Audience Member
Have you read "Dracula" by Bram Stoker? If not, I recommend you do. At the very least, you should read [url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0785114777?ie=UTF8&tag=stevemillesdo-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0785114777"]"Stoker's Dracula, an excellent, extremely faithful graphic novel adaptation by Roy Thomas and Dick Giordano[/url]. Failing that, I'm sure there's a "Cliff's Notes" version of it out there... and I remember having a really cool illustrated, severely condensed version of the book when I was a little kid.
Some familiarity with Stoker's novel is also necessary if you are to fully understand this review, because I'm not going to bother to provide my usual teaser summary. Knowledge of Stoker's novel is also necessary if you are to fully understand what "Alucard" does well and what it does poorly. (That in and of itself is a strike against it, as a movie should stand alone from whatever source it's based on, but in this case it's a minor transgression.)
"Alucard" is a fairly faithful screen adaptation of Bram Stoker's classic horror novel "Dracula" (with "Dracula's Guest" thrown in). In fact, it's quite possibly the most faithful adaption ever filmed, as far as translating the writings and mood and intent of Stoker's novel goes. Dracula--sorry, Alucard--here is little more than an alien monster who exists to destroy innocence and life whereever he finds it and any sensuality and sexuality from his corner (and that of his vampire brides) is mockery of life rather than a passion for it. Further, it also films the vast majority of Stoker's book, literally word for word in the case of some of the dialogue and narration.
The biggest change is that it movies the action from 19th century Transylvania and England to modern-day Transylvania and the ficticious American city of Nilbog. It's a film that takes itself seriously and expects the veiwerr to do the same. However, there are a few fairly prominant elements working counter to this.
First and foremost, there's the title. "Alucard"? That's the best anyone involved with this produciton could come up with? And, like the book it adapts, it's also the name of the man villain. Spelling Dracula backwards was lame in 1943's "Son of Dracula" ([url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/journal_view.php?journalid=245672&entryid=447532&view=public"]review here[/url]) and further implimentations of such a clever idea over the years have not given it any more impact.
As film unfolded, I kept expecting this title to come into play in some clever fashion--the way it morphs during the preview for the film and the title sequence of the film itself gave me hope that there would be some sot of clever commentary about how something in Stoker's book is reflected today, or how Dracula is a reflection of an alien, destructive beast that lurks in us all--but if Johnson did anything along those lines, it was too subtle and intelligently done for me to catch.
So, I'm left looking at a title so lame anyone above the age of 12 will look at it and shake their heads.
Secondly, there's the location of Nilbog City. I understand why the locaiton has to be a made-up place (more on that later), but it's an unfortunately chosen name. It's likely that no one invovled with the production was familiar with the cinematic atrocity that is "Troll 2" ([url="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/journal_view.php?journalid=245672&entryid=423488&view=public"]review here[/url]), but I unfortunately am, and I can't hear that place name without thinking "It's goblin spelled backwards!". Nilbog was the name of the town "Troll 2" was set in, and it being goblin spelled backwards was one of two big "plot twists" in that movie. It being the name of the town here was a strike against "Alcucard" the moment Jonathan Harker mentioned the place.
The juvenile title and unfortunate placename of Nilbog aside, this movie's biggest weakness is also its strength. This translation of the "Dracula" to the screen kept much of the text from the supposed journal entries and letters penned by the various characters exactly as they appear in the book. The same is true of the various social situations, character attitudes, and dialogue. There are instances where this works extremely well and other times where it falls completely flat.
There are several occassions where the 19th-century, extremely polite narration (from the journal entries) either contradicts the action on the screen or comes across as almost ironic commentary, because it feels as if the character that wrote it is either decieving themselves or out-and-out lying. Instances like these are when the title of the film feels justified, because the viewer has the sense that we are seeing a truth that didn't come across in the writings. At these times, "Alucard" is a unique and worthwhile viewing experience.
[center][img]http://www.geocities.com/nuelow/movalucard.jpg[/img][/center]
[center][i]Cover art from the DVD release of "Alucard', [/i][/center]
[center][i]a laudible screen adaptation of "Dracula" that's [url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00143XDZ6?ie=UTF8&tag=stevemillesdo-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00143XDZ6"]available from Amazon.com[/url][/i][/center]
Unfortunately, there are more instances where Stoker's writing clashes with the film's modern setting, mostly in the area of dialogue. The dialogue often comes across as unnatural and stilted, partly because most of the actors in this low-budget film aren't practiced enough to make it sound like they're actually speaking their own words or otherwise behaving naturally. Some of the cultural situations also seem out of place in the modern world, such as Lucy writing to Mina that she needs to keep Lucy's various suitors a secret and the behavior of Lucy's various male friends in general. Dr. Seward's medical practices are also of a nature that would have gotten his license revoked and would have seen him tossed in prison long before the film starts if his treatment of Renfield is any indication of the standards at his clinic. (Dr. Van Helsing also comes as something of a lunatic and a quack of deadly proportions, not because of how the actor portrays him but because he ffeels out of place in modern times.)
However, the strange attitudes and practices by some of the characters--strange only because they are out of their time and place--are somewhat mitigated by the fictional setting of Nilbog. Who can say what's typical behavior for Nilbogonians and the people of neighboring Whitby? Although I still find the place name rediculous, by putting the flm's action in fictional places--the mythic Romania of superstitious peasants, isloated castles and treacherous gypsies abd the stodgey, overly gentile Nilbog--screenwriter/director Johnson made the cultural anachronisms seem a little less rediclous than they would have if the main had still been set in real-world British locations.
