Dracula

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

Incessantly gothic & unabashedly erotic, Dracula brings Bram Stoker's literary classic to the film canvas in all its Victorian glory & required faithfulness and is a visual splendour overflowing with bold vision & audacious choices. But the technical mastery on display is also severely hampered by the film's inconsistent tone, overdone theatrics, casting choices & passionless performances.

Directed by Francis Ford Coppola (The Godfather & Apocalypse Now), the story unfolds like an eerie & sensual reverie and is substantially elevated by its operatic set pieces, lavish costumes, vivid photography, old-school effects & uncanny score. The film gets the atmosphere right with its inspired use of colours, shadows, lighting & subliminal imagery that works in tandem with its sexually charged narrative.

However, the impressionistic touches, cinematic flourishes & technical ingenuity still don't prove to be enough to mask its shortcomings, for its bloated length & over-the-top drama are further exacerbated by the casting decisions that nearly destroys the whole picture. Neither Keanu Reeves nor Winona Ryder are right choices for their roles and as for the remaining cast, their inputs are serviceable at best & forgettable at worst.

Overall, Dracula is a visual feast that delivers on mood, setting & filmmaking creativity but the commitment evident in the technical aspects are sorely lacking in the acting department. And that in effect hurts its ability to fully immerse viewers into its dreamlike escapade. Its romantic gestures are sincere even if the tonal shifts are all over the place but for a premise that has so much promise, the film as a whole leaves much to be desired.

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.

"Bram Stoker's Dracula" is one of those films that reeled people in by making its audience believe that it would be an intense horror film on par with productions like "Rosemary's Baby" or "The Exorcist". Instead, director Francis Ford Coppola stayed more true to Stoker's novel and put a focus on an intense love story that transcends time, the elements and even life and death. This naturally turned off many horror enthusiasts who would rather see a film that thrives on shock value rather than a movie that thrives on heart, brains and emotion. The film is naturally about the titled character, an immortal man (played superbly by the nearly always exceptional Gary Oldman) who has turned against God and now lives through the powers of darkness. By the late-19th Century, the titled character is trying to lure back a reincarnation of his one true love (Winona Ryder) and of course attempting to eliminate all those that might stand in his way (Ryder's fiance Keanu Reeves and professor Anthony Hopkins most notably). Overall "Dracula" is an amazingly good looking film that benefits from high production values and guaranteed performances (mainly from Oldman and Hopkins). Coppola's direction is strong, but a bit overbearing at times and sometimes it is unclear what the tone of the production truly is. Watch for Italian beauty Monica Bellucci as one of Oldman's beautiful, but deadly wives. 4 stars out of 5.

... 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.