Until recently, my only experience with Francis Ford Coppola’s remake of “Dracula” were the various parodies that were endlessly churned out when the film was brand new. “Dracula: Dead and Loving It” was fairly entertaining, though I found the parody on “The Simpsons” to be the funniest. So I suppose having seen the parodies numerous times before actually watching the film-itself somewhat tainted my experience, but I still enjoyed it for the most part. “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” plays the vampire angle just the way I like it, and aside from some questionable casting, is a pretty solid movie.
But never-the-less, whenever I watch it, all I can think about is Homer Simpson’s line; “His hairdo is so queer.”
London real estate agent, Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves) has journeyed to the secluded castle of the eccentric Count Dracula (Gary Oldman) to close a deal. A creepy and unusual old man, Dracula becomes instantly enamored with a photograph of Harker’s fiancé, Mina (Winona Ryder), as she has a more than subtle resemblance to his long-deceased love, Elisabeta. Leaving Jonathan to rot in the castle, Dracula travels to London and seduces Mina with his various supernatural charms. Dr. Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins) arrives shortly afterward and recognizes Dracula for what he truly is: a vampire!
I found this interpretation of the Count to be something akin to an “Ultimate Dracula”. Gary Oldman’s portrayal as the Vampire King fuses both the vermin-like appearance of Count Orlok from “Nosferatu” with the haunting charm of Bela Lugosi’s “Dracula”. This version of Dracula has a little something for everyone as it can strike a chord with those who insist that vampires should be brooding and seductive (goth crybabies) and those who insist that they should be grotesque monsters (me). The effects used on the title villain are excellent, as he morphs into all manner of horrible creatures of the night. His “sentient shadow” remains tainted by the various parodies it has received, but was never-the-less a very creative idea.
The rest of the cast is more or less a strong assortment. Anthony Hopkins practically steals the show as Van Helsing. He plays Dracula’s arch-nemesis with a bit more comedy than previous interpretations, which gives the character a stand-out identity, though sometimes borders on over-the-top. I’ve always liked Winona Ryder, even during her kleptomania phase, so I found her naïve and innocent portrayal of Mina to be pretty entertaining. At the bottom of the barrel, we have Keanu. He’s somewhat tolerable in this movie, but that’s about the most you can hope for. His English accent will have you rolling with laughter, but it kind of grows on you after a period. But no matter what he says, he stills sounds like he’s about to end every sentence with “Duuuuuuuuude.”
Francis Ford Coppola masters the gothic atmosphere of the movie most admirably. My favorite moments, admittedly, take place in Dracula’s castle. The set is fantastic, which surprised me, as I was always of the mind that once you’ve seen one Transylvanian castle, you’ve seen them all. Coppola injects some more subtle and surreal terrors into the mix, such as rats scurrying upside down along ceilings or water dripping upward from a bottle. There are some more monstrous and in-your-face effects, such as Dracula’s numerous transformations, all of which are perfectly executed.
But never-the-less, whenever I watch it, all I can think about is Homer Simpson’s line; “His hairdo is so queer.”
London real estate agent, Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves) has journeyed to the secluded castle of the eccentric Count Dracula (Gary Oldman) to close a deal. A creepy and unusual old man, Dracula becomes instantly enamored with a photograph of Harker’s fiancé, Mina (Winona Ryder), as she has a more than subtle resemblance to his long-deceased love, Elisabeta. Leaving Jonathan to rot in the castle, Dracula travels to London and seduces Mina with his various supernatural charms. Dr. Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins) arrives shortly afterward and recognizes Dracula for what he truly is: a vampire!
I found this interpretation of the Count to be something akin to an “Ultimate Dracula”. Gary Oldman’s portrayal as the Vampire King fuses both the vermin-like appearance of Count Orlok from “Nosferatu” with the haunting charm of Bela Lugosi’s “Dracula”. This version of Dracula has a little something for everyone as it can strike a chord with those who insist that vampires should be brooding and seductive (goth crybabies) and those who insist that they should be grotesque monsters (me). The effects used on the title villain are excellent, as he morphs into all manner of horrible creatures of the night. His “sentient shadow” remains tainted by the various parodies it has received, but was never-the-less a very creative idea.
The rest of the cast is more or less a strong assortment. Anthony Hopkins practically steals the show as Van Helsing. He plays Dracula’s arch-nemesis with a bit more comedy than previous interpretations, which gives the character a stand-out identity, though sometimes borders on over-the-top. I’ve always liked Winona Ryder, even during her kleptomania phase, so I found her naïve and innocent portrayal of Mina to be pretty entertaining. At the bottom of the barrel, we have Keanu. He’s somewhat tolerable in this movie, but that’s about the most you can hope for. His English accent will have you rolling with laughter, but it kind of grows on you after a period. But no matter what he says, he stills sounds like he’s about to end every sentence with “Duuuuuuuuude.”
Francis Ford Coppola masters the gothic atmosphere of the movie most admirably. My favorite moments, admittedly, take place in Dracula’s castle. The set is fantastic, which surprised me, as I was always of the mind that once you’ve seen one Transylvanian castle, you’ve seen them all. Coppola injects some more subtle and surreal terrors into the mix, such as rats scurrying upside down along ceilings or water dripping upward from a bottle. There are some more monstrous and in-your-face effects, such as Dracula’s numerous transformations, all of which are perfectly executed.
Having read Bram Stoker's novel, I found that this film gives itself a bit more credit than it deserves in regards to faithfulness. In many ways, it is one of the most accurate adaptations of the source novel ever put to film, but in plenty of other ways it deviates considerably. The most glaring addition to the film that was not present in the book is the romance between Mina and the Count while Jonathan is "indisposed". In the book, no such love affair existed. In a few ways, I actually welcomed the addition of this subplot, not so much because it made an effort to make Dracula a more sympathetic, multi-dimensional villain... but because it actually allowed Dracula to be in more than one fourth of the film. You see, in the book, after Dracula leaves for London, he pretty much disappears from the narrative for almost the entire thing, constantly looming in the background but scarcely being encountered directly. This new subplot gave him some more face time and, well, I approve. There's also the matter of his demise at the film's end being entirely fabricated, but whatever. His death in the book was sort of underwhelming, anyway.
While I haven’t subjected myself to every version of “Dracula”, this interpretation is surely my favorite. Although it has its rough points, some worrisome casting and has been marred by endless parody, it remains an enjoyable film with something to offer everyone, no matter what they think a vampire “should be”.
Grade: B+ (as in “Befanged old men were all the rage back then, I hear”.)
Grade: B+ (as in “Befanged old men were all the rage back then, I hear”.)
0 comments:
Post a Comment