Hammy Horror

Rating: 6/10 (4 November 2003)

DRACULA gets off to a great start as 15th century Romania finds itself on the front line against muslim hordes charging into Europe leading to a Romanian hero losing the love of his life
That`s the best part of the film . Other good aspects of DRACULA carry on throughout the movie , aspects like the very moody cinematography and the very impressive visual tricks , but there`s things that clog up the works , things like the intrusive ham acting on display . A lot of people have commented on Anthony Hopkins ham performance but I don`t have a problem with it and neither do I have a problem with Gary Oldman`s performance either . I do however have a problem with Sadie Frost`s performance as Lucy and Tom Waits as Renfield , both give over emphatic performances while both Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder are utterly unconvincing as 19th characters from England ,both are miscast and they`re not even bad enough to be entertaining. Francis Ford Coppola`s directing style may lead to accusations of " ham " directing ie over directing but it should be remembered this directing style was very common in the early 1990s and a lot of American directors did this most notably Martin Scorsese and Oliver Stone . I do wish Coppola had more input into the script ( He is one of the best and most under rated screenwriters Hollywood has produced ) because the one here by James V Hart isn`t all that good . The dialogue isn`t memorable and in several scenes , especially romantic ones , it`s rather corny . It`s also rather over long and not very well paced , but I`m led to believe Bram Stoker`s novel is badly structured but even so that`s no excuse
This version of Dracula has its moments but it`s never the sum of its parts. It`s probably Coppola`s best film since APOCALYPSE NOW but can anyone name me a good film he`s made since the surreal `Nam epic ?