Being one of the few who has read Bram Stoker's original-novel, I can say without reservation that Ken Russell's vision of the story is far-superior. Why? You would have to read the novel, but I can vouch that it is unfilmable, and would put any audience to-sleep. It's not bad, and it has some excellent-ideas, but that's really what sums Stoker up-best--he had good concepts and a background-story, but a boring execution. Stoker went to great-lengths to show us how much he hated the aristocracy, just as in Dracula, but it gets tedious and too-talky. Also, the Irishman was dying <more> of some brain-disease, so the story is pretty fragmented. He died shortly after completing it in 1912. But the general-ideas are great, and the story predates Lovecraft's similar-obsessions with cosmic-horror. A faithful-version on film would not be very exciting. Russell, being Russell, intuited the sexual-subtext of the story, and takes it to realms of comic-transcendence.Russell saw the exquisite-potential in the story, and even spiced-it-up further with his wonderful blend of sexual-obsession and high-camp. He also lends the story a very-serious mysticism. It's ripping! Amada Donohoe stands-out as Lady Sylvia Marsh, an acolyte of a once-dead "sect" of vampiric serpent-worshippers, and she shines here. It is probably her best-performance in a movie. There are so-many great-moments in this film, and many are very witty and funny, with plenty-of sex-jokes this is a Ken Russell film, after-all . Russell wisely let the film be campy and tongue-in-cheek, since he wanted the audience to laugh with the story rather than at it! Characters practically wink at the camera after delivering their witty-lines, and Hugh Grant is pretty funny, he gets it. This has to be the first time most American audiences saw Grant in a starring-role, and it left a big-impression on me.The theme I enjoyed-most was the idea of pagan-religions being dormant for Centuries, and then reasserting-themselves in our modern-world in many-forms, like folklore, songs, and even in physical-manifestations , it's an exciting-concept with all the sexual-implications Russell loves trotting-out. There's also atmosphere-galore, and some very pointed-jabs at Orthodox-Christianity that the cynical will enjoy. What I really loved, though, was how campy the whole-affair is, since much of this is for laughs. The film also has an interesting new take on a kind-of serpent-vampirism. Sex was the basis in most Victorian-literature, so Russell has a field-day with it, and why not? He lays-bare Stoker's sexual-obsessions, and has them out-in-the-open, not really a major-shift from the original-novel! The title says-it-all, doesn't it? Lesbianism, paganism, mystery, religion, archaeology, humor, murder, monsters--how can you lose? This was part of a three-picture deal that director Ken Russell had with Vestron pictures, and included the excellent "Gothic" 1986 and D.H. Lawrence's "The Rainbow" 1989 . The 1980s was possibly his purest period where he had a very free-hand in his productions. It should be noted that Russell is a great adapter of D. H. Lawrence, and has done some justice to Aldous Huxley with "The Devils" his only political-film that surely ranks as horror , so literature is no problem for this most-controversial director. His infatuation with Britain's folklore is so apparent in this and his other films! In-fact, there is a scene where a genuine folk-song about the "Dampton Worm" is sung, since the legend is a real one from an old Anglo-Saxon kingdom.Pioneer actually got this one right for-once. The film is widescreen, and has a very-good transfer. The sound is stereo, and it is fairly active. Now, if they can get the rest of the catalog right... <less> |