It could have been fantastic.

Rating: Null/10 (24 April 1999)

The all-star cast featuring a string of famous names, with such a well-known director, should have been fantastic. However, in many cases, it just comes across as laughable.
The acting is not good, mainly due to the fact that no-one is speaking with their real accent. If that isn't the problem, it's due to the fact that the poor script requires the actor to writhe around in agony.
The camera work seems to be done by someone who has just got new equipment and is trying it all out to see how many cheesy transitions and different overlaps they can do.
I was certainly impressed by the costumes and the set design. One exception, check out Dracula's hair sculpted into a bum (not a typo!) when he turns away from camera. The make-up and fake blood definitely need work, though. I have a theory that they used cherryade.
It's interesting how the film sticks to the *real* theme of the book -- Victorian repression. This is typically shown within the film as nude vamps and the portrayal of Mina and Lucy as sex-crazed women. I'm glad that it was thought necessary to expand their personalities for this film, but this was not the way to do it. However, as far as I'm concerned, this is not *Bram Stoker's* Dracula. Dracula is portrayed sympathetically and there is a whole new plot thread involving him and Mina. Also, he is given more of an origin.
What they could have done was to admit that the film is about Mina and Dracula's love and therefore not faithful to the book at all. Take out the title reference to the writer and redo it so the love story is completely central.
On a positive note, the song over the end credits is beautiful. Haunting, evocative - exactly what this film should have been. That's not to say I didn't find the film enjoyable, just not for the right reasons.