Drácula

There were several reasons why I wanted to see Bram Stoker's Dracula, and after seeing the film finally I was really impressed. No seriously I was. It is not perfect, but on the whole it is very well done.

I have read Bram Stoker's book several times and love it to death, it is rich in detail, it is haunting and it is shocking. This film is not the truest film version of the book, and that's putting it mildly, but it is one of the more visually beautiful and intriguing ones. That is no way a flaw, I am not the sort of person who says if this adaptation is untrue to the book I pan it, or at least I try not to. Speaking of flaws there are two significant flaws, one is more significant than the other, that stop the film from perfection. At over two hours the film is probably a little too long. But the biggest problem is Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker. I know it is not old news to rag on Reeves's performance, and I will say I am not a fan of his, sure he has been in some very good films but he is nearly always one of the weaker assets which is exactly the case here. Jonathan Harker is an estate agent who is threatened by Dracula, but I found Reeves's acting far too too inept, flat and emotionless, complete with a very unimpressive accent. For instance, when he says "Oh, I'm very sorry"- Keanu I know there aren't many ways to say that phrase strictly speaking, but do actually try to sound as though you're sorry.

Flaws aside, Francis Ford Coppola's film is very, very good. It is eerie, it is romantic and it is even operatic. For one thing, it is exquisitely mounted, very grandiose in its visual approach. From the sumptuous costumes, the lovingly crafted settings, the superb make up and the basic yet atmospheric lighting complete with more sophisticated techniques it is a feast for the eyes. Another strength is the score, it was very like an opera, rich, soulful, haunting and melancholic. I also liked the script, it was poetic, it was intelligent and it was sophisticated, and the plot is coherent with some effective scenes such as Mina following Lucy into the garden when Lucy is later attacked by Dracula. And the direction is wonderful, a lot of fashioned touches are made to make this film very watchable at least once.

With the exception of Reeves, the acting is very good. Winona Ryder is an improvement certainly, she is beautiful and intense thus she becomes the object of Dracula's devastating desire. Her chemistry with Reeves wasn't quite there, but with Gary Oldman it was pretty much smouldering. Anthony Hopkins was one of the main reasons why I wanted to see this film in the first place, he is a brilliant actor, one of the best there is actually. See him in The Elephant Man, Shadowlands, Howards' End and the Remains of the Day, all wonderful films, and he is impeccable in all of them. I enjoyed him here, here he plays Dr Van Helsing, a famed doctor who dares to believe in Dracula and in the end even dares to confront him, and gives a delicious performance making the most of some inventive one-liners. Richard E.Grant, Cary Elwes and Bill Campbell all give great support, but it is Gary Oldman's towering performance as Dracula that dominates the film. An excellent, underrated actor(Immortal Beloved is just living proof of his talent), Oldman is menacing, suave, handsome, charismatic, tragic and just amazing here, his transitions from old to young and from man to beast are completely believable, in short it was one of the more interesting interpretations of Dracula. Also look out for Monica Belluci as one of Dracula's wives, she is breathtakingly beautiful, even Sadie Frost was surprisingly good as Lucy.

Overall, if you want a faithful adaptation of the book, you may be disappointed. However, if you want a visually stunning, richly scored and compelling movie this is perfect for you. Regardless of how it deviates from the book, I liked it a lot, and would definitely see it again. 8/10 Bethany Cox

As is the case with many of these latter-day horror movies, this is visually stunning. This one is particularly so, with beautiful colors, wild special effects, lavish sets and a handful of pretty women, led by Winona Ryder.

It isn't all beauty; there are some horrific, bloody moments in here. I've seen the film three times and the first two times was terrifying to me in parts. The last viewing wasn't as scary, but maybe I was distracted by seeing this on DVD for the first time, which enhanced the visuals and added some nice 5.1surround sound.

At two hours and 10 minutes, it's a bit long but there are very few lulls, if any. Gary Oldham gives his normal intense performance as Dracula and it never hurts to have Anthony Hopkins in the film.

The only negative I found was Keannu Reeves, who sounds a bit wooden in his lines. Is it my imagination, or is he a terrible actor? Maybe it's just his voice. Nonetheless, Cary Elwes, Richard Grant, Sadie Frost and Bill Campbell all give good support to this film which is a real feast for the senses.

... although I keep remembering that this "modern" tale was filmed 31 years ago.

James V. Hart's script seemed heavily indebted to Fred Saberhagen's The Dracula Tape (1980), which was a re-telling of the events of Bram Stoker's novel from the POV of Dracula, whose POV was missing from the Stoker original. It was also much more favorable towards Dracula, and added a lot of the romantic elements.

One thing that it did get right was having all the actual characters from the original novel. Many of the adaptations removed one or more of the suitors, especially the American Quincy Morris, or age up Dr. Seward, or make him the father of Mina or Lucy. This version did present them as they were in the novel.

