Dracula (1992) ****1/2
Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula (1992) is larger than life, gothic as all get out, and melodramatic to the core. But how else do you properly tell the tale of a noble who, returning from gruesome battle, renounces God because he lost his wife to treachery and thus became the most powerful vampire known to man? Coppola's largely faithful adaptation of Stoker's 1897 novel (which turned 125 years old earlier this year!) is one of my favorite films and #2 on my Top 10 Horror Films (1990–Current) list.
Coppola's Dracula goes for the gusto in an incredibly artsy way. Every second of every shot is carefully framed—the cinematography by Michael Ballhaus (GoodFellas (1990) (review)) is sumptuous. The editing is dazzling, at times frenetic. The budget shows in the jaw-dropping production design by Thomas E. Sanders and the gorgeous, bold (and often too little glimpsed) costumes by Eiko Ishioka. Not to mention the transformative makeup, the beautiful and varied score by Wojciech Kilar, and the immersive, visceral sound design. The visual effects, directed by Coppola's son Roman, are worth mentioning in particular. FFC insisted that they be created on-set and in-camera, utilizing methods from the early history of cinema, rather than using any contemporary CGI. This was a wise choice—Dracula feels like no other film made in 1992 (or since, really). Every aspect of the production was crafted with pure love and technique of the highest order.
Then we have the cast. Gary Oldman absolutely owns the title role, infusing every moment that he is on screen with electric energy. I've seen a few Dracula films, and there are plenty that I've yet to see, but he is my favorite screen embodiment of the character. Wynona Ryder is perhaps less impressive, but what she gives to the role of Mina works very well. Anthony Hopkins' unhinged performance as Van Helsing is gleefully fun and quotable. You can't go wrong with Tom Waits as Renfield either, even if it's a small role. Much has been said about Keanu Reeves' unfortunate miscasting as Jonathan Harker and his terrible accent—I won't argue. He is the weak link in this film and one of the slim few reasons I don't give it a perfect score.
I’ve found that Bram Stoker's Dracula is a "desperately love it/will defend it to death" or "loathe it/dislike it greatly" kind of film with very little in between. For me, it just clicks, for so many reasons. I love it. It's pure cinema.
Coppola's Dracula goes for the gusto in an incredibly artsy way. Every second of every shot is carefully framed—the cinematography by Michael Ballhaus (GoodFellas (1990) (review)) is sumptuous. The editing is dazzling, at times frenetic. The budget shows in the jaw-dropping production design by Thomas E. Sanders and the gorgeous, bold (and often too little glimpsed) costumes by Eiko Ishioka. Not to mention the transformative makeup, the beautiful and varied score by Wojciech Kilar, and the immersive, visceral sound design. The visual effects, directed by Coppola's son Roman, are worth mentioning in particular. FFC insisted that they be created on-set and in-camera, utilizing methods from the early history of cinema, rather than using any contemporary CGI. This was a wise choice—Dracula feels like no other film made in 1992 (or since, really). Every aspect of the production was crafted with pure love and technique of the highest order.
Then we have the cast. Gary Oldman absolutely owns the title role, infusing every moment that he is on screen with electric energy. I've seen a few Dracula films, and there are plenty that I've yet to see, but he is my favorite screen embodiment of the character. Wynona Ryder is perhaps less impressive, but what she gives to the role of Mina works very well. Anthony Hopkins' unhinged performance as Van Helsing is gleefully fun and quotable. You can't go wrong with Tom Waits as Renfield either, even if it's a small role. Much has been said about Keanu Reeves' unfortunate miscasting as Jonathan Harker and his terrible accent—I won't argue. He is the weak link in this film and one of the slim few reasons I don't give it a perfect score.
I’ve found that Bram Stoker's Dracula is a "desperately love it/will defend it to death" or "loathe it/dislike it greatly" kind of film with very little in between. For me, it just clicks, for so many reasons. I love it. It's pure cinema.
Comments
Post a Comment