a dark, fresh take on Stoker's famous tale

Rating: 8/10 (9 September 2005)

SPOILERS Hammer Horror is responsible for multiple stereotypes from over the years. The green, flat headed Frankenstein, the grey, black cloaked Dracula, all are down to the creative touches of the people at Hammer. In 1992, Francis Ford Coppola directed a wonderful new version of the finest monster of all time. Creating a vivid, accurate equivalent of Stoker's masterpiece "Dracula", Coppola's creation is a wonderful piece of modern cinema.
Hired to conclude a deal in Transylvania, Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves) encounters the mysterious Count Dracula (Gary Oldman). Slowly growing fearful of the evil Count, Harker's fears are reached when Dracula's true nature is revealed. Leaving Harker imprisoned in his Castle, Dracula now heads to England to seduce Harker's beautiful fiancée Mina Murray (Winona Ryder).
A superb opening featuring the beginnings of the Count, the film progresses along similar dark veins as we are gradually introduced to the Count. Betrayed by the Catholic Church, the Count is a much more sympathetic character than recent adaptations. No longer just a blood sucker, Oldman's Dracula is a passionate individual searching for his reincarnated love.
Perhaps one of his finest performances, Oldman is sensational with his European accent and his magnificent misunderstood Count. He's not alone though. Aided by some great acting from Winona Ryder, Anthony Hopkins and Richard E Grant, Oldman is given all the support he could need.
That being said, one key flaw with this film is the truly woeful accent and performance of Keanu Reeves. Reeves has, to personal knowledge, NEVER turned in a decent acting job, and in "Dracula" he is no different. Awkward, wooden and generally awful, Reeves lowers the standards of an otherwise top notch cast. Admittedly he is not helped by a badly written character (Harker was dire in Shelley's original book, let alone this screenplay), but Reeves manages to turn a dire character into an horrendous one.
Aside from acting, the one reason 1992's adaptation is so good is because of Coppola's knack for pure, dark genius. He gets a naturally dark story and he makes it his own. The lighting, the feel, everything about the story has a feel of Coppola's work and ultimately it is impossible to fault him.
Like so many other horror stories, Bram Stoker's creation is often stereotyped and corrupt. In this new take of the story, Francis Ford Coppola's "Dracula" is a magnificent, accurate portrayal of the story. Beautifully shot, and for the majority, brilliantly acted, this film is well worth watching at any opportunity. Superb.