Badmovies.org Forum

When I was growing up all my mates told me how good Dracula was and how rubbish Frankenstein was. They were wrong. Frankenstein was a great story of a man who was smart but not wise. Dracula is the stroy of a smug git. Who happens to be immortal. Who cares ?


Oh, and Frankenstein doesn't have Keanu Reeves rubbish accent.

I've always been partial to the Frankenstein tale, no matter how ya slice it.

Never been a vampire kind of guy. But I've always had a weakness for Frankenstein and Frankenstein-esque re-animation stories.

As far as the books, Frankenstein.  I don't think it's as good as its reputation, but I can at least stand to read it.  Dracula was one of the hardest slogs through a book I've ever had.

As far as the basic stories, I could go either way.

I must admit that I found "Frankenstein" much more readable as a novel than "Dracula" as both Frankenstein and the Creature are both very interesting characters. I did like "Dracula" but it wasn't as engaging as "Frankenstein". I actually prefer Edgar Allen Poe as a writer of horror.

I forgot to mention, Winona Ryder 's accent is equally as poor as Keanu's :teddyr:

If we're talking about the two '90s movies, I'll still take Frankenstein.  Coppola's Dracula was bad, and boring.  I did think the lighting (of all things) was impressive.  Branaugh's Frankenstein was pretty bad too, in many of the same ways, but it was at least much more energetic and at least a little less self-important.

Books?  FRANKENSTEIN, by a mile.

Original Universal 30s movies?  FRANKENSTEIN, by a mile.

90s remake?  DRACULA, even despite Keanu and Wynona dragging it down.  Much better visuals, far less boring to me.   

Vampires all the way, baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I voted for DRACULA.  The DeNiro Frankenstein monster was ridiculous.  As for the old Universal movies, I prefer FRANKENSTEIN.  Now, if we want to talk about the books, I think DRACULA is superior to FRANKENSTEIN.  I also think YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN was better than DRACULA: DEAD AND LOVING IT and OLD DRACULA.  And the old Marvel TOMB OF DRACULA comic books were much better than the MONSTER OF FRANKENSTEIN (title eventually changed to FRANKENSTEIN MONSTER).  I preferred the old Aurora DRACULA model kit to the FRANKENSTEIN model kit.  And COUNT CHOCULA cereal was better than FRANKENBERRY (although, they were both better than BOO BERRY).  ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN had both DRACULA and the FRANKENSTEIN MONSTER in it, and neither of them were as funny as Abbott or Costello.    

I loved DeNiro's Frankenstein. Helena Bonham Carter as the bride was really freaky and far sadder the bride in the classic film of the '30s.

Though I didn't think much of it at all, I actually made it all the way through "Mary Shelly's Frankenstein".  Took two tries though. 

"Bram Stoker's Dracula", I lasted 15 minutes maybe.  It had a cool opening scene and then the bottom just dropped out entirely.

And I'm a huge fan of Gothic horror.

Quote from: The Burgomaster on January 20, 2009, 07:01:56 PM
I voted for DRACULA.  The DeNiro Frankenstein monster was ridiculous.  As for the old Universal movies, I prefer FRANKENSTEIN.  Now, if we want to talk about the books, I think DRACULA is superior to FRANKENSTEIN.  I also think YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN was better than DRACULA: DEAD AND LOVING IT and OLD DRACULA.  And the old Marvel TOMB OF DRACULA comic books were much better than the MONSTER OF FRANKENSTEIN (title eventually changed to FRANKENSTEIN MONSTER).  I preferred the old Aurora DRACULA model kit to the FRANKENSTEIN model kit.  And COUNT CHOCULA cereal was better than FRANKENBERRY (although, they were both better than BOO BERRY).  ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN had both DRACULA and the FRANKENSTEIN MONSTER in it, and neither of them were as funny as Abbott or Costello.    

