Coppola's take isn't great, but it's still very good...

Rating: 9/10 (17 September 2004)

Francis Ford Coppola's adaptation of Bram Stoker's classic can be considered better than some of the lower ones in the genre due to a few key factors. 1) a mostly stellar cast (Oldman and Hopkins fit into their roles splendidly, Ryder does what she can, Reeves isn't too bad, and great supporting work from Elwes, Waits, and Grant) that does well by Coppola's always keen, if not exceptional, direction of actors. 2) Oscar winning effects and make-up, and a genuine look to the period. To see many of the sets and designs is to be reminded of how good big budgets can do for the story. Michael Ballhaus is also an essential asset. And 3) the take on the Dracula story (while I can't confirm since I've never read the book) seems to take a solid, novelistic approach. While Coppola does give in to some excesses with some of the music and the editing, and some of the romantic stuff in the film is less than great, the film is worthy for fans of the book and genre. As pure, horror entertainment, it delivers the chills. A-