If you're going to make a movie based on classic literature... TRY READING THE BOOK.

Rating: Null/10 (5 July 2002)

I suppose it's impossible to take a great work of classic literature and translate it directly to the screen... look at "The Wizard of Oz", "Gone With the Wind", "The Hunchback of Notre Dame"... but what's even worse is when the filmmakers don't even try. Such is the way with Francis Ford Coppola's "Dracula".
I personally have read Bram Stoker's original novel twice, and each time I read it, I like it even more. The characters are wonderful, the plot is thick and intriguing, the settings are amazing. (It has its problems, sure, but what book doesn't?) And so I set off on the all-too impossible quest to find a movie version of "Dracula" that was like the book.
That was my first mistake. My second was thinking that FFC's "interpretation" would be the film I was looking for.
Now, I'm not a big FFC fan- I have no idea even what other movies he directed- but if "Dracula" was any indication as to his skills as a director... well, I'd say he has none. The scenes were cluttered, ugly, dingy, dark, and far-too gothic for even this story. The characterizations were disgusting (both in appearance and in personality). And the story was chopped to bits.
I suppose that's the main thing that made me dislike the film: The complete departure from the original source material. One part in the book that was about ten pages long (the scene where the "Demeter" crashes into the bay) has been suppressed into a single one minute scene, intermingled with other scenes of Mina and Lucy and the wolf escaping from the zoo (also, the whole half-wolf/half-Dracula thing was stupid and sickening and completely uncalled for). On the surface, the idea of having Mina be the reincarnated form of Elisabeta is a cool concept. But after about three minutes after Dracula's arrival in London, it wears terribly thin. Similarly, Lucy has been completely changed. In the book, she was pure, virginal, and sweet-hearted, and that's why everybody loved her so much. In the film, she's been changed to some sort of sex goddess (not to mention she's supposed to be BLONDE). The movie does have two things right about Dr. Seward: He does run an insane asylum and he is battling an addiction to morphine, but he was much more kind-hearted and not such an animal (even to the lunatics) in the book. But what really took the cake was Dracula. He's been transformed from the lord of darkness into a hippie! He doesn't look like he'd strike fear into a kitty cat's heart, much less the whole of London! (unless you concentrate on the hair and the idiotic blue sunglasses... I suppose those were kinda scary)
All in all, the movie stunk. I didn't even finish it, to tell the truth... I was getting too sick of having to avert my eyes from the TV screen to avoid the nudity and too fed up with the butchered story line to continue. I suppose some of the performances were good... but not many. Cary Elwes and Anthony Hopkins were perfect for the parts of Arthur and Van Helsing. Winona Ryder was adequate but not too great. If you've seen one Keanu Reeves role, you've seen 'em all. I guess Lucy and Seward were okay, but Renfield and Quincy were total disappointments all the way around.
So, for all you aspiring filmmakers out there, here are three lessons learned from this monstrocity: 1: If you want to make a movie based on classic literature, read the book first. 2: If you want a large following of fans who loved the book, don't dissect the characters and storyline. And 3: If you want the entire audience to run away screaming, put the most evil being ever to walk the earth, the prince of fear, the lord of darkness, in blue sunglasses.