It leaves a bad taste in your mouth

Rating: 5/10 (22 October 2009)

Simply in terms of fidelity to the original material, Bram Stoker's classic story of 'Dracula', Francis Ford Coppola has made a hashish smoker's ideal adaptation of a story that could have been truly horrifying by being realistic. What we have here is a Playboy version for adolescent adults (and real adolescents) who are dazzled by anachronistic costuming and hairstyles and bits and pieces of carnival sideshow trickery.
There is much that is beautiful in this film, notably the musical score by Wojciech Kilar and Michael Ballhaus's cinematography. The set designs for Dracula's Transylvanian castle are fascinating in a sort of Edward Gory-esquire way but not at all scarifying. The back lot sets for Victorian London are equally fake-looking but nicely detailed and well-populated with immaculate extras all acting like perfect ladies and gentlemen. A far cry from the real streets of 19th century London. This is another studio bound evocation of a period, as in Tim Burton's flop 'Sweeney Todd', which would have made Mary Poppins feel right at home.
The cast has difficulties mostly due to the sophomoric script. Only Gary Oldman (Dracula), Anthony Hopkins (Van Helsing) and, surprisingly, Tom Waits (Renfrew) are able to deliver potent performances with the words provided.
Some people don't like Gary Oldman's Dracula. I do, very much. He rises above the defeating script to deliver at times a powerfully touching portrait of a tragic man. Whether the character he plays is authentically Stoker's is not Oldman's fault. He does his very best and for him alone I keep returning, periodically, to watch this adult fairy tale.
Anthony Hopkins is quite weird and spooky as Van Helsing, scarier than Dracula to my way of thinking. The shade of Hannibal Lecter, which he filmed the year before this role, is ever- present in his threatening and eccentric man of science. But Hopkins doesn't appear to be taking this role seriously. He's camping it up throughout.
Tom Waits' insane Renfrew has entered the annals as one of the most memorable bizarre characters on screen, right up there with Jack Nicholson's Joker in 'Batman' and Klaus Kinski's Dracula in Werner Herzog's 'Nosferatu' (now THAT is one frightening and creepy movie).
I also enjoyed Sadie Frost's Lucy. This character, as interpreted by Coppola, is completely out of place, far too modern and slutty, especially for a well-brought up English maiden of the aristocracy. And where could she have come up with the red, dominatrix teddy she wears to her first encounter with Dracula at the bottom of the garden? The original Victoria's Secret? Her costumes are totally ridiculous, if gorgeous, but she looks wonderful in them and goes with the flow, turning in the most camp and over-the-top performance of the entire cast.
Cary Elwes is a total stick as Lucy's fiancé but, again, not his fault; it's the lame script which reduces him to human wallpaper. I liked Bill Campbell's Quincy, the handsome, sexy Texan, but there is something a bit too cartoony about his character. But, this is a human cartoon version of this story so his Quincey doesn't seem so very out of place. Normally I enjoy Richard E. Grant, who plays the morphine addicted student doctor who runs the insane asylum, a place that he belongs in himself, but not as the manager. Again, a fine actor is reduced to stock melodramatics in the face of the fatuous script.
Worst of all are the two romantic leads, Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder. They are both stiff and self-conscious, as they attempt to spit out their ideas of upper crust English accents and in the process crippling what little acting ability either of them ever possessed in the first place. They look beautiful, especially him, but they are painful to watch and, especially, listen to. Why does Winona Ryder slur her 'S's all the time? She sounds slightly drugged when she does this and it's terrificly annoying.
Coppola has now retired to the vineyard in Napa County from where he sententiously pronounces on the imminent demise of Hollywood, and appears to have made his last movie, at least for the moment. If so, he will go down in celluloid history as having been a four flick phenomenon, 'The Conversation', 'The Godfather' (I & II) and 'Apocalypse Now'. This would be tragic if he were a great auteur who shunned the public eye, but he's not and he doesn't.
A disappointing director, all in all, as proved by his over-bearing and self-indulgent work in this 'Dracula' which smacks of amateurishness and too much ganja at the planning stage. He and Reeves and Ryder deserved one another, but the rest of his fine cast is criminally wasted.
But I repeat, Gary Oldman is fantastic as Dracula and worth seeing. He deserves another shot at this role in a faithful, realistic adaptation, and without the silly wig he is made to wear in Castle Dracula, but it will never happen now.
If you're looking for a good, modern vampire movie, try Herzog's 'Nosferatu' or Tony Scott's 'The Hunger' or Neil Jordan's 'Interview with the Vampire' or, best of all in spite of the awful dubbing, Tomas Alfredson's 'Let the Right One In'. All of them succeed where Coppola fails.