What chances of a special edition/uncut "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein"? (1 Viewer)

[Elijah Sullivan]

I just rewatched the DVD... much better film than I remember! As I recall, there is an international cut with a few added scenes, which hints maybe that Branagh never got final cut -- it clocks in suspiciously close to the 2-hour limit that Coppola's Dracula also adhered to. (Actually, speaking of Dracula... do we ever get a SE or uncut version of that?)

Anyway, I'm a big Branagh fan and I thought this film was underrated. I guess it bombed, etc., but perhaps if done cheaply enough, this could find a niche.

Anyone heard any whispers, or maybe know someplace I could grab a legitimate copy of this uncut version?

Cheers.

EDIT: The IMDB says that Bram Stoker's Dracula went through 38 versions in the editing room! Hmmm... what are the chances that the theatrical cut is the best out of the 38? I am definately curious to know what Coppola thinks about this.

 

[Eric Peterson]

I would deluxe editions of both of these films. Personally, I think that Dracula is Coppola's best film, and I would love to see as much footage from it as possible.

 

[Jeffrey Nelson]

There were a couple of things I liked about MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN, namely John Cleese and Tom Hulce...and that's about it. I would be interested in seeing a longer cut on DVD, though.

As for BRAM STOKER'S (yeah, right) DRACULA, it's one of the worst big-budget horror films ever made IMO. For starters, whomever was responsible for casting Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder (was it you, Francis?) deserves to have their blood slowly drained by Max Schreck, Bela Lugosi, Christopher Lee, and Klaus Kinski for good measure. I doubt any different cut could save this atrocity.

At least the music is good.

 

[Jim_K]

Put me down for wanting loaded SE's of both Coppola's Dracula & Branagh's Frankenstein.

While flawed, these are two of the most visually stunning Gothic Horror films of the past twenty years. The other that comes to mind would be Burton's Sleepy Hollow.

Both are much more entertaining to me than most of what passes for Horror these days.

 

[Dave Mack]

From what I remember, DRACULA was originally ALOT gorier and it bothered test audiences. Also, I think it might have been more like the book which is not in chronological order and audiences were confused? Been awhile...
I think the R2 dvd has a bit of a behind the scenes look.
I also love it. Gary Oldman is phenomenal. Hopkins is great. I agree about the Keanu thing but the way I look at it is that the character of "harker" is suppossed to be almost acting around the count and others. It's his first BIG assignment with the firm, "opportunities such as this come but once in a lfetime..." he's told. He thinks he is "too poor to marry (Mina)" and he must feel intimidated by the Count and Lucy and Lord Holmwood as they all are socially and economically beyond him so he tries to "pretend" to be more upscale. Maybe Coppolla thought that it would work that way, I dunno. If Reeves had better chops he might have pulled off that subtext.
The visual design and the music are incredible IMHO. Don't forget that the film won 3 oscars and was nominated for seven! Hardly an artistic failure if you ask me.

Just my 2 cents, but what do I know?

 

[Elijah Sullivan]

Re: Casting "Dracula"

Coppola was brought onboard in after the script was locked and the principle cast signed.

Jeffrey: Yeah, say what you will about the film, you have to agree that Wojciech Kilar is one of the great living composers, and even though his "Dracula" score was a rip-off of his own 'Requiem Father Kolbe' opera, it's still fan-freaking-tastic wed to Coppola's images.

 

[RyanAn]

Are you talking about Deniro's Frankenstein and is it currently only available in fullscreen?

Ryan

 

[Elijah Sullivan]

Yes. Francis Ford Coppola produced it as a follow-up to his Bram Stoker's Dracula in 1994, but chose Kenneth Branagh to direct and star. DeNiro played "The Sharp-Featured Man".

 

[Eric Peterson]

Yes and No. It is available in Widescreen, but exceedingly hard to find. I managed to find a copy on the $5 rack at Best Buy, but it was the only widescreen copy out of 5 on the shelf. I think that it was re-released later in fullscreen only????

 

[Elijah Sullivan]

Widescreen is out of print, yep. Next time I'm in Best Buy, I'm gonna try to score a widescreen copy. Partly for safety, in case it doesn't go back into print for a long time, partly to encourage an eventual Special Edition.

 

[Sebastien S]

There seems to be one copy left at Amazon that is packaged with "John Carpenter's Vampires":

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...dvd&n=130&no=*

It states that both movies are in "Anamorphic Widescreen"...

Do you think this is correct or are they really "Full Screen"?

 

[Mark_Wilson]

For those all region capable, there is an R2J release of MSF that is anamorphic widescreen and DTS.

 

[Lynda-Marie]

I'd also like to see both of these films get special editions.

I loved Dracula, which is the movie that stuck closest to Bram Stoker's immortal novel, but there were some things they added I did not like:

1. Dr. Abraham Van Helsing was supposed to be a very kindly, avuncular type. Since they were able to get hold of Anthony Hopkins, I think they got confused and turned the character into Dr. Hannibal Lecter Van Helsing.

2. Lucy Westenra - turning Lucy into a tart to begin with did not make her transformation that much more shocking. In the book, she was a sweet, innocent thing that became more seductive, more of a "vamp" - okay, bad pun!

3. What the hell was with that hair Dracula was wearing at the beginning? Was it supposed to be a Victorian era takeoff of Princess Leia's double danish hairdo? UGH!!

Other than that, I enjoyed the liberties they took. For one thing, this is the only movie where Quincy Morris actually made it from the book to the movie.

The "brides" seducing, or attempting to seduce Jonathan was a lot better than the book. In the book, the ladies appeared to Jonathan, pretty, menacing and vaguely seductive. Here, they were full blown hussies, a sharp contrast to the prim, proper Victorian ladies Jonathan was used to. He was helpless to resist the temptation they presented to him, which contrasted sharply with his beliefs, values and upbringing. Nice touch. It would have been better, however, had Cary Elwes, a much stronger actor, played Jonathan Harker.

Dracula himself - the casting of Gary Oldman was a stroke of pure genius. Most of the time in the movies, Dracula is a distant, cold presence without much to do besides being the villain. In this one, he was given character - not only by the writing, but also by Oldman himself. Despite being enslaved by his need to consume human blood, there was still a desperately lonely, tormented man who wanted and needed love. Ultimately, this led to his redemption, but he was still torn: Should he bring Mina over to the undead, and risk corrupting the very thing he loved about her, or should he leave her as a mortal woman and risk losing her to her husband and eventually to natural death?

The romance between Dracula and Mina gave a bit more poignancy to the movie. Who does Mina ultimately love? Who will she choose? I also thought it was excellent motivation for Dracula to leave Transylvania, to once again move out in the rest of the world.

Again, the casting of Gary Oldman was brilliant. He is one SERIOUSLY underrated actor.

*******************************

I only got to see Mary Shelley's Frankenstein once, and that was in theaters. I have never read the book, but I thought this one was well done. Someone made a comment online somewhere that stated they should have chosen someone other than Robert DeNiro to play the monster, since the monster has a New York accent. So? Like Gary Oldman as Dracula, DeNiro was brilliant. What was interesting was that he was up against someone equally brilliant as the protagonist, Kenneth Brannagh.

 

[Mike Wadkins]

Who underrates Oldman ?

 

[Mike Heenan]

Hopefully if they put an uncut Dracula out, they'll include Winona Ryder's nude scene in it.

 

[Jeffrey Nelson]

Gary Oldman is very frustrating to me, because he can be so wonderful at times (SID & NANCY, WE THINK THE WORLD OF YOU) and at other times he's so over-the-top that he's absolutely annoying (LEON: THE PROFESSIONAL). I have the same problem with Al Pacino.

I did think Gary gave it a good stab in FRANCIS COPPOLA'S DRACULA. Too bad the script was by the same schlub who wrote Spielberg's anticlassic HOOK; boy, does it show...although, to the film's credit, Julia Roberts is nowhere to be found.

 

[Ruz-El]

I loved both of these when they came out. Seeing as Coppola was involved in both, and they are both Sony, I would love a boxset with both of them packed with special features.

 

[Will Hickam]

I remember reading that Coppola wanted Johnny Depp for the role of Harker but the studio insisted on Keanu because they thought he was a bigger box office draw. Too bad Coppola didn't get his way on that bit of casting.

 

[Sebastien S]

I bought the "Double Feature" version from Amazon.com the one that also comes with "John Carpenter's Vampires" (I've never seen this movie?)...

Anyway, both movies are on a "flipper" disc (each) that includes the "Fullscreen" version on one side and the "Widescreen" version on the other side.

I'm satisfied.

 

[Dave H]

I'm surprised Mary Shelley's Frankenstein hasn't been released as a Superbit yet.