Wow. That is going into detail! I'm going to go the Burgomeisters route and address all those choices as well...just because...I dunno...because it seems like FUN!  :smile:
.Being as the original question seems to pertain to the newer remake films-I have to say DRACULA by default....even though Sid Vicious as The Count didn't do it for me. By default-because I never saw the DeNiro FRANKENSTIEN!
.the Universal seies-Thats a tough one! FRANKENSTIEN was the better made film by far. Brownings DRACULA was ok...saved only by Bela Lugosi. And the first 20 minutes or so of DRACULA are cinematic beauty. BUT...I have to choose....DRACULA....I'll bet you can guess why. LUGOSI. Lugosi is so otherworldy....so alien to the human race....so etheral...alien... and devoid of human contact for so long...he communicates in non sequieters. Untill he moves to Carfax Abby and the film turns into a filmed stageplay and looses it's magic. But Bela makes Dracula my favorite. Not to deny Karloff and FRANKENSTIEN it's due. The original FRANKENSTIEN is my favorite of the FRANKENSTIEN series of films. It took itself more seriously than BRIDE...the Monster was second fiddle in SON...and the rest were fun B pics. But the first was classic. Gee...I dunno....I have to tie those two. DRACULA and FRANKENSTIEN were both classic!!!
.The books? Eh...DRACULA. Frankenstien was too old fashioned. The Monster was smarter than most English professers,fer crying out loud!
.HAMMER Dracula series or Frankenstien series? FRrankenstein...hands down. Peter Cushing got more screen time in his series then Lee did in his.And Cushing is sooo much fun as the "do or die" Doc! But most of the Monsters in the Frankenstien series were...welll....lame. Just stupid and dumb. (Though I like Lee's ugly Monster-or "Creature" as he was billed-and the pseduo Universal  looking Monster in EVIL of FRANKENSTIEN).Lee just was a guest star in most of his own films!!! He was a GREAT Count...and yet Hammer wasted him!
WHY?!?!?!
.The Aurora model kits? CREATURE of the BLACK LAGOON!  :tongueout: Hmmm....thats a tuff one....I dunno....probley Drac...sentimental reasons. He was the first one I got. And I had them ALL.
.FRANKENBERRY. I don't like chocolate cereal. Tastes like mud.
.And...of course my favorite actors for the charecters..Me...I mean...Bela for Dracula,next Chris Lee,than John Carradine. For Frankie-King Karloff, than Glenn Strange (he just looks so cool!),then...uh...Peter Cushing as the Doctor!  :smile:
.OH! And BLACULA was FAR better than BLACKENSTIEN! Unless yer drunk...than BLACKENSTIEN is a hands down knee slapper!

Speaking souly of the 90s movies...I'm more for Frankenstein due to the fact Bram Stoker's Dracula tried to be too artsy fartsy at times.  I love Gary Oldman and he did shine in the movie.  However, Dracula was more or less plagued with a menagerie of oddness at times that made it a bit pish posh.  That and of course as already mentioned, Reeves as an Englishman...yeah...dude. 

More or less, Frankenstein kept to Shelly's themes about a man who had everything but lost it due to his quest for forbidden knowledge.  It also maintained a sense of sympathy towards the monster. 

hmmm...
Books...both classics, hard to choose.
Universal classics...definitely Frankenstein.
Hammer...another hard choice. both are awesome.
90s movies...both suck BAD and I refuse to sit through either again to remember which sucked less. pee-yew!!!

I don't think I ever ended up with the Aurora models, but I have the Luminators models and have always been partial to the Frankenstein.
In fact, I believe I have a lot more Frankenstein toys than Dracula toys, but more Dracula comics than Frankenstein comics.

Quote from: TrashFilmChristy on January 21, 2009, 12:24:06 AM
hmmm...
Books...both classics, hard to choose.
Universal classics...definitely Frankenstein.
Hammer...another hard choice. both are awesome.
90s movies...both suck BAD and I refuse to sit through either again to remember which sucked less. pee-yew!!!

I don't think I ever ended up with the Aurora models, but I have the Luminators models and have always been partial to the Frankenstein.
In fact, I believe I have a lot more Frankenstein toys than Dracula toys, but more Dracula comics than Frankenstein comics.

Crimeny! I frgot about comic books! DRACULA LIVES and TOMB of DRACULA was much better than Marvel's pug-nosed FRANKENSTIEN. Gene Colan's Drac was a unique creation! Oh yeh-...
.BILLY THE KID VS> DRACULA was better than JESSE JAMES MEETS FRANKENSTIENS DAUGHTER ony because of John Carridine. Don't get me wrong...I love them both!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjgJ3gMF2sk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xtc2PWu040

Quote from: doggett on January 20, 2009, 07:45:30 PM
I loved DeNiro's Frankenstein. Helena Bonham Carter as the bride was really freaky and far sadder the bride in the classic film of the '30s.

Aye!

I always found Frankenstein a more tragic tale of the two. You actually pity the monster when reading the book. He is rejected by his own creator, what can be worse than that.

I've never seen the 1990s Frankenstein, but I do remember the countless boob shots in Dracula.  :thumbup:

-Jimmybob

Two words...

Gary Oldman  :smile:

Quote from: Circus_Circus on January 22, 2009, 12:38:44 PM
Two words...

Gary Oldman  :smile:

Four Words :
Keanu Reeves :thumbdown:
Winona Ryder :thumbdown:

Quote from: doggett on January 22, 2009, 12:58:47 PM

Quote from: Circus_Circus on January 22, 2009, 12:38:44 PM
Two words...

Gary Oldman  :smile:

Four Words :
Keanu Reeves
Winona Ryder

Six words:

twinkie
sphinx
bologna
unicycle
gynecology
stapler



Hmmm... I think I may have misunderstood the point of the last two posts.

Love both characters equal.

As for movies, Frankenstein is much more sympathetic. No one has improved on Lugosi and Karloff.

Are you talking about the film or the book?

Film: I prefer the first one, One of my favorites. I've seen the other, but I never cared for it.

Book: Read both of them. There again I prefer the first. One of my favorites, especially in an annotated version. The second one, while readable, is a bit of a slog. The first one is more readable (IMHO.)