Bram Stoker's Dracula (Silent Film Version)

A/V QUALITY
Very good, high bitrate. The visual quality has been slightly intentionally degraded and the aspect ratio changed to achieve the silent film look.

A/V EDITING
The regrades are expertly chosen, as is the excellent score. The lowered framerate really sells this as silent film. There's at least one (intentional) freezeframe/near-freezeframe towards the beginning, which was well done. The establishing shots were very nice, looked like paintings. My main critique, and pretty much my only critique of this edit, is that I found the intertitles to be a little hard to read and not lasting long enough.

NARRATIVE
It's impressive how the narrative has been compressed into such a short period of time yet remains coherent throughout. Pace is good too. I definitely appreciated how the film is brought closer to the novel. A lot of scenes are reworked to better fit the book, including all the scenes relating the Mina/Dracula romance storyline, and the scene in which Mina seduces Van Helsing.

The repurposing of the battle footage to a dinner scene flashback was very smart and well executed. Throughout the whole edit there are a lot of innovative editing choices that you can greatly appreciate if you remember how the original played out.

The A/V editing at 46:25 is particularly notable. Very well done.

CONCLUSION
I'm incredibly impressed by this edit. Not a single scene, not even a single shot, is left untouched. The transitions between scenes are so well done that it feels like you're watching a modern, studio approved silent film. Overall, you can tell a lot of effort and attention to detail went into this. One of the most transformative edits I've ever seen.

This is a really good fanedit; I'm a sucker for the idea of presenting/editing a film into a different style than its original form, and this edit is a very very good example of how to go about it.

Audio and video quality are both great - I haven't listened to the complete alternate score, but have no reason to assume there are any problems there.

The video editing is mostly very strong - the use of tinting was very nice, with a number of subtleties that helped sell the effect. Similarly, the styling on the titlecards and fades/transitions were very nice, and the film-aging effect was elegantly restrained, present without drawing undue attention to itself. Unfortunately, there are still some issues - while I really appreciate the font chosen, combined with the font size and titlecard duration it was almost impossible to read the entirety of any titlecards more than 2 lines long. Similarly some of the transitions felt hurried. I don't want to end this part on a negative note, though, so I'll mention here that there were a number of shots that were simply breathtaking as presented here - the flash of lightning when Harker is in the coach on the way to Dracula's castle is but one of many memorable images in this edit.

Narratively, I felt it was very good for someone already familiar with the story and Coppola's film (or Nosferatu, for that matter). The breakneck pace never lets up and actually becomes somewhat disorienting towards the end, with several shots in the climactic chase sequence feeling too short to be effective. Combined with the brevity of the intertitles, I suspect someone new to the material would have a hard time keeping up. In this regard it felt like some of the editing choices were made to suit the running time of the score rather than the narrative, which is rather unfortunate.

It may seem that I'm complaining a lot about this edit; that's not my intention. This edit is definitely worth viewing, flaws notwithstanding - if you like Coppola's film, or Murnau's Nosferatu, you will almost certainly derive a great deal of enjoyment from this edit. The fact that such a high standard has been achieved by a first-time editor is even more commendable; I look forward to seeing whatever Paulisdead turns their hand to next.

One can never have too many Silent era productions.
Faneditor Paulisdead has not only rendered Coppola’s 1992 Dracula into a silent movie, but he has distilled the running time to 51‘, shorter than Murnau’s Nosferatu, as well as the 1931 Dracula.
I am going to nitpick away on this, but this is really an outstanding edit which I thoroughly enjoyed.

Video - 1280 X 720 AVC. Holy moly, at 4.5 GB, this is fat. The “look” is appropriate. A bit of jerkiness and undercranking, but not excessive. Silents suffered in later years because they were shown at too high a speed. Thank you for not going overboard with the damage (scratches, streaks). I would classify this as a late teens or early 20s Silent as opposed to a later 20s production. Some of the fadeouts were abrupt.

Clips from the ‘31 version were thoughtful and not intrusive. If there were any from the Mexican version I did not catch them. Nice use of tinting. There might have been more blue for night scenes, but I could appreciate the more subtle use of showing blue during lightning flashes.

Audio - 224 kbps AC3. 2 Channel stereo. I never listen to the Glass score when watching the ‘31, yet it was fine here. The themes and motifs matched the activity on the screen. Other editors who attempt Silents could learn from the choices here. The piano version of same score feels different. I enjoy that, as well. Hard to pick a favorite.

This is usually where I write “No Subs.” Not this time. There are intertitles throughout. The font for larger header cards is ornate, for dialogue, less so. The intertitles are too brief and too small. The brevity might have been compensated for with a larger size. This was commented on while the edit was still in progress.

Narrative - The original clocked in at 2‘ 8“. More than 50% has been cut. There is a real lack of cohesion in the story. I know FE members have seen (own) the ‘92 version. For anyone new to Dracula, this is too choppy, with poor characters. Renfield could have been omitted altogether, more time given to Dracula and the hunters. Bumping the running time to 60-75“ might have fleshed out the tale, too. There were a couple stills inserted, one at 30.54, which were barely seen. This edit is breathless. The pace races and it is hard to take in at times.

Enjoyment - Oh, absolutely! This is extremely well done. Consider that this is also a first time edit. I sincerely hope Paulisdead continues editing and tackles other projects. One might think I’m giving him a hard time, but that is not my intention. The flaws and omissions were small in comparison with the resultant film.

For Dracula fans, for Silent era fans, for folks who like variety in their fanedits, this is an excellent choice.

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.