Far from great but better than its reputation

Rating: Null/10 (30 December 2005)

Francis Ford Coppola's version of Dracula has one major problem: some abysmal casting. Most obviously you have Keanu Reeves, but there's also Sadie Frost and Cary Elwes to help bring it down.
I'm not quite sure what was going on in Coppola's head when he cast Reeves (in later interviews he's admitted he did it to attract young women and that he regrets his decision), but you'd be hard pushed to find a worse performance. I'm sure even nativity plays display greater acting talent. But Reeves really does nearly ruin the whole thing, especially as much of the early part of the film rests upon his shoulders. But how can you take seriously a character who sounds like he comes from London, California (I always expect him to say, "Woah, Dracula dude")? And how can you loose yourself in a performance that equates jerky head movements as the sole trait of the upper middle classes? It really is rather embarrassing and hard to watch; I even sometimes hide behind my hands, not at the horror in the film but as a man more wood than flesh tries to convey emotion. But having said that, there is one moment where Reeves convinces: the bit where Dracula sacrifices a baby to his three whorish vampires. All Reeves has to do is scream and he actually manages to do it half convincingly. It's just too bad the role required more than that.
Nowhere near as bad as Reeves, but still rather annoying is Sadie Frost as Lucy, Mina's friend. And the reason she grates is rather simple: she has an annoying voice. I don't really know how to describe it, but the sound is as uncomfortable to listen to as hearing someone scraping their teeth with a rusty file. And she also has the most terrible head of ginger hair. She looks Spuggie out of Byker Grove. But she's fine in the non-speaking bits. You know, the bits where she's getting nailed by a wolf beast and having her throat ripped out. There she's okay.
Then there's Cary Elwes. The man has no genuine acting talent, therefore it's rather hard to try and watch him act tough and be a romantic hero. His worst moment is when Lucy is having a blood transfusion and he flings the doors open, asking what's going on. He's trying to be authoritative but shouting and exaggerated macho striding just makes you look like a knob. And he's just as bad when he gets sentimental over Lucy. He says he'd give every last drop of blood for her. He looks like a puppy dog, albeit a puppy dog you got for Christmas and then want to immediately take down Battersea Dogs Home to be destroyed.
And now I think about it, even Winona Ryder isn't that good. There's one bit where she becomes some horny seductress and tries to seduce Hopkins' Van Helsing. She just isn't the least bit convincing. Her seduction technique is about as arousing as putting snails in your pants. And in other moments she looks unconvincing too. However, at other times she's pretty good. It's a very uneven performance.
But despite all the bad performances and all the other shortcomings (the film is really all over the place when in terms of narrative), I still find myself rather enjoying it. I guess the main reason why I'm so lenient is because the visuals are so good. I really do love the way the film looks. And I also the way the film opts for a hyper-sexualised romance over a man in a cape. It at least tries to do something different.
My favourite image in the film has to be the battle at the start. Everything is shot in silhouette, almost as if it's a puppet theatre. And I love the gruesome way that men get stabbed and the way a soldier that's impaled on a spike slides down it while still alive. Brilliant stuff. And then just after that there's a magnificent shot where Dracula's wife jumps out of the castle and falls down to the moat below. It's an awesome piece of visual film-making. However, even in these moments of brilliance, the great has to co-exist with the crap: when Dracula bends over his dead wife, Ryder visibly blinks. It's something that's easy to miss, but once you notice it it becomes infuriating that Coppola didn't.
Other great shots include the emergence of Dracula's coach and the way the horses almost float over the smoke, the shots of Dracula's shadow which has a life of its own, the crazy POV shots of the wolf beast and all the painterly shots of Dracula's castle. It's a film that doesn't give a toss about reality and which is better for it.
But I'm also very forgiving of the film because Gary Oldman is so great as Dracula. He manages to be frightening, amusing and romantic all in one film. It's quite something to watch, especially when most of the actors around him fail dismally to convince. But I love the schizophrenic way that he can go from one extreme to the next. As the razor-licking tit-head Dracula (that's got to be the most bonkers hairstyle ever), he's amusing one moment and unsettling the next. Then as the young Dracula he's charming and romantic. But then as the wolf beast and the giant bat, he becomes monstrous. It pummels every other portrayal of Dracula into the ground. And at the end he even manages to elicit some sympathy for his character, which is no mean feat when he's a blood-sucking madman. But as fantastic as he is, he's let down by those around him. If the film had been cast properly it could have been something really special.