Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992) Review

Tagline: Love Never Dies

Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992) Review

 

The character of Count Dracula has been featured in over 200 films, but very few of them have remained classics in the horror genre. Lately, there haven’t been many truly great ones, and the 1897 novel, despite being the source material for all these interpretations, has often been disregarded for the adaptations. I would say the last truly great cinematic take on the story would be Francis Ford Coppola’s—which, appropriately enough, bears the title distinction of being Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Even though it still strays far from the source material at times, it actually stands out as being among the most faithful film adaptations of the novel to date.

You probably know the general story of Dracula by now, but this version takes a look at the origins of The Count, with an epic opening featuring Vlad the Impaler—the real-life inspiration for the fictional character—and right away we’re treated to the great cinematography and striking visual style. One thing I don’t think anyone can deny is how good this movie looks. There are numerous shots that are memorable and unique, such as Dracula’s eyes superimposed on the sky, or his shadow moving independent of his body in the background, but when it comes to the writing and the acting, it’s a bit of a mixed bag.

The story doesn’t have a great flow. It feels like chunks of different stories compiled together, and to be fair, that’s kind of what the source material is like, but it meanders from being a twisted love story to a spooky old-school thriller to trying to be almost Kubrickian with slow, artful moments or blood shooting up from the walls a la The Shining. Most of the cast does a pretty good job, but Keanu Reeves struggles with his British accent, and stands out like a sore thumb. Anthony Hopkins is great in everything, and his portrayal of Van Helsing might be my favourite. He adds gravitas, as always, but also some levity. He says he wants to help save Lucy…but he can’t do it on an empty stomach, so asks to be fed first.

Of course, I have to talk about Dracula himself. I love that he has so many different looks throughout the movie. Instead of just being a creepy old man in a cape and turning into a bat dangling on a piece of fishing line once in a while, he appears as both an old and young man, plus a werewolf and a massive bat monster, the special effects for both of which are top notch. The bat monster form was copied later on in the 2005 Van Helsing film, but unfortunately, the most famous (or infamous) form of this Dracula is the old-age makeup version with a beehive hairdo and a red cape that’s ridiculously long. It isn’t the best look for such an intimidating villain, but luckily he only appears this way for a relatively small portion of the film. Gary Oldman is a fantastic actor, and he makes the role his own while still paying tribute to those who played the character in the past.

Even though I used the phrase “mixed bag” in this review, I still have to say this version of Dracula is quite impressive, and definitely worth checking out if you haven’t already done so. I think the main thing to be aware of going into it, though, is that this isn’t really like most of the typical horror-fueled Dracula films that have been made. It’s a grandiose tale full of visual tricks, operatic acting, and unique takes on the classic story.