Bram Stoker's Dracula Blu-ray

[Mr.White]

I have never seen the Francis Ford Coppola version of Dracula. I've heard it's pretty faithful to the original book. I'm a big fan of the Hammer Dracula's starring Christopher Lee. I also like the Bela Legosi version. Is this worth adding to my "Dracula" collection? My Target has it for 14.99, plus I have a 3.00 Sony Staycation coupon, plus my employee discount, it would be $10.49 for me after the coupon and discount!

[banned user105]

Yes, it's an excellent movie despite Keanu Reeves. If you want to spend an extra few bucks, Wal-Mart has the monster trilogy (Dracula / Frankenstein / Wolf) for $40, so only about $13 apiece.

[benricci]

Go for it. It's an awesome movie, has great extras and it's really cheap.

[Deciazulado]

[Clark Kent]

I am a great fan of Dracula on film, and this is one of the best treatments he has received on celluloid.

[Mr.White]

Originally Posted by benricci

Go for it. It's an awesome movie, has great extras and it's really cheap.

Thanks, I will buy it after work today!

[Steve]

I enjoyed the movie, but it's not completely faithful to the book (what movie is?). Anyway I remember when it was about to come out I bought the book and read it and was somewhat disappointed with the movie. My mom, however, bought the movie version of the book and she loved the movie.

[Kevinik]

If you can get it cheap buy it. It's a good adventure to watch if you haven't pretty enjoyable the first few times for me.

[Schonfelder]

I heard some talking about a bad bd transfer... Haven't seen it, but i've been told that it isn't a big upgrade compared to the double dvd.

[FindYourWay]

In spite of some poor casting choices with male characters, I LOVE this truly decadent film. So glad to have it on BD.

[Mr.White]

Originally Posted by jbpo

Why wait till after work? Go grab it right now, lol.

Just got home with it! Gonna watch it tonite, I'll let you know what I thought of it!

[HeavyHitter]

Yes, the PQ of this BD is greatly misunderstood by many. The bottom line is, it looks how it should.

[Wickerman1972]

Originally Posted by banned user105

Yes, it's an excellent movie despite Keanu Reeves. If you want to spend an extra few bucks, Wal-Mart has the monster trilogy (Dracula / Frankenstein / Wolf) for $40, so only about $13 apiece.

I wouldn't get that. They've got all 3 movies crammed onto one disc.

I wanted to get Bram Stoker's Dracula and came here to check the rating only to discover there isn't one. So I looked around in this thread a bit and it appears the transfer isn't up to snuff so I won't be getting it. I did, however, order Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, was only $7 and it got a PQ rating here that sounds pretty decent.

I did discover though (From browsing around this forum) that DVDEmpire gave the Dracula blu ray a negative review and somebody involved with it replied with this:


"If the electronic transfer of the film that you are seeing reveals grain structure...that is, if you are SEEING the film grain, then by definition, you are seeing all of the sharpness that was captured by the film camera. We can't manufacture sharpness or definition in the telecine process. It is true that in the standard definition home video era, it was common to dial in some electronic edge enhancement to overcome the limitations of NTSC Video and television receivers of that era. And it was common in pre HD transfers to "filter out" the grain giving movies more of a "TV look" which was considered desirable at that time. But the "detail enhancement" they used in that era was erzatz definition....fake. An illusion of detail. Again, if you are seeing "tons of grain" then you are seeing a faithful reproduction of the film element.

American Zoetrope, Francis Coppola's company does not own (and has never owned) the facilities to do feature film telecine mastering...aka the film transfer. The studio that OWNS the title (in this case Columbia-Sony) owns Dracula and they commissioned and paid for the new transfer in 1996 because they believed that the old one was wanting. I agreed with them. I was post production executive on the film in 1991-1992 and I always was horrified at what the home video and TV editions of Dracula looked like because they were so far from what Coppola and Ballhaus had done for the original release prints. So orange-y. So bright. Zoetrope's role in the new transfer was to make sure that the transfer colorist had access to a pristine original "final answer print" to screen and refer to. A final answer print is a vaulted 35mm film print in Sony's possession that bears a signature from the original production indicating that the director or director of photography was satisfied with the color timing and that this print was to be the gold standard...the reference for all 35mm release prints to be compared with and accepted/rejected. It was a controversial answer print at the time. It was dark. The soundtrack was considered very avant-garde. Coppola was breaking rules. Some critics appreciated it, others did not."

