An imaginative but heavily flawed adaptation of the Stoker classic.

Rating: 6/10 (12 March 2016)

At some point or other, everyone watches a 'Dracula' film. Some people will remember Bela Lugosi's seminal portrayal of the vampire; others will think of Christopher Lee and the Hammer horrors. Fourteen years ago, the legend behind 'The Godfather' brought us a different, more imaginative type of adaptation. Whilst Coppola doesn't work with Stoker's work as well as Puzo's, his film holds several significant merits. Before I talk about the performances, I must commend the crew members responsible for the make-up, costumes and special effects, as 'Dracula' is a near-unparalleled visual experience. Too often, the people tasked with refining a film, enlivening its characters and placing them within a vibrant environment are forgotten by audiences. The scale of the 'Dracula' crew's feats has secured them a place in the vivid memory of film fans, and should continue to do so for a long time. Equally memorable are some of the performances. Gary Oldman is one of the greatest working actors, and his excellence as Bram Stoker's legendary villain makes Coppola's 'Dracula' worthwhile. The then-recent star of 'The Silence of the Lambs', Anthony Hopkins, delivers a similarly enjoyable performance, although the visual and written restrictions placed on character of Dr Van Helsing prevents him from ever wresting the spotlight from Oldman. Another decent performance is provided by Winona Ryder. I wouldn't place her in the same category as Oldman and Hopkins, but she manages to play a fairly boring part with conviction. Now for the elephant in the room You could fill the pages of 'War and Peace' with a compilation of criticisms regarding the casting of Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker, and so I won't go into detail on this issue. It should certainly be acknowledged, though, as it has to be one of the worst casting choices to ever take place in a major Hollywood film. The atmosphere developed by Oldman's outstanding acting is awfully diminished in scenes involving Harker, and so Coppola's 'Dracula' never becomes the horror it has the potential to be. The film, probably for this reason, feels longer than its runtime of 128 minutes; at least half an hour longer. It's worth enduring, however, as the inevitable climactic scene does not disappoint. Overall, Coppola's 'Dracula' bears some significant flaws, but accomplishments in visual style and dramatic performance make it a rather enjoyable film.