A faithful adaptation with flashy cinematography

Rating: 10/10 (21 January 2017)

Francis Ford Coppola called his film 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' which is a little presumptuous, seeing how Bram Stoker had nothing to do with the production and was indeed dead 80 years since when the movie was made. I read 'Dracula' as a boy and did an 8,000-word paper on it at the university so I can call myself an expert on the subject, and there are many things I could point out that the movie made up. However other Dracula movies differ from the novel even more than this one. All in all this might actually be the most faithful adaptation I've seen. The biggest changes are the scenes where Dracula and Mina meet in London - which never happened - the beginning with Dracula's backstory, and the ending where Mina goes after Dracula and cries on his corpse. The whole storyline about Mina being Vlad Dracula's reincarnated lover is new, but it actually makes sense and gives the movie a bit more punch so I accept it. Everything else can be derived or interpreted from the novel, I think (such as Lucy's sexuality which is obviously exaggerated but still acceptable in the light of the original text).
Still, the movie is more than anything 'Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula' - it's his movie, flesh and bones. It's a very flashy movie - I mean that it draws attention to itself, it's not subtle. Almost every scene has superimposed images, the pace is fast, there are a lot of special effects, vivid colors and hammy acting. It's a gorgeous movie but not for everyone, some will find it too exhausting, too in-your-face.
Gary Oldman's and Winona Ryder's performances are classic, and Keanu Reeves is classic in his wooden non-acting.