Glorious film-making but awkward storytelling, a wobbly epic

Rating: 7/10 (9 June 2010)

Dracula (1992)
Well, I know this is the holy grail of Dracula movies for some people, and it really is luminous, dazzling, epic, and original. Coppola is a fabulous director at his best, but his movies have been up and down (very very up and somewhat down, of course), and this is big big budget effort, and it might actually strain from its own weight. It really is an attempt to give the legend a seriously timeless treatment, taking on a complicated layering of story lines and some unbelievable set design.
But it's also a pastiche, a collage of references and clichÃ©s, and downright filmic excess. To that extent it's a kind of comic book version, trading realism for heightened and simplified effects. It's bloated and in fact probably needed to be longer to make sense of some of the narrative confusions and abrupt edits.
There are moments, to be sure, of amazing period sets and costumes. And moments of sheer beauty, with of a kind of time-travel wonder that makes it worth watching. Gold Oldman for me may be a good actor (in the way Keanu Reeves is not) but he lacks some kind of cutting charisma necessary for a real Dracula. Other stars illuminate their scenes well--Anthony Hopkins (with a stilted accent) and Winona Ryder (impeccable)--and the supporting cast is perfect for the flavor of the film. Even Tom Waits, whose role is more Monty Python absurdism than anything, fits in to the glitziness (and bloodiness) overall.
So, what to say? This will wow a lot of people, and rightfully. It's romantic in a galactic way. It has fast camera and glorious front to back focus and lighting effects to make the most ordinary scenes come alive. And there are not ordinary scenes. This is, by any account, an extraordinary movie, to be enjoyed for the sheer gluttonous tactile feel.