An expensive, lavish failure

Rating: 5/10 (25 October 2005)

Although this film was released 13 years ago, and has been reviewed to death, reading the fairly positive reviews prompted me to offer my own take. As a long-time horror movie fan (and having read countless horror novels, including Bram Stoker's book), I recall looking forward to seeing this film with great anticipation. What a let-down. Without going into a rehash of the film itself, I'll simply say that in spite of a big name director, big budget and 'A' list cast, this movie was among the worst Dracula movies ever made. Only a handful of atrocious 'Z' versions of the classic tale fare worse. Why? In a word, 'casting'. To those who thought it a good film, well, we all have our opinions. Having seen virtually every rendition of Dracula put to film, starting with Universal's Bela Lugosi version, this movie reeks. While I think Gary Oldman is a talented actor, he made a pitiful Dracula when in full vampire appearance. Winona Ryder was more irritating than intriguing; Anthony Hopkins turned in a version of Hannibal Lechtor as Van Helsing (even over-acting that persona), and Keanu Reeves (who I think has turned in some good performances in other films) was way out of place in this production. Some of the other supporting players were better, particularly Cary Elwes, Bill Campbell and the oh-so-hot Sadie Frost as Lucy Westenra. I also felt that the special effects were way over the top, and actually detracted from the sinister atmosphere, as good as they appeared on film. To me, this was a squandered opportunity. It could have been the definitive Dracula, but failed. For me, the two best Dracual versions ever put to film are (1) The Horror of Dracula, Hammer Film's 1958 remake with Christopher Lee, and (2) the BBC, made-for-television version starring Louis Jordan as the Count. It was certainly the most faithful to the book.