From: buchman@osf.org (Terri Buchman)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews
Subject: REVIEW: BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01608
Keywords: author=Buchman
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:45:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsj.1992Nov17.154536.29485
Reply-To: Terri Buchman <buchman@osf.org>
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Organization: Open Software Foundation


			    BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA
		       A film review by Terri Buchman
			Copyright 1992 Terri Buchman

     I couldn't decide whether Francis Ford Coppola's DRACULA was a
poorly done love story or an inept horror film.  I finally found it to
be neither, but rather a dull mismash of unconnected visual "moments"
that lacked both convincing acting and involving storylines.  My overall
score was a D+.

     I think the thing that really threw me out of this movie was the
excessive romanticism imposed on it.  I never felt that Gary Oldman and
Winona Ryder connected.  Coppola needed to have real sparks flying
between these characters for his romantic conceit to work and I found
their alleged passion dull and unfocused.  Mina Harker is supposed to be
the Drac's reincarnated love, a love so strongly felt that he would
endure centuries of living death rather than except god's judgement that
parted him from his love.  Yet Ryder's Mina is hardly a woman that is to
die for.  She is dull and self involved and the character never changes
from this sort of "lifeless" state.  The movie would have us believe
that something in her soul recognizes Drac as her ancient love, yet no
tone of voice, look of the eyes or impression of body language conveys
this critical recognition.  We are told to believe that meeting Drac
transforms this woman, freeing her repressed sexual desires.
Unfortunately none of this passion shows up on the screen.

     I also disliked the character of Dracula.  As written, it is a
confusing portrayal that never quite gels for me.  I believe that
Coppola's aim was to have the audience identify with the circumstances
that had made the man into the monster.  Unfortunately, it didn't work
for me.  I found Dracula silly and melodramatic, much more bathos than
pathos.  Oldman never convinced me that his character was a lover jilted
by god.  The only emotion that seemed to come across was a sort of bored
wistfulness.  The strong performance that the title character needed was
missing.

     I found most of rest of the cast extremely forgettable.  Keanu
Reeves sleepwalks through his part.  He is especially bad in the scenes
set in Castle Dracula with the three weird sisters.  Reeves seems to be
nearly comatose with excitement at the prospect of forbidden sexual
pleasures.  Anthony Hopkins' Van Helsing seems like he wandered in from
another movie, possibly a comedy.  The woman playing Lucy (Name escapes
me) is put in the odd position of portraying a vampire that was more
sexually alluring in life than in undeath (possibly a first in vampire
film history!).

     Many reviews have marveled over the effects in this movie.  I
found most of the effects pointless and unnecessary.  They distracted me
from the story and destroyed what little chance there was of connecting
with the characters.  This movie contains endless tracking shots that go
nowhere and special effects that are hardly even memorable, let alone
special.  I found Coppola's shadowplay mundane instead of menacing.
There is almost nothing frightening in this film.  

     In short I found this film dull and uninvolving.  It was poorly
written, acted and directed.  I'm afraid that I wouldn't even recommend
renting the video.  

TerriB.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews