What drugs whas Coppolla on when he edited this movie...

What drugs whas Coppolla on when he edited this movie? It's a fucking mess and it ruins the amazing costumes and interior designs.
And Keanu Reeves... good lord, wasn't he ashamed of himself? why did he ever take the part?

Attached: Dr_cula_de_Bram_Stoker-420186556-large.jpg (835x1200, 185.1K)

just saw it recently for the first time and i was going to make this exact thread, it feels he was high as fuck, thats some hippie trippy edition he used

based FFC dabbing on fuckwits

someone more competent should make a normal edit, that part in wich he's in the boat and the rain on the mansion is such a fucking mess
apparently he wanted Depp but the studio forced Keanu because of Point Break (????) and he had no problems with it.
I cant believe somone that directed Godfather and Apocalypse now would do such a mess.

Attached: 1633782679287.jpg (352x477, 118.49K)

and its a real shame cause everythig else is great

nigga I'm from 1991

Hugh Grant or some other brit should've been Harker
And btw was Van Helsing also a douche in the novel?

the same drug that compelled him to cast keanu reeves

The film feels like it was supposed to be animated but they tried to turn it into a liveaction feature.

yes Im sure all those milion dollar costing scenery was an aftethough

esl fuck off and die

>why did Keanu Reeves take a role in a huge budget production of one of the most popular horror novels of all time from the director of The Godfather and Apocalypse Now?
This really puzzles you?

>why did he ever take the part?
Because studio shoved him into the movie. They thought Neo was a money printer.
Coppola himself didn't want Keanu in this role and was devastated when he realized he needs to make him work now.
Also, besides that, the movie is fucking kino, I don't know what your problem is.

This is a 10/10 without Keanu you esl retard. It's a beautiful film using vintage special effects, hand cranked cameras, etc., and manages to capture the novel better than any other adaptation, which is still very little like the novel, and rightly so. The novel is gimmicky.

>And btw was Van Helsing also a douche in the novel?
Kinda sorta. He was a bit out there, but not to the extent that Hopkins portrays him. Also, what this movie does to Lucy is horrible. In the novel she was a cute girl next door, in the movie she's a sexual deviant.

The production design and general direction are great, but some of the cast and the terrible love story sink the whole thing for me. It feels like a good movie was hijacked by a producer that wanted to appeal to teenage girls. A major missed opportunity.

how would've you write it?

yes cause he wasn't that popular and he was a shity actor and its not like harker is such an important character

>which is still very little like the novel
no its not

What?

I'm pretty sure Apocalypse Now just broke Coppola is some deep fundamental way, he was never the same after that. He still had a talented film crew and a lot of know-how but his heart just wasn't in it after that point, increasingly started making a bunch of bad choices and sloppy mistakes.

No he was just a weird old ESL professor. Dracula and Renfield are the only male characters in the book who aren't goody-goody simps.

its very faithful other than mina loving dracula