BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA
A film review by Roger Snappy Rubio
Copyright 1992 Roger Snappy Rubio
BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA
Starring Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Anthony Hopkins, Keanu Reeves, and
Cary Elwes
Directed by Francis Ford Coppola
Now I must admit I did read a lot about this movie before I went to go see it; saw a lot of TV stuff on it, read about it in the newspaper, read about it in magazines, even read another review about it (ack! I violated the ethics of all good reviewers). So maybe I was a little biased when I went in to see this movie. Most movies like to embellish or even enhance the image or the persona of the vampire in general, but very few treat the vampire as a human being. BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA attempts to portray the vampire not only as a human being, but as a tragic figure as well. This attempted portrayal as both a human being and a tragic figure is where I believe this film falls short.
BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA is supposedly based on Bram Stoker's original novel. In the film story, Dracula is a knight called Prince Vlad the Impaler, who comes home from battle only to find his beloved has killed herself because she thought he was dead. In his fury, he renounces God and is banished to walk the Earth living only on the blood of others. Four-hundred years later, he finds a woman who looks exactly like her, and travels to London to see if she is the reincarnation of his beloved. Of course, that's the story in a nutshell. And I don't even know if that's true to the original novel, for the following reason.
I had heard through my 'biasing' foray to study this film before I saw it that the screenplay was based on the novel, but during shooting the actors pretty much had their way with the script. Now I know movies always allow for creative license, but I saw the original novel in a bookstore with the movie's concrete logo on it, and another book based on the SCREENPLAY with Gary Oldman and Winona Ryder on it. Did they change the story so much that they had to make a novel based on the screenplay, or is this just some marketing technique to make more money? Is this really Bram Stoker's incarnation or Hollywood's? I would hate to see Coppola stoop to Hollywood's level, even if he is bankrupt.
I have no qualms with the movie as a whole--I hardly ever do when Francis Ford Coppola is at the helm--but I believe this movie was a little overdone. Coppola tries so hard to pay homage to all the great horror flicks of the past that in the process of paying tribute he engages in overkill. The same thing happened with THE GODFATHER PART III. This is not to say that it was not a great movie (in fact it's one of the most beautifully filmed masterpieces I have ever seen) but did you hear about the budget? It was rumored at $60 million, mostly because Coppola had to get the right shade of ivory for Al Pacino's shirt and things like that. The operatic climax at the end, while trying to be suspenseful, dazzled the eye, but left the stomach settled. And the ending! The ending was fine, but I failed to feel as much as the characters did. GODFATHER III was a prime example of sentimentality (in my humble opinion), and DRACULA is teetering on that edge.
I think Coppola tried to do two things at the same time with DRACULA. He tried to make it a mainstream film, but at the same time an art film. In my opinion, mainstream movies leave everyone happy, while art films leave everyone thinking. BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA didn't do either of these things to me, and that is where I think it falls short. But like I said, maybe I went into the movie biased by all I had read and seen. In my experience, most critics go into a movie to criticize, not have any fun. I try to temper my movie-viewing with a little of both, but in this movie, I think I was left with more to criticize than to have fun with. The make-up was great, the story was okay, and the acting ranged from dry to 'a-kid-in-a-candy-store' eagerness, but it just didn't give me the chills or make me feel sad for this poor creature stripped of his life and love. It's great to look at, but it's a little confused as to where it wants to go, and it doesn't entertain. At least it wasn't gratuitously bloody!
THE SNAPMAN
rsnappy@hydra.unm.edu
(Roger Rubio)
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews