Good but not great Coppola

Rating: 7/10 (4 December 2000)

Okay, this film version of "Dracula" has the greatest eye candy of them all. You can give Coppola a standing O for that. But it also hurts the film just a little bit. "Dracula" seems to lose that gritty feel here. It's almost to artistic. The film also drags in some parts. And I was disappointed in how they handled Renfield. The acting overall is great. Oldman shines, Hopkins is perfect & Ryder still lives on as one of the most underrated actress out there. The only mistake in the cast is Reeves. He seems so wooden that I was amazed saw dust didn't come out of him when the wives of Dracula had their way with him. There is one plus for all horror film fans. Unlike the two greatest "Dracula" films ("Nosferatu" & 1931's "Dracula."). This "Dracula" has lots of blood. Just not in the way you might think. Overall a good film, 7 out of 10.