BRAM STOKER'S Dracula is a lavishly Gothic adaptation of the Stoker novel, directed by Francis Ford Coppola like he's doing an imitation of Tim Burton. This is Dracula as high camp, with a highly theatrical performance from Gary Oldman (with tongue firmly in cheek) playing the Count as both an old-time romantic and modern-day ghoul. Let's be clear: Oldman's performance is far from definitive (that honour goes to Christopher Lee), but it is memorable.
Elsewhere, the film is hit and miss. For every hit there's a miss, for every great idea there's one that doesn't work. The art direction and set dressing is top notch, and I appreciate all the artiness of the direction; the stuff in the skies, the blood fountains like something out of Kubrick's THE SHINING, the overblown musical score. Elsewhere, the special effects have dated considerably, particularly Dracula's transformation into a cheesy giant bat. Plus the whole romantic sub-plot drags things down and goes nowhere.
The cast is equally mixed. Anthony Hopkins really gets into the spirit of the thing, delivering a performance loaded with high camp as Van Helsing. Tom Waits's Renfield is arresting, Cary Elwes and Richard E. Grant are fine in minor parts, and somehow Sadie Frost works as the sexually frustrated Lucy. But two of the main parts are given to Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder, and it's clear from the outset that their hearts aren't really in it. They give dejected, dispirited and artificial performances, which isn't great.
Still, with all the gory effects and imaginative interludes on offer, BRAM STOKER'S Dracula is a film that it's hard to dislike. Indeed, when I first saw it as a 14-year-old boy, I loved it to bits. Many years later, it feels deeply flawed, a movie that's all over the place. Coppola's scattershot film-making works in some places and not in others, and it's fair to say this is a bit of a mess. A riotous, entertaining mess, but a mess nonetheless.
Elsewhere, the film is hit and miss. For every hit there's a miss, for every great idea there's one that doesn't work. The art direction and set dressing is top notch, and I appreciate all the artiness of the direction; the stuff in the skies, the blood fountains like something out of Kubrick's THE SHINING, the overblown musical score. Elsewhere, the special effects have dated considerably, particularly Dracula's transformation into a cheesy giant bat. Plus the whole romantic sub-plot drags things down and goes nowhere.
The cast is equally mixed. Anthony Hopkins really gets into the spirit of the thing, delivering a performance loaded with high camp as Van Helsing. Tom Waits's Renfield is arresting, Cary Elwes and Richard E. Grant are fine in minor parts, and somehow Sadie Frost works as the sexually frustrated Lucy. But two of the main parts are given to Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder, and it's clear from the outset that their hearts aren't really in it. They give dejected, dispirited and artificial performances, which isn't great.
Still, with all the gory effects and imaginative interludes on offer, BRAM STOKER'S Dracula is a film that it's hard to dislike. Indeed, when I first saw it as a 14-year-old boy, I loved it to bits. Many years later, it feels deeply flawed, a movie that's all over the place. Coppola's scattershot film-making works in some places and not in others, and it's fair to say this is a bit of a mess. A riotous, entertaining mess, but a mess nonetheless.