Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)
Grade: B
Cast: Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Keanu Reeves, Anthony Hopkins, Sadie Frost, Cary Elwes, Tom Waits
Director: Francis Ford Coppola
Rated R violence and sexuality.

Such a morbid, weird, violent, sexual, and beautiful horror film is “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” (1992), that you have to wonder what in it attracted director Francis Ford Coppola. That doesn’t mean I’m against the film or anything; I give it a modest thumbs-up after my initial viewing of it, and there were many excellent things about it, but it isn’t the kind of thing you expect from the director of the “Godfather” trilogy. Maybe he’s trying to be versatile. If so, then a congratulation goes out to him—but he also may need some serious therapy. Keanu Reeves in a period piece and a beautiful young woman having hardcore sex with a wolf are ideas that are going to stick with me for a while, and not because I was scared, exactly.

Reeves, in an unintentionally hilarious performance, plays Jonathon Harker, who has been invited to Count Dracula’s (Gary Oldman, just as perfect a villain here as he is in “Hannibal”) castle. Drac catches a picture of Reeves’ beautiful wife Mina (Winona Ryder in a surprisingly excellent performance) and decides that she must be his true love reincarnated (the fact that she looks identical to his suicidal lost princess is probably what tipped him off—not to get too technical here, but isn’t the point of reincarnation to live in another body?). This is the point at which the Count unleashes some extremely hot vampire chicks on a confused and perplexed Jonathon (I half-expected Keanu to say “Whoa-eth”; he did, at least, offer his famous I Am Confused And Perplexed look) and heads off to reunite with his lost love, who is currently comforting her increasingly vampiric, consistently topless, and, in my opinion, possibly demonically possessed friend Lucy (Sadie Frost). Professor Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins, rounding out the great ensemble cast) comes in to investigate everything, and this is when things, if they weren’t already weird, get weird.

I’ve probably stressed enough that “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” isn’t your typical Coppola movie, but I need to stress it more. This man made the “Godfather” trilogy (normal), “Apocalypse Now” (weird, but not this kind of weird), and “Jack” (depressing, and depressingly normal); “Dracula” is the last piece of cinematic origami you’d expect him to hurl at us. As a film, it works, but it’s strangely abstract if you try to find, say, a reason for being behind it. It isn’t quite scary; it doesn’t have a message; despite a few good lines, it isn’t exactly funny. It’s even weirder that its ambitions are so hard to find when you trace it back to the typically straightforward Coppola, whose messages in “The Godfather” films were prominent and significant. I’m finding it hard to describe this film without going back to the general consensus that it was WEIRD. What the film definitely does not lack, though, is technical skill; the film is beautifully shot, with great costumes, makeup, blood, cinematography, and Winona Ryder. There are scenes in which Coppola summons a dark and seductive magnificence that promise something generally creepy and touching. But this “Dracula” is no “Nosferatu”, because there are too many droppings amidst the beautiful field of grass.

I need to mention too, that the exploits of Dracula’s “slave” Renfield (Tom Waits), currently under custody at a mental hospital, are often more intriguing than the rest of the film. Tom Waits’ performance is actually very good, and this portion of the story is particularly well written.

A film review’s purpose is to help you determine whether or not you should see a film. I feel that with this review, I have not fulfilled my task. I must say the following, to sum everything up, and this may help you make your decision: “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” is generally well acted, beautifully shot, with some disturbing stuff and a consistently engaging if ever-familiar plot. The script is uneven, either seductively spooky or on autopilot, depending on what part of the film you’re referring to. It also features Keanu Reeves in a period piece and a scene involving Sadie Frost having sex with a werewolf. Over all, despite its shortcomings, it makes for a good Halloween flick (no matter that I’m a little late in telling you that). Oh, and one last comment: Keanu Reeves is in a period piece. You have been warned.


-Alex, November 2001