Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Review #1502: Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Cast:
Gary Oldman (Count Dracula / Vlad the Impaler), Keanu Reeves (Jonathan Harker), Winona Ryder (Mina Harker/Elisabeta), Anthony Hopkins (Professor Abraham Van Helsing/Priest/Principal Narrator), Richard E. Grant (Dr. Jack Seward), Cary Elwes (Lord Arthur Holmwood), Billy Campbell (Quincey P. Morris), Sadie Frost (Lucy Westenra), Tom Waits (R. M. Renfield), Monica Bellucci (Dracula's Bride), Michaela Bercu (Dracula's Bride), Florina Kendrick (Dracula's Bride), and Jay Robinson (Mr. Hawkins) Directed by Francis Ford Coppola (#592 - Dementia 13, #1139 - Supernova, #1460 - Apocalypse Now, #1469 - The Outsiders)

Review:
"I used to be under the impression that in some kind of wanky, bullshit way, acting was like therapy: you get in and grapple with and exorcise all those demons inside of you. I don't believe that anymore. It's like a snow shaker. You shake the thing up, but it can't escape the glass. It can't get out. And it will settle until the next time you shake it up."

Not many directors can make a film worth pages of discussion in multiple decades with a variety of genres. And yet here we are, facing another Coppola film, with this following the end of the Godfather trilogy. It was Ryder who brought the script (done by James V. Hart) to his attention, as she was attracted to the emotional love story while Coppola had first read the book to kids as a teenager (while having seen Dracula movies with his brother as a youth) and was interested in some of the sensual aspects of the film. Oldman was attracted to the idea of doing a film with Coppola (whom he described as one of the great American directors), and this was in the midst of a developing career of versatility in the English-born actor.

It is entirely possible that Coppola really believed that his film would indeed be the definitive version of Dracula. After all, how many book adaptations have the author's name right there on the film title? Of course the main sticking point with that is the fact that the film reminds me as a more refined attempt at doing things others had done before, with mostly decent results moreso on the visual level than anything. On one level, it is definately better than the last high-profile Dracula adaptation by a major American studio in John Badham's cold-blooded flop from 1979 (which also had its own tinges of romance between Dracula and the lead, only much more ridiculous). On the other, it only just barely reaches levels that the Hammer adaptations did with less ridiculousness in refinement. There is such a strange mix of scenes that work with ones that come off as muddled, and it definately doesn't reach as scary as it could have been. Perhaps it relies on first impressions, what with that opening involving Vlad the Impaler and that smooth red suit, which actually is a decent moment for the film...of course it also introduces the whole "lovers played by the same actress centuries apart" cliche, which believe it or not was actually already done before in a 1974 TV adaptation of the same name that also happened to share the Dracula / Vlad connection, which has been speculated by writers for decades.  That sure is one way to start your supposedly more-faithful book adaptation, make a ridiculous historical connection to a fictional character - why stop there, might as well make a film of The Mummy and have him be King Tut while you're at it. I did indeed crack a smile not long after that - the sight of seeing old man Dracula in a kimono and a long hairdo. It may not last long in the film, but is is highly amusing as the first little crack in the "let's take it seriously" approach.
No, having a love story with Dracula isn't exactly what I call an interesting and fresh take. Some things really are best left untouched, and having a Dracula film that actually proves scary is one of them. As much as I would like to resist the urge to compare it with other Dracula adaptations, it is inevitable to talk about relentlessly overblown it looks when compared to the films of the past in really sticking its landing in executing genuine suspense. Excess does not always win the day, no matter how many effects you might throw at it if the other parts are simply not right to go with it. If anything hasn't really changed from the old hammy Dracula films of the past, its the somewhat uneven acting of its main stars. All revolves around how one feels about Oldman in this role, one that seems to exist in contradictions that try to spring fear and passion within madness that in lesser hands would've been red meat material for mockery (try being a romantic antihero and then having to wear wolfman/bat makeup). Oldman does just fine with the role, but it is quite clear that he can only be at most third-best in a turn as Dracula and nothing more (Christopher Lee and Bela Lugosi are the obvious choices for when one thinks of a vampire), one who certainly has some blood in his veins for terror while having to sift through effectswork and campy undertones.  Reeves (chosen after Christian Slater declined the role) is an easy target for ridicule when it comes to that British accent, and both Reeves and Coppola have commented about their regrets in casting (the former describing himself as too tired from a busy schedule and the latter stating that they wanted a matinee idol type for a not-great part). For me, the accent is indeed silly, and it certainly would pale when compared to class acts like Oldman or Hopkins. And yet, Ryder only just does better in matching the others, a bit too quiet to really sell this dark passion between her and Oldman (the parts with Frost and a wolf-man Oldman raping her isn't exactly better in comparison). It would take quite a bit of conviction to win me over to the vampire would-be romance, and they just can't quite make it seem that relentless in interest, particularly with the maddening last meeting for the climax (sure, why not have Mina do the final blow). Hopkins seems to be doing just fine in stoking some dignity to the fire while having multiple roles (for some reason). I do appreciate seeing Grant with Elwes and Campbell, but they somehow don't seem to really make as much impression as when compared to the campy stuff ahead of them (or when faced with even more cofounding casting choices, like singer Waits as the somewhat insane Renfield).

I admire Coppola for his attempts at keeping his intention to use traditional effects, since when he approached his visual effects team in what he wanted from the film, they told him it couldn't be done without computers. With that response, he fired them and just had his son Roman do the effects instead, which involve stuff such as double exposure to show mist coming out of a window or other various camera tricks. There are quite a few moments where it really can feel claustrophic, and credit certainly goes to some interesting design work in costumes and makeup. Then I remember the supposed love story and the scares that die with it, and the film dips back and forth again between looking scary and then flailing around trying to act like it is. It certainly takes inspiration from the Dracula films of the past (ranging as far back as Nosferatu), but it falls firmly in the middle of the pack with them rather than above it all. If you want to make a film about some sort of sensual repression and the nature of love through the centuries, find another vampire to do that crock of shit with. Dracula has been dragged around the woodshed for some good and not-so good films for over a century, and this is one that is just fine for what it is.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.