Bram Stoker’s Dracula (Francis Ford Coppola, 1992)

After losing his wife (Winona Ryder), and cursed with immortality, Dracula (Gary Oldman) sees a chance to rekindle his love when he sees a photograph of Mina (Ryder again) in the possession of estate agent Jonathan Harker (Keane Reeves).

Travelling to London, Dracula plots to reclaim his bride...

As a purely audiovisual  experience Bram Stoker’s Dracula is unique. For the first 30-40 minutes I am just in awe.

 

Utilising a variety of old cinematic and theatrical effects techniques, the film is completely disconnected from its context.

Because so many of the effects are accomplished in-camera, they still look good now.

The film is filled with sexuality, with characters barely suppressing their urges.

Sex and vampirism are aligned as a release from Victorian probity. Vampire bites are accompanied by orgasmic moaning (and in one case, geysers of blood). The scene of Mina and Lucy running through the maze as winds whip their lace garments; Harker falling under the spell of the Brides; Dracula lustfully licking Harker’s blood off his razor. This film is not so much a romance as a monument to pure, base desire.

Sensuality is also aligned with the story’s medium - Coppola’s desire to utilise the techniques (and in one case, the cameras) of early cinematic effects evokes a tactile vitality - even without the titular character, this world is on the precipice of massive changes that will shake it free of its bodice.  

The focus on the visual over the verbal should play to Keane Reeves’ gifts. 

Reeves is so focused on hitting his accent he throws himself off-base - you can see him reaching for pathos, and it dissipates as soon as he opens his mouth. 

It is depressing because no one is a better match for this kind of filmmaking.

There are a few moments where he does work - I thought the moment he has for himself after Van Helsing advises him he has not been infected.

 

Bizarrely, Tom Waits’ accent is far better.

On this watch, I was impressed with how funny Hopkins' Van Helsing is. 

He is a deadpan delight - casually offending everyone around him with frank explanations of what has happened.

The movie runs out of steam around the point Mina meets Dracula.

The actors do not have the chemistry to make their connection believable. And the story goes from a love story to just following the narrative of the book, so it loses the sense of catharsis it is aiming for.

Related

Dracula (1931 Anglo version)

Dracula (1931 Spanish version) 

Horror of Dracula (1958)

Count Dracula (1977)

Dracula (1979)

The Last Voyage of the Demeter

Nosferatu (2024)

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

If you enjoy something I wrote, and want to support my writing, here’s a link for tips!

Get Carter (Mike Hodges, 1971)

After his brother dies, London gangster Jack Carter (Michael Caine) returns home to Newcastle to solve the mystery - no matter what it takes.

Get Carter is one of those movies that I have heard so much about that I never bothered to watch it until now. The one element I was familiar with was Roy Budd’s jazzy theme.

What a chilly, uncompromising vision.

It is easy to see why it had so many pretenders - and what those pretenders miss about Mike Hodge’s masterpiece.

I do not use that word lightly - this movie is one.

I do not think I have seen Michael Caine like this:

Looming, taciturn, utterly selfish, completely unflappable, and seemingly willing on violence.

Carter’s background is a mystery, and his relationship with his family just as murky - is his rampage motivated by the knowledge he is Doreen’s (Petra Markham) real father? We never find out.

All we learn is from his actions, and his disregard for human life - Keith (Alun Armstrong) who is beaten for helping him; he locks another character in the boot of a car that ends up in the sea.

He is a force of nature.

Acting as his opposite both within and without the text, Ian Hendry is vicious and unglamourous as Eric - where Carter is completely locked down and sociopathic, he is riddled with the guilt of a thousand sins. Driven by his own demons and jealousy at the state of his career, the venom of his performance was apparently based in genuine resentment toward contemporary Caine.

Filled with great Newcastle locations ( the parking building, the beach) Get Carter has a desolate, drained beauty.

Director Mike Hodges and DoP Wolfgang Suschitzky (who used to work in documentaries) give the film a deglamorized feel, taking in the film’s violent events with a dispassionate, dead-eyed perspective.

The film is filled with great un-flashy filmmaking. I was obsessed with the scene where Carter confronts Glenda (Geraldine Moffatt).

The camera is placed ata remove, in a wide shot showing Carter slowly ascending the stairs on one side of the frame while Glenda (Geraldine Moffatt) takes a bath, completely oblivious.

He overtakes the frame as he reaches her floor, as she incriminates herself further in his niece’s demise.

