Bram Stoker's? (Not!)

Rating: 5/10 (18 May 2005)

I was looking forward to this film when it was in production, but was very disappointed when I saw it. That feeling has deepened over time and multiple viewings. Not to say it isn't worth watching. This off-beat Dracula is artistically done and sometimes intriguing. That said, there's a LOT wrong with it. First off, and my pet peeve, is that it is NOT true to Bram Stoker's book by a wide margin. It should be retitled 'Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula' since he reinvented the whole thing and turned it into a sappy romance. Worse, the original story was scary as hell and this isn't at all. The original vampire was tall and menacing and Gary Oldman isn't close on either count(pun intended). And where did Coppola dream up that stupid hairdo in the castle? Geesh. Then, what was Coppola's problem with shooting everything indoors? This lends a certain stylization and staginess, but does nothing for effective sweep or breadth or realism in the scenes. Almost all of the outdoor shots, especially the travel ones are severely limited, the castle looks silly and fake -- it'a all done on such obvious SETS for Pete's sake! The acting is spotty, costuming overdone, Lucy's character is a total twit. Yada Yada Yada. If Coppola wants to reinvent Dracula, he has every right to go for it - everyone else has. But don't be deceptive and say it's Bram Stoker's story, cause it ain't. This is one strange trip. The definitive Dracula has yet to be made. This isn't even a near miss. Forget this and watch 'Apocalypse Now'