Dracula is a bit like Batman - the original creation has been filtered through so many different creative viewpoints over the years that it must now be accepted that the character is capable of multiple interpretations. Francis Ford Coppola chose to interpret Dracula, not as a murderous bloodstained monster, but as a tragic romantic hero. Personally, I have a bit of trouble with that particular take on Dracula, but I don't have any problem with accepting it as a valid creative option.
Coppola's film is lushly gorgeous - sensual, sexual, with rich colours hidden in the looming shadows, and oily, serpentine, unnatural movements all adding to a sense of unease. Winona Rider does quite well as Mina - here portrayed as a virtual reincarnation of Dracula's tragic lost wife - and the cast of helpers are all quite good: even Keanu Reeves customary stoic (read "woodon") persona quite suits Jonathan Harker. Hopkins has great fun chewing some scenery, not too excessively, and Gary Oldman gets deep inside a very mannered portrayal of Dracula. Perhaps too mannered, some might say, but there is no question as to the quality of the performance.
All things considered, though, Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula isn't my Dracula at all.
Coppola's film is lushly gorgeous - sensual, sexual, with rich colours hidden in the looming shadows, and oily, serpentine, unnatural movements all adding to a sense of unease. Winona Rider does quite well as Mina - here portrayed as a virtual reincarnation of Dracula's tragic lost wife - and the cast of helpers are all quite good: even Keanu Reeves customary stoic (read "woodon") persona quite suits Jonathan Harker. Hopkins has great fun chewing some scenery, not too excessively, and Gary Oldman gets deep inside a very mannered portrayal of Dracula. Perhaps too mannered, some might say, but there is no question as to the quality of the performance.
All things considered, though, Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula isn't my Dracula at all.