Vision of Coppola and Stoker

Rating: Null/10 (18 November 2003)

Only Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow can match the wonderful fantasy visionary that Coppola's '92 rendition of Dracula brings to the silver screen. Where music and imagery combine to narrate on its own level above the dialogue and its subtext. But Coppola takes this beautiful film one step further and laces it with a talented cast and crew that further develops the story we're all familiar with and have seen/read countless times.
Most notable is Gary Oldman's performance under varying degrees of makeup, semi-reminiscent of Orson Welles in Citizen Kane minus the flashbacks. Coppola and Oldman reinvent the nefarious count in a way that's neither Max Shreck nor Bela Lugosi; Dracula has that surreal sense of elegance found in Lugosi's performance, but possesses both a visual and more subtle monstrosity found in Nosferatu. In essence, Oldman plays a hybrid of the two old-school Dracula images . . . but not really. It's more like an homage or a simple nod in their direction, while Oldman goes off on his own way. I really appreciate this approach, and it's refreshing to see a new, very distinct, incarnation of Dracula.
Anthony Hopkins plays Van Helsing in a way that reminds me of a hyped up version of Edward Van Sloan, though I won't criticize Hopkins for it. Whether intentionally derivative or not, when looking on screen I saw more Van Helsing than Anthony Hopkins, and that's always a plus in my book. In fact, I was impressed with most of the main players for the level they developed their characters. Perhaps not to the point of George C. Scott's Patton or Dustin Hoffman's Raymond Babbitt, but if I keep the comparison within the horror genre I draw blanks as to when a cast performed this well.
The surreal fantasy nature of the film's atmosphere bled into the performances, enhancing the experience of watching a dramatized novel with a few anchors in reality. At the same time, Dracula feels apart from the genre it Â‘belongs' to. Coppola does not bow to cheap scares or gimmicks. Instead he throws all that away, and relies upon Stoker's solid novel, his more-than-competent film crew, and the talented cast he assembled to keep the audience's interest . . . like all films really should do.

I also appreciate the film's unique score provided by the little known and underrated (yet very talented) Wojciech Kilar, whose utilizes what sounds like a primitive orchestra combined with a sound seldom heard in film. It works beautifully for this score. Very dark, very appropriate. It stands as well alone as it does with the film.
I appreciate it when a director has enough faith and trust in his material and resources to not pull a fast one every half hour or find a gimmick to hide behind. Bravo Coppola & crew.