Bram Stoker's Dracula

          Bram Stoker's Dracula was directed by Francis Ford Coppola and is adapted from, well, Bram Stoker's Dracula. Although adored by film critics and casual movie goers alike, I didn't really enjoy this movie all that much. I should enjoy this movie; every part of me that is rational says so. It has great performances from Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins. It is respectful to the source material, but is still its own story. The sets and costumes are designed wonderfully. Most of all, the insane level of melodrama somehow works (most of the time). For example, in one scene the Abraham who actually hunts vampires tosses the decapitated heads of three blood-suckers off a bridge and then cries out Dracula's name to the sky at the top of his lungs. In another, he dry humps Quincy Morris while describing the love of Quincy's life as "the concubine of Satan." Come to think of it, Van Helsing is out of his damn mind in this movie.

He's still one of the best things about it, though.

          By all rights, scenes like these should not be anything more than laughably ludicrous, but they are. The film's most noticeable failings are Keanu's faux British accent and the occasional moment where the melodrama fails (such as when vampire Lucy pukes blood on Van Helsing, Regan McNeil style), neither of which are so bad they ruin the movie. So why didn't I enjoy it? First of all, I want to point out that don't dislike this film, I just didn't particularly like it either. The reason for this, I'll admit, isn't entirely fair. To understand, one first needs to see this scene.

          This is my favorite scene of the film. It is one of my favorite scenes of any vampire film. It is also the prologue, so it colors the way I see the rest of the movie. A big part of this film is the romance between Dracula and Mina (who is the reincarnation of his deceased lover), but whenever the two are having a moment, all I can think about is how Dracula's hatred for God is so potent that he caused an entire cathedral and everything in it to bleed! Maybe it's just me, but when I've seen a man warp reality with his rage I have a hard time focusing on the other aspects of his character. 

          Like I said, every rational part of me says I should like this movie, but the reason I don't isn't rational. That's why I still give it a recommendation. My own prejudices aside, there are a lot of things to like about Bram Stoker's Dracula. Or maybe I just didn't like it because the left out Dracula's deadliest superpower: the Lugosi Stare!

Coraline

" 'I hope you weren't too old for it,' I told her, when she was done. 'I don't think you can be too old for Coraline,' she said, which made me very happy." - Neil Gaiman

          Coraline was directed by Henry Selick and is based on Neil Gaiman's novel of the same name. I wish I had read Coraline when it came out in 2002. I would have loved this as a kid. Alas, back then I mostly stuck to my mom's books and didn't read Coraline until quite recently. Obviously, I was well past the target age demographic by then; in fact, I only bought the book because it had Neil Gaiman's name on it. For those of you don't know, Gaiman is the most imaginative living writer I'm familiar with. His series Sandman is, along with Watchman, one of the most critically lauded comics of all time. After reading the first volume of Sandman and his written novel American Gods, I had already decided he was one of my favorite fantasy authors.

          I don't care that the back of the book says Coraline is for eight year-olds, this book is awesome! But don't take my word for it; here's what USA Today has to say about it.

"Not since Narnia has the simple act of opening a door unlocked such a fantastic journey. And not since Alice tumbled down the rabbit hole has that journey been so splendidly strange and frightening"

           Oh right, the movie. It's pretty good. It's stop motion, which is almost always a plus in my book. There's just something about how it looks that CGI can't capture. Selick also directed The Nightmare Before Christmas and I don't think I need to tell you that he knows what he's doing. The only thing about it that bugs me is the useless addition of a character named Wyborne. It might be nit-picky but I think he's really irritating. Why does Coraline need a sidekick that doesn't even do any sidekicking until the last five minutes? That brings me to the worst part, the film trades the book's original ending (where Coraline saves the day by being really clever for however old she is) for Deus Ex Wybie. Ugh. Also, Coraline is a bit, well, bitchier in the movie. She even calls Wyborne "Why-were-you-born" a couple of times. Look, it might be a legitimate question, but to ask him to his face is just cruel.

          In conclusion, buy the book, bask in the glory of Neil Gaiman, then, if you like it, see the movie. It is pretty.

"I wanted to write a story for my daughters that told them something I wished I'd known when I was a boy: that being brave didn't mean you weren't scared. Being brave meant you were scared, really scared, badly scared, and you did the right thing anyway. So now, ten years later, I've started running into women who tell me that Coraline got them through hard times in their lives. That when they were scared they thought of Coraline, and they did the right thing. And that, more than anything, makes it worthwhile." - Neil Gaiman

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

"In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit."

          The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was directed by Peter Jackson and is based on The Hobbit, or There and Back Again by J. R. R. Tolkien. I was very skeptical when I first heard Jackson was adapting The Hobbit into a trilogy. After all, The Hobbit is shorter than all three of the Lord of the Rings books and he only made one film for each of those. After having seen it, however, I'm still skeptical, but much less so.

          You see, The Hobbit isn't just about The Hobbit. Jackson takes things that were only briefly mentioned in the book and turned them into major plot points, particularly the War of the Dwarves and Orcs. For example, Azog the Goblin is a major villain in the film despite never even making an appearance in the book. Furthermore, it looks like the Necromancer (who, like Azog, is only mentioned in a single line of dialogue) will be important in the next two films. Also, Radagast the Brown. He was in Lord of the Rings, not The Hobbit, but Jackson took him out of Lord of the Rings and put him in The Hobbit. He has a sled pulled by Rhosgobel rabbits.

          As should be expected from Jackson at this point, The Hobbit is gorgeous. The effects (both practical and CG) are very impressive and the scenery is breathtaking.  Like Lord of the Rings, this movie will make you feel like it was really filmed in another world.

Shot in the mystical land of New Zealand

           It should be said that this film isn't as good as the Lord of the Rings trilogy, as it doesn't really do anything Lord of the Rings didn't. Still, The Hobbit is a fun movie and if you are a fan of Tolkien, Jackson's adaptations of Tolkien, or you just want to let sexy, sexy New Zealand make sweet love to your corneas, it's worth seeing.