Hmm, now I'm not sure what to think. The graininess thing doesn't bother me. If that's how a film looks that's how it looks. It's when it's a product of being generations removed from the negative that it's a problem. Well, and so long as it truly is film grain and not noise. But I saw the screenshot comparison somebody posted in this thread and that did look entirely too dark to be watchable.

[rexxriot]

Originally Posted by Wickerman1972

I wouldn't get that. They've got all 3 movies crammed onto one disc.

Nope. Three discs in three separate cases.

[Wickerman1972]

Originally Posted by rexxriot

Nope. Three discs in three separate cases.

I don't have it. Was going by the info available at this site. But it's a good thing that isn't true.

[jscoggins]

If you can find the Dracula/Frankenstein double feature at Walmart for $7.88, you might as well take the plunge. The set includes a UV Digital Copy code for both movies.

[Vlad Draculi]

This is absolutely my favorite adaptation of the novel. Gary Oldman is just amazing as Dracula. The cinematography and visuals are phenomenal. Keanu does the role of Harker well even if they could have gotten someone better. Everything about it is great. Not to mention it is the closes we have ever gotten to an adaptation of the book.

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by Vlad Draculi

This is absolutely my favorite adaptation of the novel. Gary Oldman is just amazing as Dracula. The cinematography and visuals are phenomenal. Keanu does the role of Harker well even if they could have gotten someone better. Everything about it is great. Not to mention it is the closes we have ever gotten to an adaptation of the book.

Yesterday I watched it for my second time in quite a few years, and definitely enjoyed it much more than I remembered, but I couldn't help but laugh at Keanu Reeves a few times. I love the guy, but he was pretty bad in parts of this film. Otherwise, the atmosphere, costumes, and set design were astonishing. Gary Oldman was a revelation! Hamming it up, or not.

[bladelia]

probably not the right place, but i have a mint slip for this, if anyone is interested.

[mdonovan]

Originally Posted by Wickerman1972

I wouldn't get that. They've got all 3 movies crammed onto one disc.

I wanted to get Bram Stoker's Dracula and came here to check the rating only to discover there isn't one. So I looked around in this thread a bit and it appears the transfer isn't up to snuff so I won't be getting it. I did, however, order Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, was only $7 and it got a PQ rating here that sounds pretty decent.

I did discover though (From browsing around this forum) that DVDEmpire gave the Dracula blu ray a negative review and somebody involved with it replied with this:


"If the electronic transfer of the film that you are seeing reveals grain structure...that is, if you are SEEING the film grain, then by definition, you are seeing all of the sharpness that was captured by the film camera. We can't manufacture sharpness or definition in the telecine process. It is true that in the standard definition home video era, it was common to dial in some electronic edge enhancement to overcome the limitations of NTSC Video and television receivers of that era. And it was common in pre HD transfers to "filter out" the grain giving movies more of a "TV look" which was considered desirable at that time. But the "detail enhancement" they used in that era was erzatz definition....fake. An illusion of detail. Again, if you are seeing "tons of grain" then you are seeing a faithful reproduction of the film element.

American Zoetrope, Francis Coppola's company does not own (and has never owned) the facilities to do feature film telecine mastering...aka the film transfer. The studio that OWNS the title (in this case Columbia-Sony) owns Dracula and they commissioned and paid for the new transfer in 1996 because they believed that the old one was wanting. I agreed with them. I was post production executive on the film in 1991-1992 and I always was horrified at what the home video and TV editions of Dracula looked like because they were so far from what Coppola and Ballhaus had done for the original release prints. So orange-y. So bright. Zoetrope's role in the new transfer was to make sure that the transfer colorist had access to a pristine original "final answer print" to screen and refer to. A final answer print is a vaulted 35mm film print in Sony's possession that bears a signature from the original production indicating that the director or director of photography was satisfied with the color timing and that this print was to be the gold standard...the reference for all 35mm release prints to be compared with and accepted/rejected. It was a controversial answer print at the time. It was dark. The soundtrack was considered very avant-garde. Coppola was breaking rules. Some critics appreciated it, others did not."

Hmm, now I'm not sure what to think. The graininess thing doesn't bother me. If that's how a film looks that's how it looks. It's when it's a product of being generations removed from the negative that it's a problem. Well, and so long as it truly is film grain and not noise. But I saw the screenshot comparison somebody posted in this thread and that did look entirely too dark to be watchable.

^voice of reason - although I'd say if you can watch the insanely too dark Godzilla (2014) you can watch this.