Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)
April 25th 2009 07:51
Directed by:- Francis Ford Coppola.
Starring:- Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Anthony Hopkins, Keanu Reeves, Richard E Grant.
Having just finished Bram Stoker's novel, I felt compelled to re-visit this version by Francis Ford Coppola. And it is not a wonder that the attempt to adapt this story onto the big screen has rarely been made, as I imagine it would prove to be rather challenging. Whilst I realise that comparing a movie to the book is in many ways pointless and cumbersome, I will make comparisons to some extent due to Mr Coppola's audacious usage of the author's name in the title.
Especially notable at the beginning of the film is the production. The atmosphere seemed to take on a very theatrical feel, as if I was watching a play. Just a personal preference, but I would have liked a grittier, darker tone used here. This emphasis on production also seemed to carry over into the characters. Choosing Keanu Reeves to play Jonathan Harker was not a great idea. He is American for a start, and is a big Hollywood actor (not a brilliant one at that). It would have been nicer to see an Englishmen, and maybe a lesser known one who was more suited to the part.
I was also a little disappointed with both Dr Van Helsing and Renfield. I like Anthony Hopkins, and felt that he wasn't a bad choice as Van Helsing, however the writing let his character down. Van Helsing comes across here as both vociferous and sarcastic. He was much more sincere in the book, which gave his character more depth. Likewise, the complexity of Renfield was completely lost in this adaption. I realise that transformation of a novel is difficult with this medium, but important aspects of his character were left out, such as his elegant rants and capricious behaviour. It was in these choices that much of the films depth was compromised. I did, however, like the choice of Richard E Grant as Dr Seward, but being a principal character in the novel, he deserved more screen time than was seen here.
Since most are familiar with the story, I won't summarise events other than to comment on the decision to turn this into a love story. By doing so, Coppola gave Dracula more depth, but also made him into a bit of a pussy, a man that we could sympathise with. I liked the cold hard blooded killer in the novel that was more the enigma. Also, the anguish and rage that consumed Jonathan was completely lost in this diversion. Again, just my opinion, but I would love to see a grittier version that is more faithful to the novel. I wonder what old Bram would think of this adaption?
On a brighter note, I did like the use of Gary Oldman as Dracula, and I thought Winona Ryder was fairly good as Mina. The costumes were suitable and the music wasn't too bad. Overall I felt that this was a reasonable attempt, but did not do justice to such a great story.
I would love to see this film re-done into the complex, raw, tortured darkness that is Dracula.
Two and a half bananas out of five.
Starring:- Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Anthony Hopkins, Keanu Reeves, Richard E Grant.
Having just finished Bram Stoker's novel, I felt compelled to re-visit this version by Francis Ford Coppola. And it is not a wonder that the attempt to adapt this story onto the big screen has rarely been made, as I imagine it would prove to be rather challenging. Whilst I realise that comparing a movie to the book is in many ways pointless and cumbersome, I will make comparisons to some extent due to Mr Coppola's audacious usage of the author's name in the title.
Especially notable at the beginning of the film is the production. The atmosphere seemed to take on a very theatrical feel, as if I was watching a play. Just a personal preference, but I would have liked a grittier, darker tone used here. This emphasis on production also seemed to carry over into the characters. Choosing Keanu Reeves to play Jonathan Harker was not a great idea. He is American for a start, and is a big Hollywood actor (not a brilliant one at that). It would have been nicer to see an Englishmen, and maybe a lesser known one who was more suited to the part.
I was also a little disappointed with both Dr Van Helsing and Renfield. I like Anthony Hopkins, and felt that he wasn't a bad choice as Van Helsing, however the writing let his character down. Van Helsing comes across here as both vociferous and sarcastic. He was much more sincere in the book, which gave his character more depth. Likewise, the complexity of Renfield was completely lost in this adaption. I realise that transformation of a novel is difficult with this medium, but important aspects of his character were left out, such as his elegant rants and capricious behaviour. It was in these choices that much of the films depth was compromised. I did, however, like the choice of Richard E Grant as Dr Seward, but being a principal character in the novel, he deserved more screen time than was seen here.
Since most are familiar with the story, I won't summarise events other than to comment on the decision to turn this into a love story. By doing so, Coppola gave Dracula more depth, but also made him into a bit of a pussy, a man that we could sympathise with. I liked the cold hard blooded killer in the novel that was more the enigma. Also, the anguish and rage that consumed Jonathan was completely lost in this diversion. Again, just my opinion, but I would love to see a grittier version that is more faithful to the novel. I wonder what old Bram would think of this adaption?
On a brighter note, I did like the use of Gary Oldman as Dracula, and I thought Winona Ryder was fairly good as Mina. The costumes were suitable and the music wasn't too bad. Overall I felt that this was a reasonable attempt, but did not do justice to such a great story.
I would love to see this film re-done into the complex, raw, tortured darkness that is Dracula.
Two and a half bananas out of five.
| 37 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
