f13.net

Well treaded ground, to be sure, but you know... This movie is quite brilliant. Why the hell does Coppola not direct many movies? He is possibly the most mainstream director (i.e. with cash) who's got a flare for things of a surreal nature (note: what's funny is while I'm typing this, the less mainstream guy that comes to mind that is like Coppola to me is Aronofsky.. and so I Google their names together, and find the exact comparison made by Mickey Rourke in a recent interview. So I'm in good company on that opinion, I guess!). Here, the surreal is in flying colors.. But I think it applies to even the Godfather, Apocalypse Now, Rumble Fish, the Outsiders.. I've renewed my appreciation for him because of it. He's also utterly meticulous and detailed.. but this I already knew.

When it came out, I didn't really like it much (it wasn't "scary" enough.. nor could I appreciate all that he was paying homage to at the time). In fact, I probably enjoyed the Mel Brooks' spoof "Dracula Dead and Loving It" even more...

Gary Oldman is the MAN. This movie came out just as I hit my teens, so the lusty ladies in Victorian garb played me like a fiddle.

This movie perfected practical effects on a grand scale and is probably one of the last to use them to such an extent without any CGI crutches.

Keanu Reeves managed to wrest the award for worst English Accent Ever from Dick Van Dyke in that movie. That's really all I remember it for, that and Gary Oldman's cool shades I guess.

Oh and 'Dead and Loving it'... srsly....

One of the five movies I've walked out the theatre on.

Serious shite.

"You killed Lucy, I love you !"

That's an actual line.

Winona Ryder sucked balls and Reeves, as mentioned, was the worst fucking carboard cutout since Mr Ben.

No.

They're supposed to be lame and melodramatic. It's a silent film homage, and full of horror archetypes. Everyone but Dracula and Van Helsing are idiots.

Rather, let me put it this way -- a realistic Jonathan (Keanu) would have gone utterly insane the second Dracula's carriage rider picked him up. But he was totally oblivious until far too late about all the fucked up shit happening to him. I can only think it was deliberately written this way -- for him to be some sort blown-out-of-proportion horror boyfriend idiot type. Heh.

Also, Cary Elwes. There is no way Coppola was going for nothing but humor by casting him.

Everything's exaggerated here really. I said Van Helsing wasn't an idiot -- but he does suffer from some sort of mania -- and it isn't played down here.

Stray - your taste in films is something I can normally associate with - we mostly share a lot of similar likes.  This isn't one of them although I'm willing to watch it again to see if there's something I missed when I saw it 15 years ago or whenever it came out.

A better homage to the silent horror films is definitely "Shadow of the Vampire" with Willem Dafoe and John "Malkovich" Malkovich.

Also, I'm not sure Coppola's made a good film since, dunno - Rumble Fish? I liked Godfather III but it wasn't a patch on the first two.

I like Shadow of the Vampire, but that isn't a homage to silent film at all. It's simply a movie about a silent film. I'm referring to the cinematographic transitions used here.. as well as the lighting, the melodrama, the closeup shots, the kind of fake looking backdrops.. even the angles on the chase scenes have a certain silent film feel to them (they have that "directly forward and back look".. like how a lot of old movies looked how they were filmed right out of the window of a train).

[edit] I would say it's a throwback to some other older stuff too, not just silent. It's use of diary talk in the narration reminds me of a lot of 30's and 40's films. Also, how it uses a "map" to segue between scenes.. Kind of an old fashioned device, I guess.

He does use one effect though that is so obviously a throwback to silent films.. When Drac enters London, Coppola starts filming the city streets in a fast motion, grainy 8mm look (but it doesn't quite look like typical home movie 8mm.. it looks like an old silent reel -- except in blown out colors).

That said! This is as much a homage to Lugosi as well. Oldman rocks in this. At the very least, it should be liked for that.

