Horror Of Dracula (1958) Vs.Dracula (1992)

[deleted]

The Coppola version is miles ahead of the Hammer version. Though not 100% faithful to the book, Coppola's is still the MOST faithful - even more so than the BBC/Jordan or the Franco/Lee versions (which are the only other ones which come close). Horror of Dracula is probably the furthest from the book - omitting important characters, swapping names around (Harker is engaged to Lucy Holmwood?), changing the plot drastically, and even changing Dracula's death.

Oldman's Dracula is sinister (feeding the baby to the brides), deep (talking of his pride as ancestor of Attila), creepy (licking the razor blade), and menacing (the giant bat who defies Van Helsing's cross). Lee's Dracula is good, but more 2 dimensional - he is very savage, yes, but not much else.

Coppola's version has atmosphere. The Hammer Dracula films' worst flaw is that they have absolutely NO atmosphere. Dracula's castles are well lit, dry, and never spooky in any way. The forests have no fog or shadows. Lighting is very conventional. Hammer's Dracula films, though exciting, are all very reserved and stodgy. Even the Universal films blow Hammer away in terms of spooky atmosphere.

They both have great music, but I like Kilar's score just a bit more.

Coppola did add the romantic sub-plot, which i agree is not faithful to the book, but I do like the the historical prologue. Though not in the book, it is the history on which Dracula was based/inspired, and this adds even more depth to the Dracula character: as a terrifying warlord, the impaler, who renounced Christ and defied his own death to become a thing of evil.

And finally Coppola's film includes one more terrifying aspect of Dracula that other versions don't show: Dracula is intelligent and clever. In the book (and Coppola's film) Dracula is always one step ahead of his hunters, confounding their plans to destroy him. It is not so easy as going to his coffin and staking him - he flees before they get there. They try to stop his ship only to find out he anticipated their move and sailed to a different port. It makes Dracula a much more deadly adversary.

Many call Coppola's version 'overblown'. If the reserved Hammer version seems atmospheric to you, then Coppola's may seem over the top. But Dracula is THE iconic figure of terror, and the world he lives in should reflect that. The operatic style of Coppola's matches the monumental power of this iconic figure.

I like Lee, and I like Hammer horror. I like universal horror too. Most Draculas (Lugosi, Jordan, Lee, Langella, Oldman) have their strong points. And everyone has different opinions. I prefer Coppola's, thats all... just personal preference.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I prefer Coppola's version. IT has the best-fitting actor for Dr Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins; before his Hannibal Lecter character had fully shaped), the best Dracula (Gary Oldman) and the best Mina (Winowa Rider) and most important of all, the unforgettable score of Killar. Whenever I listen to the music I am scared. This film sets the standard.

Mohsen Qassemi

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I like 1992 film, it is gorgeous - including Mina and Lucy in those dresses - and enjoyable, but I think this is best of all versions.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Neither one.
The 1958 version stupidly has Harker coming to destroy Dracula, which is not in any way close to the novel. The "58", "74" and "92" versions wrongly and needlessly have Harker being attacked when he never was in the novel. In the novel, Dracula rescued him before the vampiresses had even bitten him or did much of anything else and Harker leaves before they get another chance.

The best was the 1974 TV version with Jack Palance as Dracula. In this version the "love story" is still there and does have Dracula's wife being left behind while Dracula is off fighting, like Coppola's version, but has her death as the result of murder not suicide although one could still believe she might have been going to kill herself but was captured instead. In reality, a mistress or one of Dracula's wives actually had committed suicide when warned of a coming attack, choosing death rather than capture. She did jump from the castle into a river.

The characterizations of Lucy and Mina are done better and Dracula having Mina drink from a wound on him is portrayed closer to the novel. Coppola's version romanticizes the event and he did not need to do so. This version also has none of the needless nudity, sexual dialog and actions that was in the 1992 version.

This version does not tell us how or why Dracula became a vampire, unlike Coppola's having the vampirism being the result of a curse because Dracula denied God and committed a sacrilegious act. That just did not make any sense.


"Do All Things For God's Glory"-1 Corinthians 10:31
I try doing this with my posts

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I enjoyed it better. For me, the 1992 version seemed to be all about image. The camerawork is great, the colors are beautiful and so are the costumes. But other than the aesthetics it seemed rather dull. The characters and story in the 1958 version is a lot more compelling and I find it more satisfying to watch.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Is the 1958-hammer film better than the 1992-film?

No.

But it is fair to state if they had the budget and means to create such effects Hammer would have been pursuing the overblown overwrought A-list cast twaddle that nearly sinks Coppola's movie. The parts which work save its bloated form from bulging over the belt line of failure.

Hammer's Dracula does not have one unnecessary scene. It may tell a severely abbreviated version of the Dracula story but what it does tell is told very well, without flourish, and spawned a whole mini-industry which included Coppola's movie. It also has a better Dracula in Christopher Lee and a far less annoying Van Helsing in Peter Cushing. Better ending too.

But then again I despise contemporary A-list entertainment and regard Hammer's movies as welcome respite from the crap we get shoveled into our faces every day.

reply share

add reply

formatting help