|
Directed by: Francis Ford Coppola Starring: Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Anthony Hopkins, Keanu Reeves Yet another retelling of the classic vampire tale, though this is probably the most faithful one to date. Dracula (Gary Oldman) goes to war and returns home to find his beloved bride (Winona Ryder) has killed herself, thinking him dead. In his grief he renounces God and damns himself to an endless life of blood-lust, until he can meet his wife again. Flash forward to 1897, where Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves) is about to marry his lovely fiancee, Mina (also Ryder) when he's called to the mysterious Count's castle. Dracula sees a photo of Jonathan's bride-to-be, and you can probably figure out where the plot goes from there. Visually, there has arguably never been a film that so perfectly captures the atmosphere of Victorian gothic horror. Coppola creates a fascinating world of fog, wolves, towering spires, hedge mazes, more fog, lonely stagecoach rides through the night, shadows with a life of their own, and a carnal sexuality that permeates EVERYTHING. You'd be hard-pressed to find an element of the Dracula mythos that isn't present here, from the long fingers and rodent features of Nosferatu to the borderline-camp accent of the Bela Lugosi incarnation. All the performances are well-suited to the chracters, even Keanu's - Jonathan is the very definition of the horribly dull gentleman, something Reeves is exceedingly good at portraying. There's just one problem: The script is terrible. There is no narrative drive at all, and the film starts with a bang and then proceeds to lose momentum until it limps to its unsatisfying and confusing conclusion. Characters change motivation on a whim with seemingly no precedent, and it eventually becomes a long series of horror set-pieces held together by the flimsiest of plots. But god, WHAT setpieces! From the hedge-maze tease that leads to a wolf raping a young maiden under the moonlight to Dracula's obligatory appearance as a horrifying bat, you couldn't ask for a better-looking horror film. It's just a shame there isn't any substance to support all that style. I should hate this movie, but I can't. If you're a fan of horror or stylish filmmaking in general, you owe it to yourself to check it out. Just ignore the plot and the illogical characters and let the pretty pictures wash over you. Because they're really loving pretty. RATING: 4 PROS: One of the most visually spectacular films ever made, perfect gothic horror atmosphere CONS: Nonsensical script, bad pacing, sloppy character arcs ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103874
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2004 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 12:20 |
|
|
edit Saw this again for the first time in a long while, and I was completely blown away. It's really made like a silent film, with lots of beautiful iris effects, shadow and other conventions of that era. Michael Ballhaus really goes all out with the visuals, and this movie has some of the deepest reds and blacks I've ever seen. I like how some of the correspondances between Johnathan and Mina were used, and just the overall use of text in general, but that was really the only thing it had in common with the book. I'm still a little agitated by the changes to Dracula's character, making him more sympathetic, but it gives the film it's own identity in the mythology I guess. Hopkins was so drat good in this, and many other members of the cast did a fine job as well. Highly recommended. vertov fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Sep 26, 2004 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2004 23:18
|
|
|
I loved the visuals of this film, and the costume design, makeup and production design are all top-notch. The only complaint I would have about this film is that its central theme focuses more on love which, now that I think about it, is an excellent motivation for anything. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2004 00:21
|
|
|
Bram Stoker’s Dracula is a definite must watch for horror or classic monster fans. It has a style similar to what you’d expect from an early 90s horror movie. The roles cast for various characters are almost comical in how obvious they were (Anthony Hopkins as Professor Van Helsing among others). The film’s general style is very much true to the book. That said, there are some pretty significant flaws, especially for purist. Although this is one of the best and truest adaptations to the original Stoker novel, it departs from the original story in some significant and pretty shocking ways. For example, in the movie, Dracula is often presented as a sympathetic character, with his free will somewhat intact. This is contrary to the book in which he is essentially a slave, unable to do anything except prey on the living. Attainment of knowledge, culture, language, etc. are all done in the service of seeking to corrupt mankind rather than what we would normally associate with educated men. On paper this change looks like it might have virtue, but the implementation is greatly flawed. Characters, Dracula and Mina in particular, often act contrary to logic. It isn’t even clear most of the time whether they are acting of their own volition or by some unseen force motivating them. These new elements clash with plot points from the novel. Clearly any proper interpretation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula should have Renfield, Lucy, and a series other events and this movie does include them. That said, often these characters distract from the story being told, instead of contributing to it. I would have preferred a true interpretation of the original text, but this mix-mash of ideas doesn’t work well. There is inevitably some controversy when one discusses the choice of Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker. Coppola went as far to say he regretted this choice later. The scene where Reeves sees Dracula rejuvenated in London toward the middle of the movie is often a point of humor. “He’s grown young!” spoken in a particularly strong surfer accent is quite amusing. Visually, the film is stunning, and if you are at all entertained by style, then this film is a must see. Just don’t expect the plot to make sense all of the time and you should enjoy this movie. If I could, I would gladly give this film a 3.5 / 5. As that is not possible, I’ll go with a 3/5 because the majority of my appreciation is for the original story, not this, and I would be transferring undue credit if I gave this film too much praise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2009 18:46
|
|