The fictional location doesn't make up for Seward's and Van Helsing's quackery, but it does blunt it slightly.
There is however one more problem with the faithful adaptation that Johnson has produced, and a very serious one at that: "Alucard" runs over two-and-a-half hours and it's bound to tax the patience of everyone who views it, even the most hardcore fans of Bram Stoker's original work. Unfortunately, while Johnson's spirit was certainly willing, the reality of his flesh of his budget and the skill levels of his cast simply aren't up to carrying the weight of a film this long. The camerawork and lighting aren't interesting enough, the performances (for the most part) aren't convincing enough, and the budget wasn't here to even properly recreate some of the novel's scenes.
Johnson recognized his budget problems in some cases--such as when he barely touched on Alucard's coachman's obsession with chasing St. Elmo's Fire when he spotted it, and the grounding of the Demeter--but at other points he retained elements that he would have been better off reducing or cutting outright--such as Alucard's crawling along walls like a spider and the chase of the gypsies toward the end of the film. The wall-cralwing bit is particuarly unfortunate in this film... if one hadn't read the novel, one wouldn't be able to tell what Alucard was doing in those shots.)
The direct translation of Stoker's book to the screen did one thing that I wish more Dracula adaptations would do. It kept Dracula/Alucard as the monster he is without the infusion of romance and other crap that so many filmmakers insist on adding. As much as I enjoy some of the Dracula adaptations that do that, I never have understood where they find that in the source material. Dracula is a soul-destroying rapist, pure and simple... he is a monster through-and-through with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I give tremendous kudos to John Johnson for keeping him that way.
Johnson's adaptation also performs spectacularly in the way it keeps the focus on Harker, Mina, Lucy's suitors, and Van Helsing as the story moves through its middle section and toward its finish. He stayed true to Stoker's material by keeping Dracula as an elusive evil, more of a presence than a character, and he is once again to be congratulated for rising above the usual cinematic pap as far as "Dracula" adaptations are concerned.
As I get to the point where I want to wrap up this review, it occurs to me that I've been negative about the acting in "Alucard" but have failed to point out a number of good performances in the film.
First off, Hal Handerson does a fantastic job at playing Alucard as he appears when Harker first meets him in his Romanian castle. Handerson captures the sinister nature of the count and gives us a full-blooded performance that rivals the great performances of Bela Lugosi and Jack Palance (but still unique and his own). I could have done without the Lugosi-esque pause in the line, "I never drink wine", but otherwise I loved every moment of Handerson's time on screen. The scene with him and the vampire brides is also possibly one of the best versions of that moment ever put on screen. (Johnson did a good job of capturing that material all-around... the actresses cast as the brides managed to give sexually charged performances while being creepy and monstrous!)
[center][i][img]http://www.geocities.com/nuelow/movalucard2.jpg[/img][/i][/center]
[center][i]Alucard (Hal Handerson) expresses his dislike of crosses and mirrors [/i][/center]
[center][i]in "Alucard", John Johnson's impressive adaptation of "Dracula"[/i][/center]
Another good performance was given by David Harscheid, who plays the part of Van Helsing. Like Handerson, he played his role with gusto and conviction. If he had been a weaker actor, the part wouldn't have worked at all, because the character doesn't feel right in the modern backdrop the film is set against.
Finally, Rebecca Taylor does a good job at playing Mina. It's another role that required a better-than-usual level of performance for the budgetary neighborhood of this film. The archaic attitudes of the characters (again, when placed against the modern backdrop the story has been transferred to) and the lines Mina speaks while she is struggling against Alucard's influence/serving as a living homing beacon might have made the character and her situation seem laughable instead of horrifying and tragic if a lesser performer had been cast in the role.
Handerson, Harscheid and Taylor go a long way to making this movie watchable. That's not to say that anyone else appearing is [i]bad... [/i]they all give perfectly respectable performances for modern low-budget horror films: Their performances feel as though they are being delivered to a theatre audience instead of a camera and this staginess is emphasized by Bram Stoker's stodgey dialogue. The performances are okay, but not to the point they needed to be to support the weight of this film.
All in all, I commend John Johnson for what he's created here. It was a tremendously brave effort, and I think that he and his cast can be proud of what they've created. However, I think his vision was beyond the resources he could command and that in the end what he came up with was as good as it could possibly be, but not as great as it should have been.
"Alucard" was shot using the script that should have been the basis for that Francis Ford Coppola abomination that was laughingly titled "Bram Stoker's Dracula". If Johnson had access to the sort of money and talent pool Coppola commanded, this film would probably have been a masterpiece.
Unfortunately, Johnson did not have Coppola-like resources, so we've got a film that's pretty impressive but probably not one that'll be terribly entertaining for anyone except those who truly love Stoker's novel (as opposed to those who love vampires or the Hollywood take on Dracula) or those who adore anything at all that involves vampires. For those people, I think this film is worth seeing--[url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00143XDZ6?ie=UTF8&tag=stevemillesdo-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00143XDZ6"]and it can be had from Amazon.com by clicking here[/url]. More casual horror fans may want to take a pass.
Alucard
Starring: Liam Smith, Hal Handerson, Rebecca Taylor, David Harscheid, Mariah Smith, Jay F. Barber, Karthik Srinivasan, and Dino A. Muminovic
Director: John Johnson
Rated 2/5 Stars •
Rated 2 out of 5 stars
01/18/23
Full Review
Read all reviews
>
