So this is what true kino looks like

Just saw this and it is now one of my favorite movies of all time.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=_wVwlmJIJnY
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

It's pure ham but it's great

Probably the last Coppola movie I liked

GOAT soundtrack too
youtube.com/watch?v=_wVwlmJIJnY

Reeves ruined it for me.

Sorry

*aside from Bad Lieutenant Port of Call New Orleans

If you can get past Keanu Reeve's terrible performance, you will really enjoy the film.

...

Post the bed webm plz

I fucking love this movie, it has absolutely gorgeous visuals, set and art design is great, soundtrack is great, too. Terrible Dracula, though, Coppola's a madman to have Dracula has some misunderstood lover and not a Satanic undead wizard. Gary Oldman's great, but the character is shit.

that was werner herzog

I have to disagree, I actually like this dracula. Making him a sad lover kind of humanized him. It gave me the feels when he died.

Not my favorite Dracula movie as it makes him too sympathetic, but visually it's amazing

Nick Cage is a Coppola
You smelly willy

Best Dracula and best Dracula movie imho

>Looking for advice about an adaptation of stoker's Dracula
>Theres a thread about Dracula
It must be a sign.

Now Dracula 1931, Nosferatu the vampire or Dracula 2000?

I get to choose a movie me and my friends will watch and decided to get the best adaptation of the novel.

I read that Dracula 2000 is not the best representation of the movie but it does have color and better special effects.

I am really hesitating between Nosferatu 1979 and Dracula 1931.

Does anyone have an opinion as to which one would be best.

I will also say I am the only person out of the 4 who has read the book.

>Making him a sad lover kind of humanized him
Which is kind of against the whole point of the actual book. Dracula's an undead rape wizard, he's a monster with nefarious goals and powers, the book was one of the first to bring the monster home which makes the character so much of what he is. I love the movie, but reading the book will make you not like the movie's Dracula. The book is genuinely good, too, the first section where it's just Harker's journey into Transylvania and surviving Dracula's castle is fucking great stuff.

To my shame I haven't seen Dracula 1931, but Herzog's Nosferatu is one of my favourites. It's just a straight remake of the 20s one with Klaus Kinski being scary. I think it does a fair job of adapting the book, but there's so much going on the book that's never really explored.
>swale's tales

None of them are very close but Lugosi's is the closest. Honestly the OP's movie is the closest to the book ever filmed as far as I know. I'd recommend Herzog's Nosferatu as the best film out of the one's you mentioned.

Great visuals.
Middling acting.
Fucking awful writing.

I'm of two minds about that part. On one hand, I really liked the humanization of Dracula, and if I were to write a vampire movie I'd probably wind up doing the same thing.
On the other hand, I completely understand how that would ruin the character for some.

Personally I didn't mind it much because I thought the humanization wasn't enough to come close to redeeming or making Drac likeable, but was just enough to make him pitiable, as if there was some sort of Jekyll/Hyde moral about how the possibility of evil lurks within us all.

How was Dracula's taste in women?

>90s Monica Bellucci
His taste was patrician

Dracula was a great villain in the book because he was so reprehensibly and freely evil. He wasn't a person, he wasn't human, he had no human desires or goals. His origin is cloudy at best, you never really learn his backstory (other than he isn't actually Romanian, I believe he's actually Hungarian). He had a personality, but it was antagonistic, weird and inhuman, but he was intelligent, very much so. He was an actual monster. The movie does a complete 180 on it.

Dude was a fat lip lover.

I think I will make them watch Nosferatu 1979. I will watch the other two Draculas by myself though Dracula 1992 (yes I said 2000 ealier but I meant 1992) is putting me off a bit with the descriptions I am getting of the count.

Nosferatu 79 is a very odd movie, very dreamlike quality. Gotta get in the mood for it, but when you do, it draws you right in.

and you get to look at this qt

protip: the rats in this movie were white and dyed grey because they could only get white rats but needed grey ones. a lot of the rats were boiled to death in the dyeing process

Good for you op. I agree. Goats gonna goat.

>a lot of the rats were boiled to death in the dyeing process

Well this is no good, that fucking sucks

>I believe he's actually Hungarian
not after trianon he's not. you don't get to be on the wrong side and keep your bloodsuckers.

Both have different appeals, and I'll admit that book Drac sounds really interesting. I'm probably a bit biased towards movie Drac because I watched the movie without ever reading the book.

I know where the BASTARD sleeps

Great movie. Deserves to be revered alongside the original Nosferatu and Herzog's remake. But every time I watch or think about this movie it reminds me that there will never be a great, actually faithful adaptation of Frankenstein.

I actually saw it long before I ever read the book, and whereas I still love the Coppola movie for being massive cheese and also gorgeous to look at, it's Dracula has left me wanting.

Not that guy you were talking to. Cage is a Coppola, but kill yourself just for posting this.

The creature designs were fucking amazing. All practical too.

Real Legacy of Kain shit

>plastic surgery in the 1880s

Isn't that actually Gary Oldman in the costumes as well?

Are there any movies featuring the original Dracula impaling people and removing kebab?