoons (occasionally). However, I do not think the problem is that they are not photo realistic enough I think it is because for some reason computer graphics (if I recognise them as such) do not suspend my disbelief the way models and puppets do. There are times in 'Underworld: Rise Of The Lycans' where I recognise the werewolves as being computer generated and yet they do suspend my disbelief. I am not sure what the difference is but I think it might be that the tone in that film/in those scenes is so well focused.
What CGI monsters have you seen that successfully suspended your disbelief/worked for you?
