Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992) – A Science Fiction-Fantasy Movie Review
First of all, I assume everyone knows the plot of Dracula, so there will be no spoiler alert. I’ve been wanting to review this movie for a while because I read that it was pretty good. Well, pretty good is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.
This movie is all over the place. First off look at some of the cast members:
Gary Oldman as Count Dracula
Winona Ryder as Mina Harker
Anthony Hopkins as Professor Van Helsing
Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker
So, you can imagine the range of acting ability here. Oldman and Hopkins do the best they can with the script and dialog but Reaves and Ryder … are Reaves and Ryder, so you can imagine. Keanu is especially notable for his amazing 19th century British accent. I keep expecting him to exclaim, “Whoa!”
Alright, so let’s talk about the approach to the Dracula story. Apparently, by the movie’s name, director Francis Ford Coppola intended for this film to be seen as adhering, to some extent, more closely to Stoker’s novel than most other versions. I read the novel many, many years ago but from what I remember there were no nekkid vampire women sexing up Jonathan Harker at Castle Dracula. And, granted, unlike many other versions of the story, the end of this movie does take place where and how it occurred in the book, but Coppola added Mina Harker into the climax to close out her romance with Dracula. That’s not Stoker. Also, the movie starts off in the 15th century with Vlad the Impaler renouncing God because his wife (who is also played by Ryder) committed suicide and therefore she cannot go to heaven. And because of all this, we are supposed to see Dracula as a sympathetic character and at the end he gets this redemption scene where instead of looking like this decrepit bat-like thing he turns back into young and relatively handsome Vlad and dies the beautiful death (well, he still gets his head chopped off but he does get a nice moment). So, Bram Stoker’s Dracula? Some yes and a lot no.
The special effects are pretty good for 1992. And the sets and costumes look like they cost a bundle. I didn’t hate the whole movie. I rather enjoyed most of Hopkins’ Van Helsing and a lot of Oldman’s spoken part was well done. I think what I objected to was Ryder’s absurdly emotional scenes with Dracula. I guess we’re supposed to imagine that the Mina Harker character must have some kind of psychic link to Vlad’s dead wife and this compels her to fall hopelessly in love with the undead and mostly repulsive looking creature that has very recently murdered her best friend, Lucy.
So, let’s say there is some kind of twisted logic to this take. But since this is framed as a Christian legend, complete with crucifixes and holy water are we supposed to add in an un-Christian example of reincarnation? And somehow God is going to forgive Vlad for four centuries of murdering people because Winona Ryder loves him? I could be wrong but I don’t think that’s how it works. Someone named Vlad the Impaler is going to need a much stronger advocate than that when he gets to the Pearly Gates.
Alright, I’ll put all my quibbles aside. What’s the verdict? Well, since this is a Dracula movie then as a Dracula movie it provides blood and gore, a castle with frightened Transylvanian peasants nearby, a vampire that can turn into bats, wolves and mist and is attractive to female victims and a final scene with a stake and even a decapitation. So, successful, I guess. But Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder? That’s not helping.