"I vahnt to sock yourrr blahd!" You might expect to find that
quote uttered in Stephen Sommers's ("The Mummy") high-tech,
expensive reinvention of the Dracula myth. Yet what a shame it
would be to plagiarize Bela Lugosi's expression of his deepest
desire in the classic, 1931 "Dracula," Tod Browning's masterful
re-creation of the Transylvanian vampire working his evil spell
on perplexed groups of Londers. Now with a new score by
Philip Glass, Browning's "Dracula" is still the king, reigning over
such hybrids as George Melford's "Dracula" of the same year
featuring provocatively-dressed women; John Badham's 1979
"Dracula," with a great cast featuring Frank Langella, Laurence
Olivier, Donald Pleasence and Kate Nelligan; "Bram Stoker's
Dracula" Alan Gibson's take with Peter Cushing and Christopher
Lee; and an assortment of lesser films like "Dracula and Son,"
Mel Brooks's comical "Dracula: Dead and Loving It," Freddie
Francis's "Dracula Has Risen From the Grave," etc. etc. as you
might expect from filmmakers eager to exploit such a blood-
curdling medieval myth.
If we're to compare this Sommers version to its predecessors,
we'd have to say that he's got first prize for technology but that
neither Bela Lugosi nor Frank Langella nor ever Bram
Stoker whose novel published in 1897 is provided the
motivation for a wealth of cinematic treatments should feel
threatened. Still the large target audience of youth would dig
the current scene, given the wildly creative computer graphics
backed by Alan Silvestri's eardrum-paralyzing soundtrack while
the pro-classic biddies like me would have preferred a close
rendition of the Stoker novel. Who needs Drac to turn into a bat
or his brides into ghastly birds giving rise to thousands of "Lord-
of-the-Rings" monstrosities that would make Alfred Hitchcock's
"The Birds" seem like an Aristophanes comedy?
Since Professor Van Helsing might not go over with a modern,
youthful audience if he were rendered like Bram Stoker's aging,
Amsterdam professor called into action to aid the failing Lucy,
Sommers gives us the ruggedly handsome Hugh Jackman, now
so much in demand that fans can't get enough of him at
Broadway's Imperial Theatre where he performs in the role of
the boy from Oz. Jackman's Van Helsing is directed by a
cardinal in Vatican City to head East to Transylvania, though
this time the late-19th century hero is equipped with weapons at
least one of which looks both forward and backward a classy
crossbow with a telescopic-like sight that can shoot a half-
dozen arrows per second. Never mind the garlic, the crucifixes,
the stakes. Van Helsing discovers in his earliest meeting with
Dracula (a stunning, sure-footed Richard Roxburgh given just
enough make-up to render him on the barely human side of
paleness) that the old remedies simply tickle Dracula's funny-
bone.
The film, which recalls the battles in all three editions of the
"Lord of the Rings" (therefore taking away some of the virtues of
reinvention), cost $148 million and looks it. However, you don't
always get what you pay for, and here's why. When I was a kid
and movies were still black-and-white, we thrilled to Tod
Browning's 1931 classic version because of its simplicity.
Dracula (Bela Lugosi) would rest in his wooden coffin during the
sunlight hours and go into action only after sunset. The story
was absolutely focused on the plan to drive a wooden stake into
his heart, preferably while he was reclining without defenses in
this box. Sommers, who both wrote and directed the current
version, throws in everything perhaps including even the kitchen
sink, wasting time with werewolves, Dr. Frankenstein's monster,
and Dracula all having receiving filmed versions by Universal
Studios, even giving us a battle between Van Helsing and a
Hulk-sized Mr. Hyde. There is absolutely no reason to blow
Hyde up in this way, making him paradoxically less scary than
he was in the Robert Louis Stevenson's down-to-earth saga
about the negative side-effects of scientific exploration.
Consider this formula when you see the picture: the larger the
demon, the fewer scares he engenders.
The writing is the weakest link in the chain of command, the
clunky dialogue giving rise to no small number of unintentional
laughs by the audience. Sommers's pace is frantic, giving the
impression that he's afraid that members of his audience will
actually consider the spoken words: he therefore distracts us
with endless visuals, Van Helsing's Sancho Panza in the form of
Friar Carl (David Wenham), providing little comedy and less
relief. Dracula's brides, who could take the form of blind dates
from hell and prom queens depending on which side they wish
to expose, are bolstered by standard-issue CGI, while Kate
Beckinsale as Anna Valeriou, to whom Dracula gives priority as
she is the last of the royal clan, goes through the rules of genre
romances by playing hard-to-get at first until she trusts Van
Helsing to kill her own wolf-man brother, Velkan (Will Kemp).
There's little doubt that the $148 million will be recovered, if
not completely in the box office, then by the video games that
will emerge therefrom. But is anyone actually scared these
days by vid-games?
Copyright © 2004 Harvey Karten