'Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula' would be a more accurate title

Rating: 4/10 (10 November 2004)

When an author's name is used in the title of a movie, we are lead to assume that the movie will be an adaptation of the author's original work. This usually signifies that the film will try to follow the story of the book faithfully, perhaps changing a few minor elements to make the transition to film easier to follow, but in general, staying true to the gist of the book. However, none of this at all applies to 'Bram Stoker's Dracula', which takes the title, characters and very basic plot elements from the novel, but not much else.
Director Francis Ford Coppola feels obliged to add a love plot between the title character and Mina Murray, who in the novel, he merely attempted to transform into a vampire alongside himself. Presumably, the idea was to give Dracula more to do, so the vampire isn't reduced to a supporting character, but the love plot doesn't work at all, and it is handled extremely awkwardly, making it completely uncredible as well as unlikely. (what could Mina possibly find appealing in a vampire trying to drain her blood to prolong his own miserable life even more?!) And why the decision for Dracula's vampire brides to be naked? They were far too creepy to seem appealing to the audience, and their entire scene seemed really out of place, and just badly done in general.
Many original elements from the book were absurdly overdone, such as Dracula turning into a beast,.(there was no need for him to transform as frequently as he did) Also, Dracula's moving shadow on the wall and the instantly changing hair colour of the supporting characters were laughable at best. It's true that the story focuses almost entirely on the four main characters, which is lucky, since it is impossible to sympathize in any way with the supporting characters such as Lord Holmwood and Quincey Morris, since their parts were so one dimensional and underdeveloped.
However, Coppola's biggest mistake was trying to make the audience sympathize with Dracula, with him wanting forgiveness from God after swearing vengeance on him thousands of years ago. Dracula is supposed to be the quintessential monster, we are supposed to hate him, and glorify in his death, not feel sorry for him. Trying to fit both elements into the same character just failed miserably.
The costumes in many cases were really quite ridiculous - when Dracula is first introduced as an old man, he is wearing a ludicrous red gown of some sort, and has his hair pulled into grotesque granny buns. How are we supposed to be intimidated by that? Later on, we find the dastardly vampire sporting John Lennon sunglasses, and a typical Johnny Depp hat. So now the vampire is going out of his way to start new fashion trends?! More unintentional laughs are now provoked.
Coppola did manage to secure a couple of good casting jobs, but the casting of Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker has to be one of the most noticeable miscastings in film history, as Reeves gives one of his most wooden performances ever here, also showing that he cannot fake an accent to save his life, and has the entirely wrong look for the period. Reeves drags down the movie more than any of Coppola's directorial misfires could. Fortunately, Gary Oldman is excellent, engaging and charismatic as Dracula, if not quite as villainous as one would have hoped. Winona Ryder is another who at first glance appears to be miscast, but she actually turns out a decent performance, particularly in her scenes with Van Helsing. This is of course aided by the excellent casting of Anthony Hopkins, who is very suited to the role, although he played it much colder than the character in the novel, who was considerably more warm. Hopkins' Van Helsing is a no-nonsense, no time to waste, places to go, vampires to kill kind of guy. Tom Waits also stands out as raving lunatic Renfield, one of his strongest acting performances to date.
It is an insult to Bram Stoker's novel just by naming the movie after it, as it would be even if Coppola's adaptation had been done well. So many changes were made to the plot that the movie has very little in common with Stoker's book. If the film had been titled 'Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula' we would have a better idea of what to expect. Although, Coppola doesn't deserve much critical acclaim for the multiple directorial misfires he makes here. In Coppola's defense, he was probably trying to put his own spin on the tale, to leave his mark and offer a different take on the novel. But surely there were better possibilities for the film than this one.
4/10