Bram Stoker's Dracula (Silent Film Version)

I've been watching a lot of silent movies recently, so I was excited to see this edit. It did not disappoint and moves straight on to my personal list of best-ever-fanedits. The efforts taken to make this look, feel, play and "sound" like a silent movie were brilliantly accurate.

Audio/Video Quality: 10/10
I watched a 720p mkv and it looked fantastic. The pin-sharp blu-ray of the 1931 Dracula and Coppola's version are rendered well. The tinting, iris, fading, borders etc look very authentic

Visual Editing: 9/10
The best thing was seeing the seamless inter-cutting of the 1931 and 1992 films. It helps that Coppola used only silent-era techniques on the 1992 movie.

Audio Editing: 8/10
I'll give it an '8' since there wasn't any soundFX to deal with, or edit. However, the scoring was first class and always felt instep with the images. I didn't listen to the alternate score though but there's always next time!

Narrative: 8/10
It was very well put together and told, plus amiliarity with the famous story makes things easy to follow anyway. I'd have scored this higher if the pace was a bit slower. Longer to read the intertitles and take them in, and then longer to read the actors faces.

Enjoyment: 10/10
As I've said, to watch a fan silent movie, among many original ones was a treat. I'd love to see more fanedits like this, blending films from different eras, within the silent style framework (Hint... Nosferatu 1922, 1979, 2000)

If I had to criticise/nitpick... the text on the intertitles is too small (As I think everyone pointed out already in the ITW thread) and when that is combined with two elaborate fonts, it's not as easy to read as I'd like. Some of the intertitles stay on screen for only just enough time to read them and digest their meaning in context with the surrounding images. Also the tinting could have been pushed further. Many silents seem to have used a blue tint to denote night, or darkness, or used tints to convey setting and place, so I'd have liked to have seen some of that used. The "film particle" FX looked a bit fake at times (They looked like Vegas FX to me). Some genuine 35mm damage would have been better. If this was supposed to be genuinely a silent-era movie, there was way too much nudity (Some fleeting pre-code shots would be fine). These are all small problems though, compared to the overall enjoyment.

How often do I get to say that an edit's storyline is borderline indecipherable, yet I enjoyed the fuck out of it and without hesitation would recommend it to just about anyone looking for a superlative vampire fix?

Without familiarity with Bram Stoker's novel or the various cinematic incarnations of Dracula, viewers could easily get lost trying to untangle the narrative. No matter—this version's not meant to accommodate them. I really dug Coppola's Dracula, but this edit, with its sumptuous and immersive silent-era visuals and scene-sensitive score, takes the 1992 film to the next level.

Both audio tracks—take your pick—provide mood-setting scores, and both complement the visuals superbly.

The intertitles are a bit difficult to read at times; this has been mentioned in other reviews and the ITW thread, so I won't elaborate here.

This issue has no effect on my numerical ratings, but it should be noted that the file size is unnecessarily large at 4.5 GB. For a 52-minute edit, 720 pixels in height but considerably less than 1280 pixels in width, if one excludes the peripheral black spaces, a file 1.5 to 2 GB would have been sufficient with nary a loss in quality.

I mention these minor gripes without any less enthusiasm for this edit. It's a gorgeous experience, and I'd bet five liters of blood that genuine, real-life vampires would also enjoy the fuck out of this.