I Liked This For What It Had.

Rating: 7/10 (28 February 2016)

Every generation needs a Dracula adaptation. Bram Stoker's Dracula in 1992 is one of the most faithful to the original text (or so I hear) and one of the scariest vampire movies ever made. The movie met with polarizing reviews, but I am pretty lenient--I think of this as a good popcorn flick on a Saturday night.
Francis Ford Coppola does his best job in directing, even superior to Apocalypse Now. I'm not saying Dracula is even in the same ballpark as Apocalypse Now, but the way everything is set up and the general look of the films are stellar. As I mentioned earlier, this movie is pretty polarizing, but even the haters must admit how awesome this movie looked. The feel is fantastic, the camera movements are awesome, the set design/costume/make-up are all vibrant, the special effects are sick, the atmosphere is perfect, and the music is haunting. In other words, almost everything in front of the camera is done to precision. Then we get to the other things infant of the camera and most of what's behind it...
The first flaw right off the bat is Keanu Reeves. I do think he is talented and does good performances. But Dracula shows that he cannot play everything well. His accent isn't as bad as people say, but other than that he isn't good as Jonathan Harker. Winona Ryder plays Mina, who is good in some scenes but bad in others. Everybody else is good, with Gary Oldman (of course) shining as Dracula.
While most of the actors are good, the characterizations fall flat and the movie never really seems to find a sense of direction. There never really seems to be a rhyme or reason behind them, or clear motivation. Everything involving the characters is so poorly organized, good thing Coppola is a talented movie maker with a talented cast.
Look: 10/10 Characters: 6/10 I love all of the visuals. Overall: 3/4