Dracula (1992) – 3/5

Hollywood gives Nosferatu the pompous treatment, not my preferred choice for this tale

Here we have „Dracula“ or the long version for this film would be „Bram Stoker’s Dracula“. The director is Francis Ford Coppola of course and almost everybody with an interest in movies remembers the Godfather films when hearing this name, but this one here is an example of how FFC has also delivered in very different departments and genres. The man in charge of the screenplay here is James V. Hart and he was not very experienced back in 1992 when he got picked to pen the story here. His work on „Hook“ one year earlier was his first „real“ writing credit. Quite a way to launch one’s career though to work with Spielberg and Coppola right away, even if admittedly he was over 40 already at that point. Bram Stoker is also credited here and this is no exception. According to his imdb page, he has over 100 credits so far, all thanks to Dracula of course and the oldest one happened already after the man’s death, so he had no idea when he died how popular his creation really would become. I already said this film is from 1992, so it means this has its 30th anniversary now, but this was not the reason why it was shown today on the big screen again on a unique occasion. Or at least it was not the primary reason. The real reason is an exhibition on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of Murnau’s Nosferatu movie and some movie theaters I go to here and there joined in and will show one vampire movie per week now. Strangely enough, the one I just mentioned, the one that triggered all this does not have a date or at least not yet. Anyway, I am really glad that they decided to show some older vampire films again at the movie theater and this will certainly not stay the only occasion for me to go and see them. This film here is slightly over two hours long and the cast includes some really famous names. The title character is played by Gary Oldman and the female protagonist is portrayed by Winona Ryder. Keanu Reeves plays a character you could mistake for a lead as well early on, but his screen time shrinks considerably. Anthony Hopkins is on board as well playing the (in)famous Van Helsing. There are others that movie-goers will recognize like Grant, Elwes, Waits, Frost (not only because of her marriage to Jude Law) and Bellucci.

To put things into perspective time-wise, let me say that Coppola made this after „The Godfather Part III“. Anthony Hopkins had just won his (first) Oscar for „The Silence of the Lambs“. Gary Oldman had just starred in JFK and two years later he would appear in Léon, but he was far from an icon in 1992. Ryder had just appeared in „Edward Scissorhands“ and was very much on the rise. How can you blame people for liking her? She was incredibly beautiful in here, one of the most stunning on-screen characters I have ever come across. Keanu Reeves was still many years away from the Matrix universe, but he had just acted in „Point Break“ and „My Own Private Idaho“. It was kinda funny and telling how some people from the audience last night reacted with an ooooh the first time he was seen on the screen because of how young he was here and how handsome too. On one occasion, another character suggests he should grow a beard and that was a bit funny as the beard is nowadays of course Reeves‘ trademark in the John Wick movies. But Gary Oldman himself was not too old (no pun intended) either when he appeared in this film here, still in his early or almost mid30s. You could think he is older when you see him early on dressed up as the ancient Dracula, several centuries old and does look the part honestly. But when you see the younger transformed version, you will see the real Oldman from back then. He reminded me a lot of Johnny Depp here honesty. For a moment, I even thought it was him. This film was a huge success with awards bodies. Who can be surprised with Coppola on board, even if this time all the love went to technical and visual categories at the Oscars. It took home three Academy Awards and scored another nomination. I mean the film also won many other awards, but the Academy really loved it more than anybody you can say. I am not sure if I would agree with the praise, but some technical aspects here are pretty good indeed.

