From: eric.walker@channel1.com (Eric Walker)
Subject: REVIEW: BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA
Reply-To: eric.walker@channel1.com (Eric Walker)
Organization: Channel 1
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:36:16 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Summary: r.a.m.r. #01604
Keywords: author=Walker

			   BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA
		       A film review by Eric Walker
			Copyright 1992 Eric Walker

    Francis Ford Coppola's newest film, BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA, is an
intelligent, well-made vampire movie that unfortunately spends too much
of its time looking good to be an effective, terrifying horror movie.
It looks great, and it's a tribute to the great Universal horror movies
of old (including the original DRACULA, starring Bela Lugosi and
directed by Tod Browning).  But pretty pictures do not a scary story
make, and this is the movie's ultimate weakness.  It's as undead as its
star.

     The movie tries to be a tale of tragic love, rather than a
straightforward horror story, but the scenery and atmosphere overwhelm
the actors so that you can't feel any emotion for any of them at all -
not even for Prince Dracula himself, whose heavy accent is
incomprehensible at times; nor for professor Van Helsing, who is
expertly played in a controlled, not quite over-the-top performance by
Anthony Hopkins.  The other actors in the film fare badly, turning what
could have been an emotional, intense tale of love, loyalty and humanity
into a silly soap-opera with pointy teeth.  The minor characters,
including Winona Ryder's Mina and Keanu Reeves' Jonathan Harker, exist
solely to be victims for the Prince or willing recruits in Van Helsing's
band of ghostbusters.  They have no emotions and feelings of their own,
and we never see them as true characters.  This robs the film of much of
its intensity.

     Coppola pays tribute to the famous German Expressionist horror
films (especially NOSFERATU, which is mentioned by name and which the
Old Prince resembles) and the classic Universal monster movies, giving
us lavish sets and special effects galore - but he loses control when he
includes surreal images of splashing blood and confusing "montage"
images that try to grip the audience but end up confusing them instead.
The movie's best moment is, in fact, an imitation of Coppola's own
famous climax to THE GODFATHER, in which a wedding takes place.  But
most of the scenes in the film are confusing, especially during a sea
voyage where people who have not read the book will only scratch their
heads and try to figure out what's going on.

     The best vampire stories have an erotic feel to them, as the
drawing of blood becomes more of a sexual act than a mere feeding on of
victims, though the eroticism of this movie is about as subtle as a blow
with a wooden stake.  The connection between feeding on victims and sex
is bludgeoned into us, using so heavy-handed an approach that even a
seduction/rape scene involving three women is nothing more than a
turn-off.  Coppola has invested so much time and effort into dazzling
the eyes that he has drained the film of heart and feeling, in much the
style of Stanley Kubrick.

     In the end, BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA fails to be the horrifying,
heart-stopping horror film it could have been.  It's a feast for the
eyes to behold, but underneath the sets, cameras and special effects
there's very little room for a person to *feel* anything.  As a result,
we don't care for the characters as much as we should - and a movie
without memorable, energetic characters is like one of the undead.  It's
a movie without a soul.

--
Channel 1 (R)   Cambridge, MA

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews