Not much good.

Rating: 5/10 (13 December 2001)

Bearing in mind I have seen three other Dracula adaptations I feel I am well placed to judge this picture's success and failures. Coppola and the writers clearly set out to make a more "adult" Dracula, giving the old Count a more "human" side. It is telling that he becomes more sympathetic when dressed as a young dandy, and pursues a passionate romance with Winona Ryder. While the romance was reasonably played, I didn't feel it truly added much focus to the story. Perhaps it made one root for the Count, as does the inept quality of Keanu Reeves' performance as Ryder's husband-to-be. Having said that, I don't feel, importantly, that Oldman is as good as, say Max Schreck (portraying evil incarnate) in "Nosferatu" (22), Bela Lugosi (portraying a charm and evil of some magnetism) in "Dracula" (31) or to a lesser degree Klaus Kinski (portraying a sinister-looking parasite) in Herzog's "Nosferatu The Vampyre" (79). Oldman is certainly adequate, but he is not outstanding, and that is what one needs for a Dracula. Winona Ryder was a little bland, one might say, but reasonable, in a more substantial female role than was given in earlier versions. Sadie Frost is passable as a somewhat flighty dame, but it is a performance of not much subtlety. Anthony Hopkins really is absurd as Van Helsing, making him pretty much a madman; certainly hammed-up, and not up to the definitive Edward Van Sloan of the Lugosi version. Tom Waits gives probably the most effective performance as everybody's favourite lunatic, a Mr Renfield. He imbues the part with empathy, madness and absurdity, if only having a few scenes. Nearly as good as Dwight Frye in the 1931 film, but lacking Roland Topor's truly insane laugh in Herzog's filming. Richard E. Grant, Bruce Campbell and Cary Elwes are seldom used; a pity. Least said the better about Reeves; he's patently only there to draw in the 1992 multitudes. And now to atmosphere; well, there really ain't enough of it; whether it's predictable music (Philip Glass's new minimalist score for the Lugosi one is superbly fitting and atmospheric), over-ripe acting, under-cooked acting or a lack of economy in the script, it's clear this is lacking. It is directed reasonably by the formerly great Francis Ford Coppola, but is nowhere near films like "The Conversation" or "Apocalypse Now" in terms of memorable imagery or impact.
Plusses? Well, there are some; Waits, the attempt to go into the Dracula character in more depth, larger female roles, some very effective moments here and there. However, I cannot say I liked the "prologue" which attempts to root Dracula into some slightly melodramatic past. This just didn't work for me.
Most tellingly, I just wasn't as entertained by this movie as by the other 3, and I don't feel it to be as well-crafted or atmospheric as those three films, which do each have their flaws, but are on the whole excellent.
Rating:- ** 1/2/*****