Following our Muppet version of the film, and in the spirit of not doing too much work over Crimbo, we’re looking at “Bram Stoker’s Dracula”.
A film in which Ted goes on a less than excellent adventure; Withnail keeps Tom Waits on a remarkably protein-rich diet; and Hannibal Lecter clearly cannot be arsed having just won an Oscar.
Unleashed with much fanfare in 1992, director Francis Ford Coppola wanted to bring to the screen a definitive version of Stoker’s novel (except for all the extra bits he bunged in for good measure). This ambition weirdly highlights some of the pitfalls of a faithful adaptation, with a number of characters usually dispensed with or amalgamated in other versions left to clutter up the narrative. It features what is a genuinely stellar cast both for now and then, but with some actors not necessarily suited to their roles. However, it’s still Coppola, so it still remains a well-made, beautifully shot gothic romance; which certainly equals the novel for pace and drama, and even adds some iconic imagery to the old myth which is still appearing over 30 years after the film’s release.
All content for Welcome to Horror is the property of Welcome to Horror and is served directly from their servers
with no modification, redirects, or rehosting. The podcast is not affiliated with or endorsed by Podjoint in any way.
Following our Muppet version of the film, and in the spirit of not doing too much work over Crimbo, we’re looking at “Bram Stoker’s Dracula”.
A film in which Ted goes on a less than excellent adventure; Withnail keeps Tom Waits on a remarkably protein-rich diet; and Hannibal Lecter clearly cannot be arsed having just won an Oscar.
Unleashed with much fanfare in 1992, director Francis Ford Coppola wanted to bring to the screen a definitive version of Stoker’s novel (except for all the extra bits he bunged in for good measure). This ambition weirdly highlights some of the pitfalls of a faithful adaptation, with a number of characters usually dispensed with or amalgamated in other versions left to clutter up the narrative. It features what is a genuinely stellar cast both for now and then, but with some actors not necessarily suited to their roles. However, it’s still Coppola, so it still remains a well-made, beautifully shot gothic romance; which certainly equals the novel for pace and drama, and even adds some iconic imagery to the old myth which is still appearing over 30 years after the film’s release.
We’re sticking with the work of Don Coscarelli, and going back to the classic that made his name; “Phantasm”.
A film in which Angus Scrimm shows that, despite being older, he can still shoot his balls round corners; we learn how to make some of the most dangerous improvised explosives outside of the Anarchist’s Cookbook; and we meet a Jawa with a porn-moustache.
Coscarelli’s third feature film, made independently over 2 years with a cast and crew of mostly friends and family, would go on to be a staple of the horror section in video shops for the next decade, with its striking poster image (entirely unrelated to anything in the actual film) burned into the minds of a generation.
Unlike a lot of its VHS counterparts; “Phantasm” is an utterly unique beast; a horror/sci fi hybrid with surreal set pieces and a mythology that obfuscates the more it reveals; coupled to a domestic coming-of-age story of two orphaned brothers (and their singing Ice Cream Man buddy). It would follow the route of successful 80s horrors in spawning a franchise, but this too would be unlike any others, with (mostly) the same cast returning each time, the story being picked up pretty much from where the last film left off, and lore explorations that again only deepen the mystery.
Watch (or re-watch) to avoid spoilers and join us.
Welcome to Horror
Following our Muppet version of the film, and in the spirit of not doing too much work over Crimbo, we’re looking at “Bram Stoker’s Dracula”.
A film in which Ted goes on a less than excellent adventure; Withnail keeps Tom Waits on a remarkably protein-rich diet; and Hannibal Lecter clearly cannot be arsed having just won an Oscar.
Unleashed with much fanfare in 1992, director Francis Ford Coppola wanted to bring to the screen a definitive version of Stoker’s novel (except for all the extra bits he bunged in for good measure). This ambition weirdly highlights some of the pitfalls of a faithful adaptation, with a number of characters usually dispensed with or amalgamated in other versions left to clutter up the narrative. It features what is a genuinely stellar cast both for now and then, but with some actors not necessarily suited to their roles. However, it’s still Coppola, so it still remains a well-made, beautifully shot gothic romance; which certainly equals the novel for pace and drama, and even adds some iconic imagery to the old myth which is still appearing over 30 years after the film’s release.
