A Bloody Good Time: ABGT Face-Off – Bram Stoker’s Dracula vs. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein

Opening Logo courtesy of Benjamin J. Colón (Soul Exodus)

I’ve been on a kick of watching the old Universal monster movies lately, and it got me thinking about the attempts to bring them back. I mean, outside of Universal’s bewildering attempts to turn a horror franchise into an action franchise, which resulted in the snoozefest that was The Mummy. I think the 90s may have been the last time the classic monsters were all brought back in one form or another in a serious, horror-driven manner. And it wasn’t even Universal that did it! Think about the movies we got in that time. Bram Stoker’s Dracula, Wolf and Hollow Man (which I count, even though it arrive in 2000) came from Columbia while Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Mary Reilly (a Jekyll and Hyde update) came from TriStar. Both studios are now owned by Sony, which means that Sony could realistically do their own monster universe if they wanted.

Universal didn’t get in on the action until the 1999 version of The Mummy and well, that went down the same road as the Tom Cruise version. More action, more comedy, very little horror. Universal, you had one job!

Anyway, this week we’re going to take two of the most well-known of those films and pit them against each other. It’s…

Obviously the movies have a lot in common and I don’t just mean the fact they include the original story’s author in the title. They’re both serious attempts to be…somewhat close to the novels, at least closer than the Universal attempts were. Both the original Dracula and Frankenstein were based on stage plays, while these films are at least closer to the books, even though they take their own liberties. They also have all-star casts and top notch directors at the helm.

While they have a lot in common, are they different enough to do a proper face-off? Oh my, yes. They each have their own positives and flaws, so let’s look into which one is the better film.

VS

Round 1: The Story

You should be aware of the general stories of these films, but let’s look at them anyway. Bram Stoker’s Dracula is more or less the same as the book. Jonathan Harker goes to Dracula’s castle, nearly dies, and comes back to England only for Dracula to follow and begin to pursue victims. However, this takes a sharp turn in a different direction, turning it into a love story between Dracula and Mina, who may or may not be the reincarnated form of his late wife Elisabetta. Yes, there’s a love story, but it’s still horror-driven and Dracula is still the villain, albeit a more sympathetic one than Lugosi or Lee.

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein veers closer to the book than its contemporary, but there are still a few minor differences. For those unaware, the story follows Dr. Victor Frankenstein, a mad scientist who wants to create life. He does it, but rejects his creation and tries to resume his life. As a result, the creature decides to make his life a living hell unless he gives him a bride. One guess as to how that one goes.

As to which story is better, it really depends on which novel you prefer, I think. And here’s the twist, I prefer Dracula, so I have to give the point to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Bram Stoker’s Dracula gets a lot right, but the romance subplot was brand new and while it works for its movie, it’s not from the book. So yeah, I’m giving it to Shelley.

Winner: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein

VS

Round 2: The Cast

Even for 1992, the cast of Dracula is impressive. Gary Oldman was still relatively new to US audiences, having played Lee Harvey Oswald in JFK a year prior. Meanwhile you’ve got Anthony Hopkins fresh off Silence of the Lambs, Winona Ryder, Cary Elwes, a young Monica Bellucci and Keanu Reeves. Yes. Keanu Reeves. No, he’s not all that good in a period piece and his accent is atrocious, but he’s here. And for the most part, the cast does a really good job, particularly Oldman.

Frankenstein doesn’t have quite the quantity of big names but it tries to match it in quality. Robert De Niro is the monster and does a really good job. Meanwhile, Kenneth Branagh, Tom Hulce, Helena Bonham Carter, Ian Holm and John Cleese also star. It’s a very British production, minus De Niro, but a man-made creation doesn’t have to have an accent anyway.

It’s a really tough call here. On one hand, Keanu Reeves does his best to sink Dracula but on the other, everyone in Frankenstein seems to be hamming it up except De Niro. I’ll have to go with personal preference here.

Winner: Bram Stoker’s Dracula

VS

Part Three: The special effects

Francis Ford Coppola, the director of Dracula, didn’t want to use a single digital effect or any CGI, which was still in its infancy. They could have, and probably could have used it well, as Terminator 2 came out the year before and Jurassic Park arrived a year later. But Coppola insisted on doing everything on-camera, which resulted in some film tricks that hadn’t been used since the silent era. As a result, Dracula looks absolutely amazing from start to finish. That’s probably why it won for best makeup and costume design at the Oscars.

Frankenstein was no slouch either, as it ended up getting a nomination for Best Makeup itself. The monster definitely looks like something that was stitched together, which is a plus. The creation scene looks great, even if Frankenstein is shirtless for no real reason. It also has its own visual style, which is appreciated. I can’t tell if anything’s CGI or not, mostly because it’s been a while since I’ve watched it.

Either way, I’ve got to give it to Dracula. The fact that this movie has impressive shots and great special effects and it was all physically created is amazing. You don’t see Hollywood films do that anymore and as the 90s rolled on you’d see it less and less.

Winner: Bram Stoker’s Dracula

VS

Part Four: The monster

This is interesting because both films have sympathetic monsters. Of course, only in the case of Frankenstein was that something that happened in the book. The monster was always just a creature that had a desire to be loved, but only turned monstrous when it was shunned by everyone in society, including its creator. De Niro sells that well in the film, which is why his performance is so much better than everyone else in the movie.

Dracula‘s monster is sympathetic by design of the script, but that doesn’t change how monstrous he is. Let’s not forget that he turns into some pretty ghoulish creatures, including a wolf-thing and a bat-thing. He also kills innocent people and either tries to seduce a woman into becoming a vampire or triggers the long-lost spirit of his wife to possess her. Either way, I don’t believe for a second that Mina’s ever completely in control of her actions.

Romance story or not, Dracula’s definitely still the villain and still a force to be recknoned with. The creature is what society makes him, and once he realizes how wrong his actions were he decides to leave society forever. Going to go with Dracula again.

Winner: Bram Stoker’s Dracula

VS

Round Five: Quality

This category is about the film’s overall quality and rewatchibility. Both films have seen their share of criticism over the years, although it seems like Dracula is better-regarded these days. As for me, I have to side with everyone else and pick Dracula too. That’s not a shot at Frankenstein, which i think is unfairly maligned in spite of a pretty solid production. I just happen to enjoy Stoker’s Dracula overall, because of the acting (outside of Reeves), production design and overall pacing.

Winner: Bram Stoker’s Dracula

That’s another blowout for the Face-Off, which I never really intend. I like both films, I just think Dracula tends to win out here. What do you think? Vote in the poll and leave you comments below!

Ending Notes:

That’s it for me. Leave some comments here, on my Twitter or my Facebook.

Closing Logo courtesy of Kyle Morton (get your own custom artwork and commissions at his Etsy account)

A Bloody Good Time: The Store is now officially open! Like this design? You can now find it on most of my merchandise! Click here to find shirts, posters and more!

For those interested in more of my movie reviews, I’ve created a new blog! Check out the brand new Not-So-Bloody Good Time!

See you next week!