Time has made this a better film.

Rating: 8/10 (3 April 2006)

I remember watching "Bram Stoker's Dracula" when it first came out and being ... dismayed? Is that the right word? The problem was maybe in Francis Ford Coppola's choice of using 'Bram Stoker' in the title. I believe if you just say 'Dracula' it gives you a bit more creative license -- that is, you can tweak with the story for dramatic purpose and won't have insanely idolatrous fans of the book banging on your door at night screaming about how you've ruined the movie. It has taken 14 years for this version of 'Dracula' to finally strike a chord with me. I'm glad it did because giving it another chance was the best decision I've made in a while (I apparently don't get out much and choosing which movie to watch is more challenging than it appears ...).
What a marvelous performance from Gary Oldman! His character and performance are deeply nuanced and complex. Is he my favourite Dracula of all time? No, but I think he was very strong in this role. Tom Waits also turned in a great performance (though to be honest he was largely unused and while heretical of me to suggest, his entire story and part could have been cut from THIS VERSION of the film). An actor who cheerfully chews scenery, he shares a memorable early scene with fellow scene-chewer Richard E Grant. Grant is very decent in the film although Waits rather victimizes him. Two scene-chewers on screen at one time are rarely good for anything but comedy and that was not the goal in the asylum. Waits was more flamboyant and deserves credit -- Grant would have been wiser to play it a bit straighter. Hopkins and Elwes were impassioned and very good.
What struck me most about this film was the lusciousness and texture. Beautifully (Oscar-winningly) costumed, wonderful score that was brilliantly employed, gorgeously photographed, I could go on. It is from a technical standpoint very good. I love the fact that they employed a lot of older film tricks and looks. The use of the iris to fade in and out, blending different frames of film to superimpose images, using faster and slower speeds -- this film is a breathing textbook. The sets and design are just awesome. I think it is the best work that Francis Ford Coppola had produced in quite some time. Perhaps this titan of film had been sleeping for a while. In my mind, "Bram Stoker's Dracula" was a sharp reminder that Coppola is a master craftsman and that he is still capable of producing top-notch films.
So what would have been his attraction to this film? I wonder if there was some attraction to the notion of Dracula being at the centre of moral and spiritual rot -- Physical rot even. This seems to run through much of Coppola's work and I see it here too. The film doesn't take the easy route though which many of my beloved Hammer Horror films do. This Dracula is not just some monster to stick a stake in. He was human once and (while close) is not totally beyond redemption. And, for the record, the opening scene and back-story is tremendously filmed. Unbelievably atmospheric!
There are very tense scenes of menace and horror in this film. There is a cross-country chase scene that is an anxiety-filled race against time and it is fantastically well done. At one point Hopkins must defend himself with fire. Yet another tense and well-done scene. Coppola uses a lot of quick cuts to show the speed of the vampire and while it isn't the scariest film out there, it is still very good.
A lot of the flack that this film takes comes from the emphasis on the love story. It was what I remembered most from my first viewing a decade ago and partially why I detested the film so much then. Time has made this a better film for me and I don't mind the love story so much. The film becomes a redemptive tale. Will the rot that I mentioned earlier consume Dracula and everyone he touches or can they, even in the darkest final hours, be saved? We've seen this played out in other vampire films before but not like we do here. "Dracula" is worth another look. And don't worry: the irony that a film about redemption (which I didn't like) but have come to change my mind on hasn't escaped me.