Technically Brilliant

Rating: Null/10 (15 February 2009)

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)
** (out of 4)
Coppola's big-budget version of the classic story features Gary Oldman as Dracula, Winona Ryder as Mina, Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing, Keanu Reeves as Harker and Sadie Frost as Lucy. It's doubtful there's a person alive who doesn't know the story of Dracula so there's no point in telling it again so how does this version measure up to previous ones? On one hand this is possibly the greatest looking version but that can't make up for how deadly dull the film is. The beautiful eye candy is certainly something to worship but without the strong story backing it up we're left with a real mixed bag. On a technical level the movie is pretty much flawless as the sets, costumes, editing, special effects and cinematography are all top notch. The beautiful rich colors of the costumes really stand out as does the magnificent looking colors of the sky, the castle and various other items. The special effects are also quite remarkable and especially the ones dealing with the aging Oldman. The way the make up takes Oldman's age from old to young is really a marvel to look at and the fact that the actor can still move and act through it is another major plus. I think Oldman gives one of the most interesting interpretations of the Count and he perfectly nails the tortured soul of the man. Oldman also has a very interesting line delivery, which worked for me as did his rather easy way of getting across his passion. I'm also a fan of Ryder's performance here and the naive quality she brings Mina. Hopkins too gives a strong performance, although I do with he had been given some better scenes to work in. The only one that really doesn't work too well is Reeves who should have never been given this role. While everything on the technical level is masterful, I'd have to blame Coppola for the majority of the film's lacking story. It really feels as if Coppola was so worried with the look that he forgot to do much with the story because in all honesty I was bored from the first ten minutes to the end. The film, running 127 minutes, feels twice as long and I can't help but wonder what went wrong here. I know many are going to get caught up in the story and perhaps rightfully so but this film has never worked for me and it's obvious that it never will. There's a lot to admire here but in the end this goes down as an incredibly flawed but great-looking film.