Dracula: A Love Story

Rating: 8/10 (31 March 2011)

Released at Christmas time 1992, Francis Ford Coppola's version of the oft-filmed tale was fairly successful at the US box office, costing $40 million and bringing in $82.5 million; it earned an additional $133 million worldwide for a total of $216 million. These are good figures for back then.
POSITIVES:
* This is easily the most stylistic and visually opulent film version of Dracula.
* The first 88 minutes, up to Lucy's vampiric resurrection, are great.
* I've always thought one of the best parts of the original novel was the beginning where Jonathan Harker goes to Transylvania to visit the Count at his castle and the ensuing horror. This entire sequence is done very well in Coppola's version.
* Harker's run-in with Drac's three brides is outstanding. Monica Belucci appears as one of the three ravishing-yet-diabolic brides; she was one of the most beautiful women in the world at the time.
* Another great scene is the surreal sequence in Lucy's lavish gardens where she's seduced by Dracula in man-wolf form, spied by Mina.
* Lucy's vampiric resurrection in the tomb is well done & creepy.
* Drac's supernatural aspects are played up here more than any other version of the tale (up to that point); he appears as an old man, a younger man, a wolf, a man-wolf, a bunch of rats, a green mist, and a man-bat creature.
* Sadie Frost puts her whole heart into the role of Lucy and is excellent. Winona Ryder is also effective as the meek Mina.
* Not to mention Anthony Hopkins makes the best Van Helsing with his determined, hardy spunk.
* The score by Wojciech Kilar is fitting and memorable.
* Writer James V. Hart gets creative and adds an interesting twist to the done-to-death yarn. I'm referring to Drac's love for Mina, who's evidently his wife reincarnated. This new element helps keep the story interesting for those who may be bored with the oft-told tale.
* The ultimate message of the film is great: Love conquers all and the light of God's presence brings redemption to those whose hearts still blip with a glimmer of hope, faith and love, no matter how mired in darkness. Freedom & forgiveness are there IF you want it.
NEGATIVES:
* Despite the title, this is not a faithful version of Stoker's book. The difference is that the Dracula in Coppola & Hart's version is not a paragon of unadulterated evil, but rather a sympathetic vampire with a serious case of love-sickness. Needless to say, this takes the bite out of the Count's wicked exploits as it's nigh impossible for the viewer to be horrified by a character with whom s/he sympathizes.
* Gary Oldman, who plays Dracula, does a great John Lennon impersonation.
* The film is entertaining and successfully creates a horror atmosphere, but I never found it scary like, say, the 2004 remake of "Dawn of the Dead" or "The Exorcism of Emily Rose." (This isn't really a negative to me since I don't really WANT to be scared; I want to sleep at night!)
* The fact that Dracula appears in so many supernatural forms can be confusing on one's initial viewing, unless of course you're well-versed with the book; consequently, the viewer may have a hard time comprehending or even identifying the title character (Is he an old man, a younger man, a wolf, a bunch of rats, a werewolf, a mist, a man-bat or what?!).
* The last act, which comprises the final 33 minutes (not including credits), loses the captivating appeal of the first 88 minutes. Up to this point Coppola & Hart obviously took their time with the characters and their story and it worked. The final act, however, seems like they rushed to tie everything up by the 2-hour mark. Don't get me wrong, the last act isn't bad and it has some quality action, but it's just not as good as the first two acts; it's a little confusing and the film suffers for it.
* The final act contains two love scenes between Drac & Mina that are difficult to watch. I just get sick to my stomach viewing these sequences where Mina gets intimate with this nasty fiend (not sexually), particularly the scene in the chapel where Drac looks like a hellish man-bat. But, then again, I like the message: Genuine love & loyalty transcend personal failings and distasteful aspects, like a wife who still loves her husband even though she sees him floss his green teeth and washes his soiled underwear (lol).
BOTTOM LINE: Coppola & Hart's version is colorfully lavish and adds an interesting love story to Stoker's tale with potent spiritual significance. This will, of course, turn-off purists who prefer the totally malevolent king of vampires of the original novel, which is what disenchanted me the first time I saw it, but who can blame Coppola & Hart for wanting to try something new with the well-worn yarn? Despite a fairly weak final act and a cobbled-together vibe, they largely succeed.
Although losing points for the negatives listed above, I have to admit that this is probably my favorite version of the tale, which says a lot.
Amazingly, the film was shot completely on studio sets, but doesn't seem like it. It runs 2 hours, 7 minutes.
GRADE: B+/A-