High-end Vampire myth, still just about sex and blood.

Rating: 7/10 (18 June 2016)

I can't help but get the feeling that critics gave Coppola the benefit of the doubt with so many curiosities in this wide release film, he was of course a much lauded director and just putting his name on the film poster was sure to get asses on seats at the local multiplex.
It should be noted that in the early nineties, Oliver Stone's movie the Doors, the deplorably bad Natural Born Killers and of course Bram Stoker's Dracula were all completely overblown in their production design and editing - as if these talented filmmakers had given in to the misguided idea that smothering the narrative in distracting effects and post production tricks would appeal to audiences, rather than confuse them.
Dracula is actually a pretty good example of the genre (if "totally overproduced early nineties movie" is a genre) in that many of Eiko Ishioka's costume designs are strikingly bizarre or beautiful, the sets are stuffed with opulent Gothic and Victorian decoration, and of course Anthony Hopkins is great as Dr Van Helsing, a remorseless dutch Dr and metaphysician of his time, trying to rid the world of the Nosferatu, played by Gary Oldman.
The main problem with this film's "ambitious set design" is that it's so often distracting. Some viewers could be wondering why in the films preamble, 15th century Romanian warriors are wearing bizarre red suits of plastic and leather that look nothing remotely suited to the era. The period costumes actually resemble science fiction items from Mario Bava's 1965 film Planet of the Vampires. The heavy religious imagery and chiaroscuro lighting add an impressive renaissance flavor also, but my main complaint is that the ingredients don't really create a convincing narrative whole. The very set-bound and design-oriented nature of the film is impressive, but not convincing.
Coppola's intent of course is that it's all visual prosody, i.e: that the film's endless special effects and overstated design are riffing on themes of blood letting, mortality, repression, lust, venereal disease and the corrupt, horrible evil of some ancient ruling class. Good idea, but its all too flashy to truly sink in.
The special effects are frequently excellent, as Count Dracula in this picture appears as a person of different physical ages, he casts no reflection, he is a familiar of wolves and bats, and can turn into wolves and bats, also he appears sometimes as a hideous writhing humanoid bat of about seven feet in height. Sometimes he appears as a sickly green fog.
You get the idea: in almost EVERY shot in this film, there are visual effects, but also Coppola gives into the temptation to add wacky editing techniques including bits of sped up and slowed down film to create a very opulent period picture that frequently looks like a music video.
Ultimately, the film is about two things: lavish production design and sleazy, erotic encounters showing vampire mistresses or Victorian ladies on the verge of orgasm with vampires. It could be a "comment" on Victorian sexuality, but more likely its just sleaze for the sake of sleaze, titillating the audience in much the same way that cheap teen comedies of the era liked to depict tall, naked legs or plunging breast shots on the VHS cover.
My last issue, as so many raised in 1992 is that Keanu Reeves isn't exactly suited for Gothic material. His previous two hits, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure and Point Break were teen-oriented summertime movies, and while he has on screen sex appeal, his character Jonathan Harker would have benefited greatly from a quality actor, like say Daniel Day Lewis, who could make a realistic effort of the required accent for the part and most importantly his emotive skill would be the focus area of a given scene, two things that Reeves just isn't really capable of.