Stylistically, it was unusual even for 1992, with Coppola said to be attempting some sort of visual homage to silent and classic film techniques, with some things looking deliberately artificial.

I recall at the time thinking Keanu Reeves was highly miscast, and his awkward performance nearly undid the whole film for me. Anthony Hopkins was coming off his Oscar win for The Silence of the Lambs, and he did seem to have his performance pitched to the rafters. His characterization seemed more in line with the Saberhagen book, where Van Helsing is depicted as more of a religious fanatic with a cruel streak.

The whole enterprise was a cash grab for Coppola who was coming off the relative disappointment of The Godfather Part III. It was a success, and kickstarted a "prestige horror" trend over the next several years, with Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Wolf, and Interview with the Vampire.

Opening with his vow to rise from his grave and take revenge on a God who allowed his beloved to die while he defended Him on the battlefield, we see Count Dracula in the 1890's, conducting business with a London firm. When his first consultant goes mad, Jonathon Harker is sent to Dracula in his place, only to find himself trapped in the castle. Meanwhile, Dracula travels to London where he feeds on the lovely Lucy Westenra. Her various suitors try to help her and call for Professor Van Helsing to come and help – they realise that this is not a simple battle against a disease of the blood.

Although a little too long for my liking, this film is a very rich gothic telling of a story that has become watered down slightly with the many different versions of stories with the characters. Here the basic plot follows the tale from the creation of Dracula, his love and his confrontation with Van Helsing and the various suitors of the lovely Lucy. The story is told with a real respect for the source, perhaps a little too much as it can be a little to heavy and lacking in spark at times. However, for the most part the gothic telling works very well and feels very lavish and rich.

Visually the film is great – rich colours in the scenery and costumes really bring the goth out of the film. Meanwhile Coppola works well with shadows and images in the backgrounds to make the film have the feel of an old silent movie version (eyes in the storm) but with modern standards. It's not really scary, but I didn't need it to be, I was more interested in the overall story, and that worked well.

The cast suffer from a bit too much respect for the material, some of their performances are a little too hammy and heavy. Oldman is good when compared to the better known image of the `Bela Lagosi' Dracula, but I did still find him a little too hammy at times. Likewise Rider is not totally convincing. Hopkins is quite fun to watch and the three suitors (including Ewles and Grant) very much play stiff upper lipped straight men! Of course of their performances tower with majesty above the sheer miscast ineptitude of Reeves. From the start his accent is horrid, but his inability to bring out emotions and character basically kills his character off before the film has even got going.

Despite this the film is actually very enjoyable even if it is a bit too respectful and long – occasionally making it feel a little heavy going. The rich presentation and loyalty to the source material makes for a very enjoyable story even if it isn't really what we'd see now as a horror.

"Apocalypse Now" worked due to its hazy, surreal vision of a hellish world. Coppola returned thirteen years later and created a similarly haunting and poetic so-called "masterpiece," a supposed truthful adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula tale - when, in fact, the truth is that this movie is no more faithful to Stoker than the (superior) Universal Pictures original.

The hazy film-making is visually satisfying, and some of the special effects are - simply put - amazing. Coppola's backlighting and use of shadows is creative and unique. But, unfortunately, after a while his emphasis on style over content begins to eat away at the film's other strengths - the relationship between the heroine (Winona Ryder) and Dracula (Gary Oldman) is weak. Many story links are completely nonsensical and people appear and disappear at whimsy. The heroine's fiancée (Keanu Reeves) writes to her from Transylvania, asking her to depart at once to marry him; in a matter of one or two scenes she has suddenly traveled a vast distance and is standing at the alter prepared to wed. It seems like Coppola loses a grip on his characters and plotting very early on.

Oldman gives a chilling performance but isn't given very much to do, because he's set aside and the special effects take over. The opening scenes of his battle and his motivation to become the King of the Undead is very enthralling - if Coppola had maintained this mixture of style and content the movie would have been far better.

The casting of the weak Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder in leading roles harms the impact of the film as well. Reeves sounds like a Californian pothead imitating a Brit; Ryder treats the material as if it is a dramatic, over-the-top theatre rendition; every line she speaks is sickeningly cheesy.

Anthony Hopkins turns in a disappointing performance as the utterly forgettable Van Helsing, who is given very little to do in this particular film apart from show up when convenient and sprout fancy little one-liners, most of them dramatic closers to scenes (e.g. "We are dealing with a demon!", then a cut-away to another scene.) Overall, "Dracula" is a good film and is worth seeing for its visuals alone. It is not, however, the strongest adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel; given the hype surrounding its release in 1992, the completed effort is rather lackluster in the story department.