Well, I'm convinced enough to watch it again.  Don't think I've seen it since I got more interested in filmmaking as a whole so yeah, why not.

Stray, have you ever read Dracula?

This movie is one of the more faithful adaptions. (though the novel does not give Dracula a backstory to my memory, or really, any motivations, he's just an evil dick) The diary talk comes from the novel. In fact, the whole novel is basically, a collection of letters and diaries rather than prose.

^^This.

I love Dracula, it's a beautiful film, hampered by the book (imo, even though I loved the book), and as such the screenplay adaptation is slightly spotty. But I still love it.

I think Coppola is mostly overrated, but then I was never a fan of the Godfather movies either. 3 was horrible and 1 was decent, but not good enough to make me watch 2. He's a competent director with occasional flashes of brilliance. Dracula was not one of those flashes, however.

I really didn't like it when I saw it in the theatre. It has won me over with repeated viewings, however. Put enough hot naked chicks in a flick and I will give it a 2nd viewing- a lesson to all future filmmakers  :grin:

As noted above, it is far more faithful to the original book than most adaptations. The book is genuinely creepy, and this brings some of that through, which is amazing given the presence of Keanu Reeves. The nighttime ride along the snowy road in the carriage brings out the feel of the book very nicely, for one example.

I enjoy the movie becuase it's one of the more faithful adaptations and Coppola made an effort to recreate physical effects from the old B&W days.  When the movie came out I remember reading articles about how hard it was to do some of them because nobody in Hollywood knew how to do them anymore.  IIRC they sought-out some old retired special effects artists to get pointers.

I surprised myself how much I liked it because I've tried to read Dracula 3 or 4 different times and just couldn't stomach it.  Things were just wacky, disjointed and couldn't pull me in flipping from letter to letter, but it worked in the film much better.

The acting, however, is pretty damn awful.

Disliked this movie immensely, entirely because of the acting. Anthony Hopkins completely mailed this one in, you can actually see the not even trying lines emanating from his head.

No, I haven't. I thought the backstory part was cool... It turned this into a good supernatural "romance" story as much as a horror. And it's got some cool lines to fit in with it. "I have crossed oceans of time to find you." But did the book end with the same sort of redemptive take on it, with Mina there when he died?

I have no idea how the original book ends.. Even the silent Nosferatu film had a changed ending, I believe (where he gets exposed to the light).

[edit]



These aren't just normal hot chicks, by the way. It's butt naked Vampire Bellucci. One of her first movies, I think. As for Keanu, I think he redeems himself just for the baby scene with her (his reaction is spot on).

What the fuck are you talking about? As great as 1 is for Brando and all that, 2 is almost universally considered the superior. Watch it.

(http://upload.moldova.org/movie/movies/g/godfather_part_II/thumbnails/tn2_godfather_the_II_1.jpg)

I would praise the guy just for the above. That whole rooftop scene is the shit. He isn't overrated because there is no one else who can or has done anything like it. In fact, I might just buy that new Godfather II game just to see how this segment plays out.  :grin:

And it's another example of how he can be sort of surreal in his depictions of unlikely things. Godfather is not a realistic mafia movie, in the sense that Goodfellas or Donnie Brasco is.. It's some otherworldly fairytale world of mobsters. And it's brilliant in that sense. Like Apoc is some dark fairytale of war. It's not Platoon. Or Tucker is a fairytale inventor story. Or the Outsiders is a fairytale greaser story. This guy can seem to turn any subject into some grand epic bordering on fantasy. Yet, he doesn't need an outright fantasy story as a crutch to do it, like Lord of the Rings. And he doesn't need to outright fairytales to do it either, like Tim Burton. Dracula is the one where he did have that crutch, and got to play it all up to full effect. Now I wish he'd do it more. He'd probably make a good Dune movie or something. Or hell, even a Christmas movie.

Heh a thread where I (generally) agree with Stray.

Let me preface this with a disclaimer: It's been about 2 decades since I read Dracula. I appreciated it but found it hard to read and never wanted to read it ever again, unlike say, Frankenstein. So, with that said, my memory is fairly hazy. So here goes:

The original book ends with a chase as Dracula races back to his castle. Jonathan, Van Helsing, Texan Dude (can't remember his name) and the Doctor are I believe the people involved. They catch him and a fight ensues. Dracula kills the Texan and the others get injured and also injures him. The others stab him with the Texan's Bowie Knife and he dies. The end. There is no love between Mina and Dracula, Dracula's sole interest in her was as a way to hurt Harker and Van Helsing.

Well basically how this one ended too, down to the Texan dying. Except Mina is there, convinces them to stand aside, and she drags him in the castle, where he repeats Christ's line on the cross "It is finished!" before dying. Heh. Oh, and Mina cuts off his head.

I'm talking about the fact that Godfather 1 didn't make me give two shits about the characters, the story or anything else related to it. Why would I want to subject myself to 2? I really tried to like it, but other than being well-shot, it was boring to me. I think he's overrated, period, probably because of the exact things you love him for.

Very strange then. Godfather is like Apple Pie or some shit. Take all the hype away and any preconceptions -- and still.. Apple pie.

None of the Vlad Teppis back story is in the Novel Dracula, either.  That whole line was added-in just because folks now know who Stoker based Drac on, and to give him a more humanizing angle.  Coppola obviously follows Lugosi's take on the character, Dracula isn't a monster piece, it's a romance.

I was as surprised as you. Had to happen eventually  :grin:

It's a jolly New Year already. :wink:

Goodfellas > Godfather movies.

Godfather was boring as hell for me.

They're too different for me to measure against each other. It's like the difference between a space opera and a hard science fiction story (just to be geeky about it). The underlying plots are polar opposites too, even if they are both mob movies. Godfather is about a legitimate guy getting involved in something he doesn't want, making difficult choices out of necessity - and dies, never able to get out of it. Goodfellas is about a guy who romanticizes bullshit from the get go, takes the easy way out in life, and takes the easy way by fucking the very people he romanticized... Equal movies, in their own way... But Michael Corleone was less of a douchebag, I think. :grin:

Silent films were overly acted melodramatic shiite. Paying homage to overly acted melodramatic shiite doesnt make it brilliant. It makes it fucking stupid.
Winona Ryder sucks. Quite literally if you are in a band, but figuratively if you mean her acting attempts.

PS- Shiite needs to be added to the dictionary. that is all.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I hear the book was overly dramatic too. Which would be consistent with Victorian novels in general, would it not?


Anyhow, I can understand not liking Winona and Keanu in this film -- but they were not the overly dramatic ones. They were quite wooden. Winona not as bad Keanu.

It was the chick who played Lucy who overacted -- like a slut. And that is good.

And Anthony Hopkins. And he was brilliant. The minute he realizes the vampire is Dracula himself, he goes apeshit.. runs outside, and starts humping the Texan's leg. Fucking hilarious. Leg humping is valid overacting, if you ask me.

Then Tom Waits. Who is pretty much the best Renfield ever.

Sorry. I cant spell apparently. Only has one "i".

Now THIS I will agree with.

Godfather glorified and romanticized the Mob.  The undercurrent and theme was the moral decay that life caused on those who engaged in it,  and on Michael's hypocracy.


In Goodfellas,  Henry Hill bought into the romantic imagery and let himself be used by the organization.  The viewer, though, sees that the romanticized image is all gilding and bullshit from near the start.  It's the organizations final betrayals, where:

1.  Paulie gives him a couple of thousand dollars and tells him not to come back,  despite decades of earning for them.
2.  Jimmy Conway is obviously plotting the murder of he and his wife to tie up loose ends

That breaks the romantic image and leads him to testify against his friends.


The scene in the bar,  right before Jimmy starts his killing spree, with the close up of Deniro's face while Sunshine of Your Love starts playing?  I think that's not only one of Deniro's greatest performances,  but probably my favorite scene in cinema.

It insists upon itself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUy2DGg7Qkg)

Well-played, nerd.  :awesome_for_real:

I remember seeing this movie on release and feeling totally ripped off.

I saw it again on cable recently and couldn't tear myself away.  Totally drawn in.  I can't describe why so I'll put it down to getting old and cranky.  Or maybe my taste in movies in my teens was driven more by power/revenge fantasy and violence than anything else.  (Universal Soldier was awesome I tells ya!)

If you recall though, he was already fucking up with Paulie because of drug dealing/use.

Hell, the real Henry Hill is still a fuckup, and kept getting busted with narcotics even after the Witness Protection Program. I have to wonder if the falling out was all his doing.

As for romanticizing.. It's just that the main themes could be summed up like:

"As far back as I can remember, I've always wanted to be a gangster." And from almost up to the end, it's scenes that make you really wish you were in the mob (that smoking/sunshine of your love scene you mentioned above, the scene where Henry takes Karen through back route into the club..).

With Godfather, it's "There wasn't enough time, Michael". Or rather, and more famously, "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in..." I don't think it's a silly romanticization on how the young Vito ends up in the mob either. Seems plausible enough (if you recall, he got in it by stepping in and assassinating Don Fannuci, who was squeezing money out of everyone in his district). Michael's story is the same.. he's basically the sweet, geeky son who stepped in to save his "pop". 2 and 3 is just him grasping at any straw he can to legitimize - but he never pulls it off. It doesn't exactly treat his mob life in a good light (and I think the story really tries to test your sympathy/limits with him when he has Fredo killed). His daughter dies, his son hates his guts, his once humble sister (Talia Shire) is now a vicious cunt, the control of the family finally goes to Vincent, who's even more of a self-serving douchebag than Henry Hill, and the Corleone family is lost forever. The end. It's one of the most bleak, non-romantic epics made, I think.

Imagine that! A movie with no sound would need exaggerated emoting to convey what the hell was going on. Shocking.

Silent movies can be amazing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhC7fK9ui2g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhC7fK9ui2g)

^ I don't care if he was melodramatic or not.. Few people can be as creepy or gut wrenching as that guy. That was an actor.

On a completely different sidenote, I'm reading that Lon Chaney is a distant ancestor to BOTH of Dick Cheney and Barack Obama. How odd.

You should have mentioned "Shitty picture quality" as well. As seen in the youtube Stray linked it's not like these were high quality images.  Or you could've just ignored it since it was just Broughden.  :grin:

Well Dick Cheney and Barack Obama are related so it's expected that there are other people that are related to the both of them.

Dur dur dur. My point still stands. It was the beginning of the industry and what was being produced was shit. Hell 75% of what comes out of Hollywood is still shit.
But liking it just because it is old and paying "homage" to it? No. Thats as retarded as music appreciation teachers or music snobs saying you MUST like composer "X" because his music is 300 years old. Well its a 300 year old turd then.
Or a literary teacher saying you MUST read and like Moby Dick because its a "classic." No its a long winded bunch of tripe that should have been condensed down to a short story. Same with War and Peace.

Being old does not equal being good or being tribute worthy.

Yeah, I like silent movies because they're old.


(http://www.ewestlund.com/pushingPosesBlog/busterKeaton_stoneFace.jpg)


^ May have been the inspiration for :  :oh_i_see:

Please to stop talking now.

Don't be an idiot Moby Dick isn't a major part of literature because its a "classic", its a major part of literature because its a damn engaging book with deep moral and psychological issues. Have you read it?

I demand a Venn diagram as proof of your assertion.

Since we're jumping on a bandwagon here, I like Metropolis a great deal.  It manages to carry a lot of social commentary, in my opinion.  I also really liked Heart of Darkness, although I was very much alone among my high-school classmates.  I'm pretty sure they didn't get it, nor did they seem to understand the literary language we had been supposedly learning all year.

We don't acclaim classics just because they are old, we esteem them because they are worthy. People wrote mediocre stuff back then as well. None of that survives while Maupassant, Mozart, Dickens etc are remembered long after their deaths. There's a reason for that and it isn't 'because it's old'.

Never have I been more tempted to post that ASCII facepalm dude.

That thing is only funny because it's OLD.  :awesome_for_real:

No it really isnt.
Its long winded crap. Reminds me of Stephen King's writing...or that series That Wheel of Time. Quoted from a book agency's website, "Who needs a a monograph on cetacean biology in the middle of a novel?"
It didnt sell even during its time until after Melville's death. The only reason it sells now? Its REQUIRED reading by dumb ass literature teachers who think, "I had to read it, so my students have to read it to!" Its hazing for literature!

City Lights.

If you think that is crap, you need to just STFU and never open your mouth about anything ever again.

In Broughden's world, no one simply likes a thing. Except him.

In Broughden's world everyone speaks like it's the 20th century and modern writing conventions have always been the norm.

Culture: What you make yogurt from.

This thread got fucking weird.

That book agent needs to be slapped, shot and pissed on. Sure, people with the Internet might not need it. 19th century people who have never left their small town and aren't even sure what a fucking whale looks like? Yes, they most certainly do.

You are a fucking moron.

Thats my point. Culture adapts and changes. And what is or should be considered "good" should change with that. Forcing 200 year old music and literature upon students (who arent literature or music history majors) does nothing to improve their overall education especially when most will read the cliff notes rather than the long winded, overly wrought original version.

Seriously...my Music Appreciation class in college? Was ALL classical music. Appreciate it? I wanted to rip my fucking ears off. Why not opera? Or vocal jazz? Or a hundred other styles of music I would have appreciated much much more.

I LOVE reading, but hated Literature classes for the same reason. Teacher says, "You will read X and you will tell me why you liked X in a ten page paper." WTF? I hated X and could hardly bring myself to get half way through the crap. 

That's fine if you like those things, dude. Completely different when you describe other people's opinions for themselves, be it one person or what's good for "culture" as a whole. :roll:

Are you sure you aren't confusing bad teaching practices with teaching people about the valuable things our civilization has developed?

Nah, epic poetry is boring so obviously the Odyssey is a pile of shit. Thankfully nowadays we have films like Troy that have turned crap into quality :awesome_for_real:

And I thought I was lowbrow.

I happen to think people aren't taught to appreciate classical music early enough, and any kid I were to have spawn would definitely receive from me some education on the greats.  The kid may not find Bach or Tchaikovsky to be their favorite thing to listen to, but they damn well will learn to understand its value.

I'm wondering if maybe you feel the same way about art...

I think Broughden's issue is that this is exactly what his literature teachers did to him. I happen to like Classical Music, or at least appreciate it. I am with Broughden though in that my idea of torture is being forced to read most "classics". Moby Dick may have value in showing the evolution of the novel and it may even have some deep psychological points to make. But it's a boring book to read. Sorry, but it is.

This thread needs to be brought back on track. (http://www.alltooflat.com/about/personal/sean/images/bellucci.jpg) (NSFW)

FUCKING BINGO!  :grin: :heart:

Fucking bingo wut? "Sorry but it is" is Riggs' favorite line. Like he's the pope or some shit.

If you have an opinion, that's fine - even if you disagree. But suck a cock when you start trying to speak for me.  :why_so_serious:

I just arrived in profound town.

Let me get this straight, reading books assigned by profs, etc is torture depending on the book?

