HIGHLY overrated little film

Rating: 5/10 (17 August 2005)

This is a movie that has kind of been part of my general pop consciousness most of my life, since it came out 13 years ago when I was only 6. Today, after years of watching snippets of it on tnt in no particular order, I finally sat down and watched the whole DVD straight through. Boy, a disappointment. For one, I'm a huge, huge, HUGE fan of the book (and an English lit major), and as this is billed as "Bram Stocker's Dracula" one would assume it'd be pretty close to the book. In a lot of ways (and this redeemed the film somewhat) it was, down to certain lines coming write of the page, and the "diary/letter" format. Also, I was thrilled with the attention to some little details, such as Harker's hair gradually whitening, as it does in the novel. However, there are a lot of departures. For one, the characters of Jack Seward and Jonathan Harker are really minimized, and both are portrayed as pretty ineffectual and frankly quite lame. Granted, some of this is due to a rather stiff performance than Keanu Reeves (who I grudgingly kinda like), but mostly it's bad direction and them just being written out of the story. WHY, you may ask, are they so diminished? Because of the ludicrous back story involving Dracula's "Lost love" Elizabetta, who happens to look JUST LIKE Mina Harker. This is what really ticks me off. In the book, Dracula is evil, plain, pure and simple. Mina is a bright, sensible, devoted young woman, in love with her husband, and attacked by a demon. She is pretty darn resourceful in fighting the demon, suggesting that Van Helsing hypnotize her so they can spy on Dracula, and making sure that someone, if not Harker, then Seward or Quincy or Arthur, will kill her if she becomes evil. She certainly doesn't beg Dracula to change her, nor does Dracula have any qualms about turning her. "I love you too much" my foot. The whole plot line undermines the integrity of two of the main characters, making Dracula sympathetic, and Mina lukewarm at best. Psh. Having said that, the rest of the film is flimsy, highlighted by good moments and awkward moments. It's a very artsy film, which I know was the point, and a lot of times it works, but at other points, it's over done. The gore, violence and sexuality, while very deeply ingrained in the Gothic nature of Stocker's novel, is also taken a bit too far in a few cases. Also, Dracula-as-wolfman/batman is just ridiculous and pretty poorly done, even if it WAS 1992. By way of performances, Keanu Reeves is a bit stiff, and not so much British, Winona Ryder just plays Winona Ryder, as she does in every other film, Anthony Hopkins is a bit much at some points, as if he can't tell if his character takes this seriously or not, Sadie Frost is excellent if a tad over sexed, and Gary Oldman. . .well I'm so disgusted with his character it's hard to say. . .he's okay, but far too sympathetic, and frankly, a bit weak. No one else is given enough screen time or development to really make a comment. Final thought. . .I know that often movie adaptations of novels make big departures, and I can be cool with that (I give you Jackson's LOTR trilogy, which I love). Such departures, however, must be made within the spirit of the novel. This massive departure ruins the effect, and completely muddies Stocker's view of his creature. That's why I have to give this movie only five stars, and those stars are mostly for style and sheer guts.