spoiler alert

Rating: 5/10 (21 August 2005)

I agree with many of the previous postings, however there are some aspects which I found particularly disappointing. Many have spoken of the special effects, and many of Stoker's interest in the heart of the characters and the role of fate. Which is why I was so disappointed with the film's tendency toward cheap effects, i.e., torrents of blood, visions of corpuscles (ridiculous!). I love Coppola and most of the actors in the film. I love the book. Oldman, no. Give me Frank Langela or Christopher Lee or even the over-the-top Bela (in his day he was quite frightening). Oldman was too much like the goofy special effects: a cartoon-ish second-rate guess at what Stoker wrote so perfectly. Though I am not a film maker I don't see what was so difficult with following Stoker's vision and using his words. Especially with regard to the characters. Count Dracula was mysterious, subtle and stylish - that was the attraction for both men and women. And yes, our Mina and the other male heroes were so flimsily portrayed as compared to their characters in the novel that it made this film a shadow of the Stoker story. Give me a Hammer Studios version of the Count over this one! How could anyone find Oldman attractive? Especially as the "old man" version of Dracula! I did enjoy the sets, costuming, the score, and some of the acting - hence my rating.