No shit? Really? It is empirically impossible for a professor or teacher to pick a book that every student will like. That's why you see stuff like Catcher in the Rye, Moby Dick, Leaves of Grass, Hamlet, etc all thrown into English and Poetry courses. They're all-around good books for what they are, great examples of time and place for the writer, and pretty much the definition of classic. Whether its torture or not is freaking moot. None of them are particularly long, they're all super easy to read, and "your opinion" doesn't really matter - yes, this is a case where, if you voice your opinion, you're an asshole. If you don't like them (that much), take a specialized course like romantic literature or something, then you can read all "those" classics. And if you're in high school, you just need to shut your mouth because odds are you don't know a damn thing about any sort of literature.

Also, don't make points for Broughden. He needs to learn how to make them for himself.


And you probably sucked at explaning why. God, I can't imagine having to grade your papers in a lit class. You write like a horrible, little weenie.

How's that writing/journalism job in the electronic gaming field coming?


Oh and...
Yes, because doing it this way (rather than say offering a list of books to choose from and critique, where the student can choose a "classic" they enjoy) seems to be working out so well for the American education system. 

Way to reach for the stars on that one, joker.


Straw man.

Edit: Actually, I'll bite, what classics do you enjoy?

First, envision a world without television and radio and you'll see the value of more descriptive stories.  Dickens is very long-winded, but was appreciated due to the artistry inherent in creating descriptive images using only words and imagination.  Second, look at the value found in the undertones and how they survive the passage of time.  Classics are called "classics" often for this reason alone.  

Reading Schild's froth on IRC THEN reading this thread was awesome.

And I loved Waiting for Godot in Highschool.  -Random thought.

My favorite book was and still is the Count of Monte Cristo.

But then, that actually sold well, and was considered somewhat of a lowbrow piece of shit in it's time.

In alphabetical order...things I have read and liked
The Arabian Nights
Beowulf
Call of the Wild
A Christmas Carol
The Complete Sherlock Holmes
A Connecticut Yankee in King Author's Court
Count of Monte Cristo
The Deerslayer
Don Quixote
Dracula
Fairy Tales (Hans Christen Anderson)
The Four Feathers (great book and one of Heath's best movies)
Frankenstein
Grimm's Fairy Tales
Gulliver's Travels
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
The Iliad
The Inferno
Ivanhoe
The Last of the Mohicans
Man in the Iron Mask
The Odyssey
Peter Pan
The Phantom of the Opera
The Prince
Purgatorio
Republic
Robinson Crusoe
Three Musketeers
Time Machine
Treasure Island
Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea
Walden
War of the Worlds



And nearly anything by Walt Whitman, Joseph Conrad or George Orwell....I really love his essay "The Elephant".
I have all these books and more on my library shelves.

Things you might notice missing: Moby Dick, anything Russian, anything by Jane Austen, a lot of Charles Dickens, and all of Shakespeare (great plays but hate trying to read it).

"anything Russian"


Notes From Underground, yo


Basically the original Taxi Driver story (the inspiration for it anyways).

Also, Nabokov. Don't be lame.

He read and liked The Prince and Republic. Does not like "Anything Russian" or Moby Dick.

Right. I should've known better than to come back in this thread.

I think I've mentioned this before but that Danny Devito movie (Renaissance Man?) where he is teaching the army morons to read Shakespeare changed that for me. I used to find it hard to read as well but once I got the "rhythm" it flowed so much better.

Literature courses, unless they're specialised, should fucking include a bunch of books most people in the class will not hugely enjoy. Very few people enjoy reading any type of literature straight off the bat, the point of entering into that sort of education is to learn to appreciate not only the evolution of literary works and conventions but also what makes very different sorts of books worthy of being 'classics'. Otherwise the whole thing is an excuse to spend time reading things you enjoy and probably saying why you like them rather than delving much deeper than that. I'm sorry you were aurally abused by you music teacher but literature courses should not allow students to only read books that they enjoy, certainly not beyond the age of 15. By that point you should have learned to read and so be able to tell whether you enjoy a book or not.

