Dracula

Coppola's take on one of horror's sacred texts was divisive at the time of release; well, I say divisive ... but I'm the only person I remember loving it. But time plays tricks. It's faithful to the text - at least more than most adaptations; in and of itself that's not necessarily a good or bad thing. But Coppola's high-wire act of excess makes it work brilliantly, and it's aged very well ... who knew that the man who made The Godfather could make a good film?

Hopkins and Reeves excepted (whose idea were their interpretations?), there are some terrific performances, and I seriously doubt if Gary Oldman has ever had more fun as an actor than he does here. The almost entirely in-camera approach to visual effects lends the film an otherworldly, chilling air; there are some dazzlingly brilliant transitions that speak to the film's technical mastery. It's not afraid to be many things; camp, funny, exciting, disturbing, erotic, and romantic, all in the right proportions and at the right times. It's also unafraid to make Dracula himself, ultimately, something of the story's romantic hero and to see the events of the story through the female gaze as much as the male.

Ultimately it's one of those films that's imperfect and all the better for it; it has hopelessly high ambitions, but its failure to reach some of them (but by no means all) is still thrilling. You can't possibly be bored.

I have seen multiple versions of Dracula, but none compare to 1992's version starring Gary Oldman, the definitive Count Dracula in my opinion. This film is lavish, decadent and wonderfully vivid. It captured the gothic spirit of the novel, it's deep, romantic, and mixed with tender and violent moments. The visuals to this day are exquisite, the costumes, sets and scenes of Victorian England are superb.

Oldman is incredible, but the supporting cast of Reeves, Hopkins and Ryder are terrific, Winona Ryder's delicate character is superb. The accompanying soundtrack was also fantastic, great songs from Annie Lennox.

A true classic. 9/10

"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.

Excuse me, but I just read a series of reviews by people who are disappointed by the fact that this movie didn't follow the same old script that has been done over and over and over again. They gave a provocative movie a rating of "1" so they could sabotage what most people thought. Go do something else besides writing about films. This is not a perfect movie, but it takes the basic text of the Stoker novel and extrapolates from it. People seem to be reacting tot he sexuality of this. If we go back to the seminal movies, "Nosferatu" being the greatest example, we see that sexual tension dominates these films as well as the books. Dracula has power over people. He can draw women to him. He is not an animal, but he is a sub-human with desires to dominate. Coppola uses this to show his evil intent. Gary Oldman is the most eccentric and wonderful Dracula to come along in years. When did it become written that every Dracula should be the black-caped Bela Lugosi figure that kids still dress up as on Halloween. He is a force to be reckoned with; he is evil; and he is powerful. Remember, people accept the scenes of him sucking the blood out of women without any trouble. Why not an evil abuser of their being? Remember, they are under a spell over which they have no control.

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