While Carter’s vengeance carries a certain visceral thrill, the film never feels like it is reveling in his rampage.

That scene I previously referenced is terrifying - but by keeping us at a literal distance, it emphasises Glenda’s vulnerability.

We are never truly aligned with Carter, and by foregrounding his callousness, his campaign feels more like an excuse for violence, rather than some kind of righteous act.

A cool film, but not in the way its most ardent admirers believe it to be, Get Carter is a great film.

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

If you enjoy something I wrote, and want to support my writing, here’s a link for tips!

OUT NOW: Superman (James Gunn, 2025)

After stopping a war, Superman (David Corenswet) finds himself on the wrong side of US foreign policy.

This gives Lex Luther (Nicholas Hoult) the cover he needs to martial opposition to the superhero. 

After breaking into the Fortress of Solitude, Luther discovers a new weapon to use against Superman: 

A secret that could shatter not only the world’s trust in Superman, but his own sense of self…

Well that only took… 40-something years.

This is the first Superman movie that feels like an episode in a longer series. 

Recent previous movies have felt stuck in an endless loop of origins. 

Superman Returns was a partial reboot/sequel that was too in love with Richard Donner’s iteration.

Man of Steel was a full reboot that mashed up Donner’s first two films into one narrative, with a blurry focus on grounding Superman in cynicism about selfless heroism.

On its own terms, this movie is fine. I doubt it will stick in the cultural memory.

The cast is fine. It moves. The tone is relatively lighter.

There is nothing about it that is that original. It feels like a compilation of elements from previous Superman and superhero media.

Ironically, I left the movie wanting to re-watch Man of Steel. Not because I think it would be a materially better work - but it probably feels like it’s own (flawed) beast.

I left Superman with a vague vacuousness - like I had eaten something filled with empty calories.

With Gunn’s other work, there is a desire to feel for the underdog - those society deems worthless. But that quality feels surface - the character Eve Teschmacher (Sara Sampaio) is revealed to be more cunning than her initial appearance, but she is still presented as a caricature, something to be made fun of rather than a person.

There are more significant issues. I was disappointed in Nicholas Hoult as Luthor - he is a little one-note as scripted. I never buy his loathing - there is a gnawing lack of context and interiority to the character, and it feels like the actor is trying to force his rage.

Hilariously, in trying to both rebound from the creative choices of the Snyder era, this film feels like a studio mandate on celluloid (in its focus on the geopolitics of a fictional country and introduction of a superhero team, it also feels like a remake of Black Adam).

Once again, DC is trying to build a universe in one movie.

And the person (co)leading this effort is also the filmmaker tasked with introducing this universe. It cannot help but feel off. 

The film opens with a lot of inelegant exposition, mostly conveyed in dialogue that never feels natural to the characters or their performers. It also looks too bright, with a lot of bland compositions more redolent of television than cinema.

It looks and feels like a movie tossed off to meet a release date, a teaser for future spin-offs.

It ultimately feels a little weightless. That is why it feels like another episode in a larger series.

It is a pity because the movie teases some real dramatic and thematic meat:

Gunn’s re-working of Superman’s origins is the most interesting part of the movie, and the resolution, while well-played by the actors, feels rushed.

Getting Superman involved in geopolitics feels like a welcome deviation from the timeless myth-making of Donner and the stillborn revisionism of Snyder.

For a brief chunk of runtime, the film teases real conflict - particularly in the interview Clark has with Lois - offering an opportunity to show Superman’s ideals, and putting them to the test.

One thing I liked about the movie was that it figured out how to present Superman as a vulnerable hero - he has all these powers but he is also determined to save anyone who needs help (down to a dog and a squirrel).

This film recognises the stakes of this and foregrounds Superman trying to limit destruction and help people, while also fighting super-powered beings.

He is repeatedly beaten and trapped.

But beyond the impacts on his flesh, what about the character?

I was curious to see how the filmmaker behind Super would conceptualise Superman, an eternal boy scout.

The Gunn protagonist is a flawed person trying to make good. 

His Superman is more sure of purpose from the outset, but is still trying to live up to and work out what that purpose is. The movie never finds a way to make that arc cathartic.

It has entertaining aspects, but Superman 2025 ultimately never finds the emotional grounding it aspires to.

If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour. 

You can subscribe on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

If you enjoy something I wrote, and want to support my writing, here’s a link for tips!