Hehe, this thread went into a funny place.

I dunno why people are talking about literature courses, they really have very little to do with "I like reading this" and a whole lot more to do with education.

Also, Robinson Crusoe? Hello? How do you get a pass on calling Moby Dick boring when you read Defoe's blathering?

How did you manage the Inferno btw? If Shakespeare is hard how did you manage with Italian? In verse no less!

It's the same mentality as the people who bitch about having to learn pointless stuff - "Why do I need to learn about weather patterns in Brazil? I'm never going to go near Brazil" because they don't understand what they are actually being taught to do.

A minor nitpick, but:


Not really. That's kind of insulting to literature. It's like saying the point of studying philosophy is so you can understand why The Republic (on Broughden's list, har!) and Meditations are classics, or politics so you can say why The Prince (doube har!) is a classic, or History and Herotodus... :grin:

Most humanities, when the study is useful, cover much of the same general ground, and are not that insular.

Yeah I know, literature provides a window into the human soul and also the ways in which we understand the world. I was trying to provide the basic reason why you don't just read books you enjoy though as well as that element of education that is specific to literature.

Hell a big part of an undergraduate philosophy course does involve teaching students why the Republic and Meditations are classics and not just dull ramblings that get covered in all the necessary detail by a few 1 hour lectures. Hell I got to spend several lectures in my second year revisiting Meditations because the lecturer wanted to stress precisely that, that it wasn't a simple stepping stone in the historircal development of philosophy that we've superceded.

Since it's strayed massively off topic I feel I should add that I didn enjoy this, it's campy and certainly got a lot of over the top in it but provided you're not looking for a slick or gritty depiction of Dracula I think it's great. I also really enjoyed Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, I'd say if you enjoyed Dracula and haven't seen it you should probably rent it or something.

My esteemed opinion:

Liked the soundtrack, and Gary Oldman was weirdly hot once he got youngified.

Also, is it wrong I find Broughden's "I'm totally bad ass because I don't let THE MAN tell me what's classic!" posturing totally hilarious?

I am curious if B keeps that alphabetized list in his wallet.  I could not produce a list of classics that I read and liked of that size without undue effort.

Anyway, the point isn't whether I liked Heart of Darkness, but rather to educate myself so I can say to Conrad: "I see what you did there."

I have built in book cases surrounding my fireplace in the living room. I keep fiction, novels, ect there. I keep professional writings in the home office.
I have a collection of "classics" in really nice hardbound editions that Im always adding to...they are already alphabetized. So all I had to do is walk into the living room to see what was there.

OK, I get that.  My wife has a library.  I don't go in there.

Dickens was very long-winded because he was paid by installment and only released a chapter a month.  Just like we have filler episodes in TV serial drama, so he had a lot of filler material in his stories because of the way that he worked.  It has little to do with the artistry inherent in the writing and more with the "keep the audience hooked so that they read the next episode and I get paid".

We really don't need to argue the merits of Dickens, Melville, Dracula, or FUCKING SHAKESPEARE. This is retarded.

Dragging this thread kicking& screaming back to the film in question, bought this on bluray after reading this thread (well, the early part of it anyway, the descent the thread experienced played no part in my decision to purchase said film). Awesome. Really really enjoyed it. Gary Oldman is indeed superb as Dracula.

Agreed (twice in one thread!).

Heh, well thanks man. Happens to the best of them.  :why_so_serious:

I picked this up on DVD for a few quid so you'd better be right about this.

It is worth it for the Monica Bellucci nudity alone.

And then you can watch Dracula: Dead and Loving It with renewed appreciation.  Also classic cinema.

For real, it's hilarious. Underrated Brooks film. Best part of both movies is probably when they kill Lucy.

Hey - I've got Brotherhood of the Wolf, Shoot 'em up and I'm more than willing to watch Irreversible again if I want to see La Bellucci nekkid. I don't need to watch this for that fix.