I have had the great pleasure of reading the famed Gothic horror novel Dracula (in my opinion the best horror novel you will EVER read), while it was a while ago I remember enough about it to be able to more or less gauge how accurate to the source material a film bearing the Dracula name is. The original Dracula starring Bela Lugosi is not very accurate, although it is quite good and fun and the film I'm going to be reviewing today, while bearing Bram Stoker's name in front of the title, still veers a good deal away from the source material.
Bram Stoker's Dracula essentially follows the same plot as the original classic film, this time however it chooses to portray Dracula in a more sympathetic light and focuses more on Mina's and his relationship. While I do not think this was a wise choice, I must admit that it does lead to quite an epic finale as the viewer is torn between Van Helsing and crew and Dracula and Mina...who are really the bad guys? Is anyone here truly innocent? Disturbing questions that the film never truly answers.
Gary Oldman completely disappears into the role of Dracula. I have always considered him as one of the strongest actors you could ever come across. I can't recall one weak performance of his that I have seen, and it's no different here. He isn't playing Dracula ,he IS Dracula (the film spends a good 5 minutes or so expanding on his backstory, partly using the historical Vlad the Impaler's story and a completely fictional one that explains the Count's fear/hatred of crosses, immortality, and appetite for blood. An unnecessary but cool touch). Oldman manages to make the infamous count sympathetic but completely terrifying. i often had conflicting emotions about him, I absolutely hated him but I did understand his pain and torment....it's got to suck to be him you must admit.
Anthony Hopkins portrays the famed vampire killer Abraham Van Helsing. Hopkins melts into his character here, putting on a performance that easily rivals Oldman's. His version of Van Helsing is eccentric and slightly mad, but still heroic nontheless. He is easily one of the more memorable incarnations of the Van Helsing character put to screen. I wasn't expecting this strong of a performance out of him, but damn if he doesn't nail the role.
Keanu Reeves plays Jonathan Harker, the fiance of Mina, who has a significantly downsized role here. He is still essential to the plot, but doesn't have as much impact as he does in the novel. Keanu Reeves surprised me, most think of him as Ted from Bill and Ted, but that association is erased here as he actually acts his heart out for a change and shows that, with the right director, he can really perform. This is easily one of his best and most impressive roles to date. As Reeves would say: Woah.
Sadie Frost plays the role of the seductive Lucy, who is taken in by Dracula's charm and is the first to fall victim to his ways. She's good enough I suppose, but by far the most impressive part of her performance is (are?) her breasts. Looking at her IMDB page, it wouldn't look like she's really been in nothing else noteworthy, and I'm honestly surprised. That said, she still gets the job done and she's pretty good at adding some sex into the film.
Winona Ryder portrays the doomed love interest Mina. This is another casting choice I don't really agree with, she does perfectly fine here but she's just too weird to play the kind and confused Mina. I didn't really sympathize with her character, and the places the plot decides to take her doesn't help matters either (a reincarnated love interest for Dracula.....pretty sure that wasn't in the novel).
I do like how the theme of sexuality takes center stage in this adaptation. Even in the source material, Dracula was a sex symbol and sexuality played a very huge role in the proceedings, like it does here. I also dig the new versions of the Brides here, completely alluring, sexy as hell, but completely terrifying. their scenes are fantastic.
Francis Ford Coppola directs this outing, and is it no surprise the film ends up being a success under his caring hands? The film is very surrealistic (almost dream like), the atmosphere is thick, and the sets and costumes are superb. It feels like an old fashioned horror film with a twist, except it's really not a horror film this time around...it's actually more of a perverted love story/triangle.
While Bram Stoker's Dracula is more faithful to the source material than the original classic was, it still differs greatly in what it chooses to focus on and it's portrayal of the famed count. While some of the choices this film chooses to make did piss me off a bit (especially the last scene), I still think I will continue to return to this film for it's fantastic performances and stunning artistic design. Bram Stoker's Dracula, despite some questionable decisions, still awakens as a good success.
4/5 STARS
No comments:
Post a Comment