Francis Ford Coppola's lavish big budget adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula isn't a completely bad film. It's got a really stellar cast in the likes of Gary Oldman as Count Dracula, Anthony Hopkins as Professor Abraham Van Helsing, Richard E. Grant as Dr. John Seward (someone I still think would be a great Sherlock Holmes) and Cary Elwes as Sir Arthur Holmwood. It's very stylishly done as far the look and feel of the film. And the music they chose reminded me of David Bowie's Berlin albums like Low, Heroes and Lodger. Which I think helped the feel of the film.
The biggest problem for me is not Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker butching an attempt at an English accent so badly it makes Dick van Dyke's embarrassing attempts in Mary Poppins sound authentic. But at least Dick Van Dyke gave an effort. It was awful but it was at least an honest effort.
What really kept it from being a really great adaptation is the fact they added this back story how Dracula came to be. And adding that element of love. I think what makes past adaptations of Dracula starring Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee and even the two version of Nosferatu great is the fact there is a mystery to where this creature came from.
Having that element of mystery makes the character more frightening and even adding that element of love to the story ruins it for me. Adding the element of sex to it doesn't bother me as much. But making the character lovelorn was kind of a mistake.
However, do I think it's a bad adaptation. Absolutely not. I think the stylishness of the costumes and the scenes are very good. And the top-notch actors they have in the film make up for the likes of the more deadweight stars they unfortunately chose.
It's definitely either worth renting or buying for $5 at Wal*Mart or Target.
But it's just those unfortunate decisions Coppola (including going with Keanu Reeves rather than going with someone who could actually fake an accent), make that keep it from being a truly great film.
It's worth renting for your Halloween night horror marathon. And despite being not much taller than me, Gary Oldman is a really good Count Dracula.
4 comments:
Tom Waits as Renfield remains my favorite part of the movie. Great performance.
Very true. Not to mention he looks so bizarre.
I've been told the Renfield in the Louis Jourdan BBC adaptation is very good. I haven't been able to watch it all the way because the copy I rented started skipping.
The Jordan film is probably my pick for best film Dracula-- its a bit slow and creaky, but then so is the novel.
I like Franky's version of Dracula mostly because of Anthony Hopkins and Tom Waits, Oldman is a terrific actor but I don't dig Drac as John Lennon at all.
I agree with your post, making him a tragic figure takes away all the things that make Dracula great.
I found some parts of the film to be visually confusing too. Especially the scene with Dracula's brides which appears two are connected at the hips or something.
Yeah, Tom Wait's Renfield is a particular high point of the movie.
But the whole reincarnated lost-love and back story I could have done without.
Post a Comment