Dracula epic film, faithful to the brilliant Bram Stoker classic

Rating: 7/10 (5 December 2012)

Coppola's film tackled the original story so well, the book being one of my favourites of all time. Written entirely through the medium of letters and journal entries, it is an intimate tale that is spine chilling in it's intensity. It doesn't rely on gratuitous frighteners, but plays on all our deepest darkest fears, the things that go bump in the night and not being safe anywhere against this kind of threat, and losing our mortal souls.
The film captured the feel and nature of the book well. With Gary Oldman in the titular role - a very talented actor - and he played it elegantly and with a lot of style. Winona Ryder played Mina/Elisabeta, his star-crossed lover. I've always admired her and she suited the period nature of this film, and I liked the semblance of innocence in her way of playing her character compared to her worldly friend Lucy Westenra (Sadie Frost). There's a lot that was a little cheesy, and the acting wasn't the best - everyone seemed to play it a little hammy. Much was made of some of the English accents in the film (ie how bad they were) by Reeves and Ryder but I'm afraid I judge the Director for not picking up on them. There's a lot that's a bit silly in the film, and the accents weren't the worst of it. Even the great Hopkins (Helsing) was touched by the silly-stick and played up his role to the nines. In short it certainly wasn't a dry production as he also ramped up the arrogance and insanity of his role too.
At the time of release much was also made of the bestiality scene between Dracula in his wolfman form and Lucy in the garden, I have to say she was brave to take on that! It's shocking, a little, the first time you see it but it's really not bad. The famous Renfield (Tom Waits) was cringeworthily gross, as the craven and mad slave of Dracula. Reeves as the long-suffering Jonathan Harker was not at his best in this, but how do you research walking into a client's home to find he's crazy beehive haired vampire? He comes across out of his depth in this, and I don't know why. He's well cast as Harker, though, he suits the period gentility and properness exceedingly well, but perhaps he was playing up his discomfiture about his character's predicament (justified!) - especially finding himself in bed with three blood-smeared wenches!
So much of this film was great, though, despite the over-the-top acting, laughable at times, but it works.Very well. This story is frightening, but it's not in the way that typical horror movies are, and the humour helps you manage it, but there is also intense love and seduction in this story; it is mainly a love story after all. The poignant scene where Mina meets Dracula and a wolf escaped from the zoo walks in... lovely. So much deeper than cheap horror.
Victorian sensibility had the Vampire at odds with God, his immortal soul lost to salvation. Prior to Stoker vampires were vile loathsome creatures but he made them magical illusory and a seductive beauty who tempted impressionable young ladies into his eternal death. The film gives room for the spiritual morality tale, accurately and with a sense of the hugeness of what it represented; Vlad Dracula turning his back on God as he felt he had been abandoned after losing his love. Finally, the music used in the film was very good - Love Song for a Vampire by Annie Lennox was superb - and the costumes were stunning, particularly the dresses Winona Ryder got to wear. It's a beautiful film, if you see past the dripping yowling toothy wenches and Monica Bellucci stealing babies.