Visually Impressive, and Not Too Bad Elsewhere

Rating: 9/10 (10 July 2003)

Francis Ford Coppola has always been a two-faced director. He can be subtle and atmospheric in his style, or he can go all out crazy with visual element of his production. He is great either which way. This film and "Apocalypse Now" are the only two Coppola films that are really swamped with visual beauty. Sweeping cinematorgraphy and terrific set designs only enhance the splendor. It may be too much for some to take, but I personally hold no objection to visual indulgence in film.
So, we established the incredible technical production of the feature, but I needs mention the film does have problems. The acting, for the most part, is either below average. Winona Ryder, whose usually rather good, fails to present anything other than acting either incredibly stupid or horny. Hopkins, as so frequent later in his career, just sleep walks through his role. Gary Oldman is the best of the cast as the title character, though he does (as usual) go a little over the top at moments. As far as Keanu Reeves goes, I doubt anyone was expecting him to be good anyway.
The screenplay is above average, but not superb. Firstly, cinema and books are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT forms of artistic expression, and no one should evaluate the quality of one based on the other. That said, the dialogue well written, and the film kept a linear focus, good for what Coppola was trying to achieve.
If you don't like an overload of visuals in your film, or are pre-determined to hate it because it varies from the source material, stay away from this film. If you enjoy style saturation and realize the difference between films and novels (as I do), I think you'll quite enjoy it.
7.5/10
* * * 1/2 / * * * *