BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA (1992) - Movie Review

Director: Francis Ford Coppola
Starring: Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Anthony Hopkins, Keanu Reeves, Richard E. Grant, Cary Elwes, Billy Campbell, Sadie Frost, Tom Waits
Genre: Horror, Fantasy, Romance
Writer: James V. Hart
Runtime: 128 min
Rated: Rated R for sexuality and horror violence
Buy This Movie: Blu-ray (Amazon), DVD (Amazon),4K Ultra HD (Amazon), Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV

This blog is supported by its audience. When you buy through links on my blog, I may earn an affiliate commission.

Synopsis:

Count Dracula, a 15th-century prince, is condemned to live off the blood of the living for eternity. Young lawyer Jonathan Harker is sent to Dracula's castle to finalise a land deal, but when the Count sees a photo of Harker's fiancée, Mina, the spitting image of his dead wife, he imprisons him and sets off for London to track her down.

Review:

With a classic like the 1922 silent horror film "Nosferatu" and subsequent versions of the iconic vampire played by equally iconic actors Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee, the task of once again adapting Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula" must have been a daunting one for Francis Ford Coppola. With a story that has been done to death and back, in what way could you possibly improve on what has been done before ? The answer Coppola found was simple: Go big, go crazy !

The events in the 1992 film pretty much follow the book's plotline, with a few major additions. First of all, Coppola plays up the connection between Count Dracula and the Romanian historical figure Vlad the Impaler, which was not a thing in Stoker's novel. That probably pissed off Romanian historical purists, but I will admit it gives the character a larger-than-life mythological feel, and Gary Oldman does over-the-top like nobody's business in the film's epic prologue. Secondly, there's a lengthy romantic subplot between the Count and Mina Harker (Winona Ryder) that throws a bit of reincarnation (or something) into the mix and burdens the movie considerably.

Coppola avoids the formulaic by doubling down on wild, surreal imagery and designs, which makes for a visually striking package overall, with gorgeous Oscar-nominated production design, Oscar-winning costumes and makeup, virtuoso cinematography that bends light and shadows ever so gracefully, and some of the best practical effects (strictly on-set and in-camera) ever committed to screen. It also features an incredible epic score by acclaimed composer Wojciech Kilar.The downside is that the movie as a whole eventually starts to feel unhomogeneous, like the filmmaker was just throwing random things at the screen to see what sticks, the weirder, the better. There are scenes that are either overly dramatic or overly eroticized, sometimes taken to the point where it invites parody, which Mel Brooks eventually did three years later in "Dracula: Dead and Loving It".

The filmmaker assembled a great cast, but honestly, apart from Oldman, who is amazing as usual, and some fun scenery-chewing from the great Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing and Tom Waits as Renfield, everyone else puts in generic performances. Winona Ryder who is basically the film's female lead, is underwhelming and shares no chemistry with Oldman. Then there's Keanu Reeves' performance, which it seems everyone hates. He struggles visibly and audibly with the British accent, and his is the film's only truly noticeable off-key performance. The studio or Coppola himself probably wanted a good looking up-and-comer for the part, but regardless of whether Reeves was completely out of his depth, or just poorly directed, it didn't pay off as intended.

In the end, I must say I enjoy the film purely for the stylish fever dream that it is. It's a masterclass in every artistic department. However, I just didn't care that much about its story and characters. It's a clear case of style over substance, that doesn't add anything significant to the gothic horror genre, but it's still an enjoyable watch for the technical brilliance on display.

SCORE: 7/10