A few days ago I watched Werner Herzog’s take on the Nosferatu tale and these two films could not be any more different. You will hardly find any parallels, even the stories vastly differ at their cores. Herzog’s was as bleak and slow as it gets with the title character being a severely suffering creature. Coppola’s take is very Hollywood with Oldman’s Dracula (also definitely the more Hollywood name then Nosferatu) and a very pompous film as a whole and here and there you will even smile, mostly when Anthony Hopkins says something funny on a few occasions. The Van Helsing character was also in Herzog’s film, but had hardly any screen time or impact, except at the very end. Hopkins is at times almost a lead actor here, but then again he is a really great performer and I am glad they did not waste him. The for me funniest moment, however, was a little play on words when Dracula calls Harker here something along the lines of „a man with great taste“. I think maybe it was a different adjective, I am not entirely sure, but you get the message and what’s so funny about it. I also liked when Dracula said early on that he does not drink wine and he hesitated briefly before saying the word „wine“ and you could think of the connection between red liquids in this context. Anyway, this was all from this film here of course and I could write an entire essay or review and compare Coppola’s film with Herzog’s, but this is not what all this should be about, so I will leave it at that. I also cannot really compare the film here to the base material because I have not read that and it has also been too long since I watched the old silent film to compare that one to this version from 70 years later.

Let me just say that I was entertained by this one here, but really won over I was not. The one key problem for me here was that even if the make-up and all were great, this is not a film that will scare you one bit and this is never really a good thing for a vampire movie. I mean I don’t expect cheap jump scares or anything, but a Dracula film has to be at least a bit scary. Of course, Oldman’s Dracula is a character that you do not wanna run into ever, that much is safe, but yeah it almost felt more of a mix between fantasy film and period piece as a whole and I think that given the cast Coppola had at his disposal, this should have turned into a more memorable work. I think that, judging from the rating, many people who saw this film would not disagree. Same is true for the critics. The ending was a bit disappointing for me even. I mean there we had some action stuff, explosions, fight sequences etc. But it all felt rather empty, so the film surely did not end on a high note. Interesting though that here it is Mina who takes over as the vampire in charge while with Herzog’s film it was Jonathan. Key difference. The character of Renfield deserves a mention too. I like Tom Waits, but in terms of the insanity and all I clearly have to give the edge again to the Herzog film that I probably prefer overall. There, this locked-in character was really, really crazy in the ways he followed Dracula. Okay, I am comparing the films again although I said I wouldn’t. Sorry. So yeah, this one here, just like I stated, the ending did not impress me at all unfortunately. I don’t mind it being a somewhat unhappy ending, that is totally fine, but the way how they led us there I am not too big on. Actually, the final twist with Ryder’s character returning to what is now her castle felt fine. The closing credits did feel a bit abrupt though, but it was a long enough movie, so nothing truly to complain there.

The eroticism element was very present here in Coppola’s version. I kinda feel Herzog must have hated this movie haha so not his vision. Anyway I am of course talking about Ryder’s character’s scenes with the male protagonists (even Hopkins) and even if we see nothing graphic from her, it is very sensual some occasions of kissing mostly and sex too, even if there is nothing remotely explicit. The bigger deal of nudity comes from Sadie Frost who is seen topless. And then there are these unholy female characters who were supposed to keep Harker back at Dracula’s castle. Maybe „sensual“ is not the right word there, but surely there is a sexual component to these scenes there, especially when the three approach Harker for the first time and Dracula shows up immediately afterwards and is not happy about it. One thing that surprised me a bit here was the transformation from Oldman’s title character into something that reminded me of a werewolf at first, but I guess the exact animal component was just secondary there. What we were supposed to take from this scene was Nosferatu’s ability to change his shape into a wild creature of the night and also command these creatures. And of course the biting aspect, this was the really first inclusion thereof because Dracula did not bite Harker back at his castle. He went for Mina’s rich friend. As for Van Helsing, I do not know too much about the character in general, but I was surprised to see how he from being just a normal doctor basically turns into a character who is a true expert when it comes to the subject of hunting vampires. I am not entirely sure if this surprised me in a positive or negative way. Hopkins makes everything work though, so it is alright and this time we see him as the doctor hunting the evil creature. Switched roles and with this I mean of course a reference to the film I mentioned earlier that won him the Oscar. All in all, this film here was an okay watch and I was always sure that I would give it a thumbs-up, but I must add that, especially with things going a little more south at the end too, I am not enthusiastic about the outcome. Still see it.