the terrible, awful no good vampire movie

Rating: 3/10 (4 May 2003)

"i weep for the future"
i'm amazed that they got away with calling this "bram stoker's dracula" and further amazed that some humans actually think it's true to the book, and furthest amazed that enough humans praise this movie enough to land it with a 7 ranking on imdb.
the good: set design and cinematography.
the bad: everything else. the first mistake, straying from the source. coppola took the source material on some bizarre journey. the approach worked for "apocalypse now" but dracula turned out to be the accident waiting to happen. by openly displaying the subtext of bram stoker's nicely plotted work all tension was lost and he ended up with a goofy harlequin romance novel--dashing foreigner sweeps bookish housewife off for foreign romance. all you need is fabio and the deal is complete.
both versions of "nosferatu" are much more true to the source material and infinitely superior to coppola's debacle. there's a reason he doesn't direct much anymore, and this is it. i challenge anyone who thinks this is the best movie ever, or the best vampire movie, or true to the book to go see what murnau and herzog did with "nosferatu" before making up their minds.