Coppola tried to stick to the book, overdoing it sometimes, to be sure, but in the process creating a first-rate cinematic experience.
Tools:
Recommend review to a friend »
In this 1992 version of the Dracula legend, director Francis Ford Coppola sought to recreate the original Bram Stoker novel as closely as possible, something most previous Dracula films had not tried to do. Oddly enough, it was the very first, silent-movie version of the novel, F.W. Murnau's 1922 "Nosferatu," that had earlier come closest to the spirit of Stoker´s book. Several other films made the attempt, like "Horror of Dracula" with Christopher Lee in 1958 and a television production with Jack Palance in 1973. But Bela Lugosi´s 1931 film was an adaptation of the stage play, as was Frank Langella´s 1979 rendering; and almost every other Dracula film was a complete departure from the initial story.
In "Bram Stoker´s Dracula," Coppola tried to stick to the book, overdoing it sometimes, to be sure, but in the process creating a first-rate cinematic experience. The movie is also good for showing off the splendor of a DVD´s picture quality and sound, which is why, I´m sure, Columbia TriStar chose to remaster it in their new videophile Superbit process. The result makes an already good-looking, good-sounding film look and sound even better.
The plot begins with an elaborate recounting of how Dracula came to be the way he is. I don´t remember this sequence being in the book, but it makes a nice prologue to the action and helps to establish the Count´s character and generate some sympathy for him. Then we are into the actual plot with young Jonathan Harker, played by Keanu Reeves (struggling valiantly with a British accent), going off to Dracula´s ruined castle in Transylvania to arrange for the Count to purchase a new home in England. Gary Oldman plays Dracula, but not as the sinister Lugosi, the frightening Lee, or the suave Langella; instead, Oldman plays the Count as a tormented creature, more to be pitied than despised, convinced that Harker´s fiancee, Mina, is the reincarnation of his long-lost love.
The first sequence in Dracula´s castle is really quite effective, with Dracula at this time a spooky old gentleman (topped with a coiffeur that later begged to be parodied by Mel Brooks). While it is somewhat silly, it is still fun if one suspends one´s disbelief and goes along for the ride. When Dracula leaves for England (where the stage play takes up the story), things are not quite so enterprising. Dracula has regained his youth, sports a top hat and a pair of dark glasses, and is off to seek the modern embodiment of his long-ago sweetheart. Winona Ryder plays Mina, the object of both Harker´s and Dracula´s affections. Anthony Hopkins visibly delights in his role as the fearless vampire hunter, Professor Abraham Van Helsing, going over the top in almost every scene he´s in. And as always, my favorite character is R.M. Renfield, the mad bug eater, this time played with commendable repulsion by Tom Waits.
There are no plot twists for anybody who already knows the story, but Coppola keeps things reasonably fresh with imaginative touches throughout: Dracula´s shadow moves independently of his person, a pinch from "Peter Pan" perhaps, and the scene in a turn-of-the-century movie arcade is strikingly dramatic. Yes, you could say Coppola overproduced the whole thing, practically every scene rather bigger than life, and the film might have been scarier if it were toned down a bit. For instance, when our heroes confront Dracula toward the end of the film, just as he has finally succeeded in seducing Mina, the Count turns into a huge satanic beast and then dissolves into a cluster of rats that scurry away in all directions. In the book? I doubt it; but it´s been a long time. All the same, scary or not, it´s a memorable effect.
"Bram Stoker´s Dracula" is an old-fashioned monster movie on a grand scale, a Gothic horror spectacular in the best and, if you want to be cynical, the worst sense of the words. It´s weird, eerie, funny, thrilling, bizarre, and eccentric, filled with demonic rites, Christian symbolism, and erotic imagery; indeed, it is more sensual and sexy than any prior Dracula film has dared to be. Perhaps, above all, Coppola´s vision of "Dracula" is that of a romance. In fact, it may be as a love story that the film works best, and how this fact sits with diehard fright-flick fans will probably determine their ultimate reaction to it.
Average user rating (1-5):
[release]175[/release]