Scott Hajek asked for it, so here it is:

Let me preface this by saying that Bram Stoker's Dracula, the NOVEL, is quite probably my favorite book of all time. I have read it several times (not all that common for me these days) and each time I discover new things about it. That being said:

Love
My Love of "Bram Stoker's Dracula" lies mainly in two things: visual and aural. The score by Wojciech Kilar is simply brilliant in my opinion. It does repeat themes a few times but is overall one of the best scores I have ever heard. It is a modern version of a classical symphony. Then there is the eerily beautiful Love Song for a Vampire by Annie Lennox at the end. When I first saw the movie I thought it seemed out of place, but now I can't think of a better way to end the "album." Check out the soundtrack/score if you get the chance.

Second is the look of the movie. I think it is visually stunning. The set designs, the costumes, the color schemes, the photography.... all are beauties to behold. It is quite simply a gorgeous film.

Hate
First and foremost, this is NOT Bram Stoker's Dracula. Stoker's Dracula was NOT a love story (Tagline for the movie: Love Never Dies). It was a pure horror novel. The movie was more akin to Fred Saberhagen's Dracula, in my opinion, based on The Vampire Tape. I've read this book and enjoyed it to an extent, but it is nearly the polar opposite of Bram Stoker's work.

Next is Dracula himself. The character of Dracula was not a poor misguided soul who just wanted to be loved, as he was portrayed in the movie. He was a VAMPIRE, a killer of the highest order. There was no love in him. This may be a symptom of (as FPW said) the benevolent vampires of the 90's, etc. I couldn't handle this. Dracula is an enemy to be hated, not pitied.

Now on to the cast.... First of all, Keanu Reeves - NOT! Reeves is not the correct type of actor for this movie (regardless of what you think of his talent). I happen to like the selection of Oldman, as stated above, because of his "performance" ability. If others don't fine. I'm not going to argue. The women characters were forgettable in the movie. I tend to think that Winona Ryder was just about as wrong for the part of Mina as Reeves was for Jonathon Harker. The "secondary" characters of Seward, Holmwood, and Quincy Morris (my personal favorite) had much more important roles collectively in the book than in the movie. There was simply no emotional involvement (other than Oldman) in any of the actors' performances. For example, the scene in the book in which Van Helsing (more on that shortly) and Arthur Holmwood enter the crypt of Lucy to destroy her vampire self is a jumble of emotions: fear, love, pity, horror, sadness. I get verklempt each time I read it. In the movie, it is simply a shocking bloodfest. Unforgivable.

Lastly, Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing. Hopkins is a gifted actor whom I normally like quite a bit. In this movie he is pure rubbish, in my opinion. He exemplifies everything that is wrong with this movie. He seems placed there for comic effect, unleashing one-liners. I've read theories that Hopkins' Van Helsing is actually a vampire himself (similar to Grandpa in The Lost Boys). The disturbing thing is that I can actually see that in his performance in the movie. It is an atrocity.

This movie deserved SO MUCH MORE.


Rant over.

Jim

Excellent review of a crappy movie. Good job. You explained your love/hate view of the movie quite well.

If I were to give an accurate review of the movie and explain my hate/hate view of it, I'd have to watch the movie again. I hated it the first time. I'm sure I'd hate it again the second. So, I'll pass and leave it there.

I liked Gary Oldman's performance and that was all I remember liking from the film.And Keanu Reeves was miscast as well. He fits better as a stoner/slacker type (Bill and Ted) or a simple action hero (The Matrix/Speed/ Point Break).

IMO, the movie continued Francis Ford Coppola's downward spiral as a director. Back in the 70's he was one of the greatest director's ever and he made some good films in the 80's as well but by this time he'd lost it. GF III was released before this film and while it's not as terrible as some people say, it couldn't compare to it's predecessors and this film (Dracula) had a great Gary Oldman performance but the rest of the film was a bore. Then Coppola directed Robin Williams in the abysmal Jack (the film where Williams is a 10 year old kid in a grown man's body). Though I haven't seen The Rainmaker, it's clear that Coppola's happier tending his winery and producing films rather than directing these days. And if that makes him happy then let him be at peace.

Nice review and I think I agree with pretty much the entire thing. The saving grace of the movie was Oldman. I used to annoy my wife by immitating the part from the opening where Dracula shouts for his wife..."Issabeta!!!!"

Question for you since you stated you are a big fan of the book Dracula. What is your favorite film adaptation of the book?

For some reason I personally always liked the Dracula made in I believe the late 70's(will have to check IMDB) with Frank Langella playing Dracula.

I pretty much agree with everything jimbow8 said, but I'd like to point out Tom Wait's awesome performance as Renfield. The guy does the crazy-bug-eating thing really well, among other things.

I shouldn't say this, but I always thought "Love at Fiirst Bite " was a classic vampire movie!


KRW

I shouldn't say this, but I always thought "Love at Fiirst Bite " was a classic vampire movie!

Classic! "Without me, Transylvania will be as exciting as... Bucharest... on a Monday night."

And don't get me started on the "black chicken". Hilarious movie. A bit dated in spots, but funny.

Blake

Nice review and I think I agree with pretty much the entire thing. The saving grace of the movie was Oldman. I used to annoy my wife by immitating the part from the opening where Dracula shouts for his wife..."Issabeta!!!!"

Question for you since you stated you are a big fan of the book Dracula. What is your favorite film adaptation of the book?

For some reason I personally always liked the Dracula made in I believe the late 70's(will have to check IMDB) with Frank Langella playing Dracula.

Honestly, I only saw them a long time ago. So I will have to get back to you on this.

I bought the super-duper version of VanHelsing on DVD (I know, most people hated it, but I thought it was a pretty fun summer action romp). This version contains the original 30's versions of Dracula, Frankenstein, and The Wolfman that inspired Steven Sommer's movie. I started watching Lugosi's Dracula last night but fell asleep. So far..... this movie seems to cover a lot of what was NOT in the book and change most of the rest. This movie is about Renfield's trip to Transylvania (occured before Harker went there in the book) and Harker apparently never goes. Mina is Dr. Seward's daughter. (?) The secondary characters are nowhere to be seen. Aside from all that, it seems like a good movie so far (only watched about half of it). I'll have to see the rest before I make a judgement.

I barely remember anything about the Langella version, so I'll have to rent that one. Is this the one that starred Peter Cushing (Grand Moff Tarkin ) as Van Helsing? If not, which one is that?

Some other vampire movies:

Near Dark - probably my favorite vampire movie.
Innocent Blood - a decent B movie about a female vampire and the Mafia.

... but I'd like to point out Tom Wait's awesome performance as Renfield. The guy does the crazy-bug-eating thing really well, among other things.

Well, I for one like Dracula. Is it true to the book? No. But from a fimmaking stand-point it is beautifully shot and some of the techniques Coppola used were "retired" techniques people hadn't done in a long time.

And I have to agree with Dignan and Smithers52... Tom Waits and Gary Oldman were both amazing.

As I have said, I LOVE/HATE the movie. I have not bought the DVD, but I most likely will if they ever put out an edition with any significant extras on it.