Gary Oldman's "Dracula"

Rating: 2/10 (12 May 2008)

Others have discussed at length this film's numerous departures from Bram Stoker's magnum opus. However, I feel that Gary Oldman's many contributions to these departures have been sorely overlooked by the IMDb reviewing community. I will address these momentarily.
First, a few words about the direction and concept behind this film.
It is clear that this movie was driven by two primal forces: (1) Gary Oldman's egomaniacal desire to be portrayed as a Victorian sex object, and (2) the makeup department. That this movie was driven by these forces amounts to a coup de tate, with director Coppolla, the famed director of "jACK", left by the wayside. I am willing to forgive Francis for this film, if only because every director is bound to create a "Dracula" at some point in their career. After all, David Fincher has his "Alien 3" and his "Panic Room," while Michael Bay has his entire resume.
Conceptually, this film is lacking. It is not clear to me why "Dracula" merits a modern retelling, particularly when the Count himself comes off looking not like a horrific soldier of Satan, but a retired employee at the Waffle Crisp cereal factory...on a bad day. More importantly, the "love" theme, as well as the film's constant forays into bestiality, is curious and distracting, at best-- disgusting at its worst. When Lucy is being eaten out by Gary Oldman in wolf form and he flashes a toothy smile for the camera, I almost stopped watching.
In light of these concept flaws, the casting was absolutely dreadful. Where do I even begin? Keanue Reeves plays Jonathan Harker with all the subtlety and emotion of Agent Smith-- a computer generated enemy. His accent is only outstaged by the Academy Award-winning makeup team that generated Gary Oldman's asshat (aka. his cafeteria worker- inspired hairnet). Winona Ryder constantly seems as if she has just been caught shoplifting, as she steals glances at the John Lennon-inspired Dracula. Meanwhile, a hopeless Anthony Hopkins plays Van Helsing with all the enthusiasm of Hannibal Lecter's dinner guests-- I sensed throughout the film, as if he knew exactly what he was involved in-- a carnival devoted to the makeup demands of a sexually frustrated Gary Oldman.
Many have the audacity to applaud this film's costume and production design. I have the sense to criticize it entirely.
The sets bring to mind the cheap cardboard outlines of 1960's Star Trek Episodes without the visual flair. The obvious use of blue screens during outdoor scenes left me begging for the cinematography of Daniel Stern's "Bushwhacked." Not only poorly executed, but the attempt to use shadow puppets to present Dracula's "ulterior motives", was conceptually ignoble. The chase scene to Dracula's castle attempted to mold Transylvanian customs and American West stagecoach drama-- it did not succeed. Victorian London is portrayed with all the creativity of a Compton street opera. The excessive use of fog is clichéd and distracting, the dark garden scenes do nothing to put the lesbian relationships into proper context, and Renfield's prison lacked a chamber pot. Costumes-- John Lennon sunglasses, velvet suits, Leopard Skin Pillbox Hats, Fu-Manchus, and red imperial dresses have no place in Victorian England, or our time. Coppolla's deferment to his costume department is unforgivable, but in line with the rest of this production. To those who believe that this film's sets, costumes, etc. were its strength-- I agree, if only because Gary Oldman is almost certainly its most glaring weakness.
The title character of Count Dracula is presented as a sort of desperate lover, a man whose murderous swath through 800 years as a demon is solely the result of lost love. I beg to differ. Dracula is a vampire ("vampyr" as Van Helsing's book points out) whom we should hate and despise. That the female lead ends up falling in love with him is a testament to the fundamentally sick mind of Gary Oldman. I refuse to believe that Francis Ford Coppolla was responsible for the excesses of Count Dracula presented in this movie. Rather, he was held hostage by Gary Oldman and his lesbian female supporting actresses. Even Keanu Reeves cannot be held solely responsible for what happens to this film the moment Gary Oldman "graces" the screen.
The "artistic choices" related to Gary Oldman's portrayal of Dracula are crippling to the film's overall message and an embarrassment to film. Dracula likes to have sex? OK. Dracula likes to have sex with three female demon slaves? Alright. Dracula likes to have sex as a wolf? You're starting to lose me. Dracula likes to have sex with women and then cause their heads to explode in blood (a la Lucy)? What the hell is going on here? Dracula likes to have sex dressed as John Lennon? You've crossed the line.
I'm not sure when I first decided that I hated Gary Oldman in this movie. It may have been during the crude Romeo and Juliet imitation scene in the chapel that allegedly took place during the 1300s. It may have also been the time his shadow obviously popped a boner while making threatening gestures at Keanue Reeves. Most likely, it was when he was seen crawling up and down the castle wall in a powdered wig.
I hate everything this about this movie, but most of all, I hate this movie for what it could have been. Throw Tim Burton into the director's chair, Jon Voight, into Gary Oldman's prep room, and Dame Judi Dench into the shoes of Winona Ryder, and you have the makings of a modern classic.
I give this two stars for its comedic value.