The tyranist's thoughts
I fell deeply in love with this movie the first time I saw it. Subsequently the love affair has waned a little, but there is still no denying the draw. This movie was one of the first really artistic horror movies to be made. In fact outside of some of Dario Argento's stuff I don't think anyone was even close until Sleepy Hollow in 1999. And even then Argento's stuff was artistic in a different way. Dracula was the first entirely visually stunning horror movie.
I have also always liked the angle. Now, once again I have to admit that I have not read the original novel, and this departs from some of the other adaptations of the same novel in some interesting ways. As I am sure you will note from the tagline, "Love never dies," this is played as a tragic romance instead of a blood-sucking horror picture. In some ways it works incredibly well, in others, I would like to see the blood-sucking again. Really a romance between that silly looking Count (played well in spite of the silly look they gave him by Gary Oldman) and the ravishing Winona Ryder wouldn't work in a normal picture.
There is one big visual thing that detracts from the picture for me. When we do finally see the Dracula in his most bestial half-bat, half-man form, it really isn't that well-implemented and not scary at all. He was scarier just as the young Dracula than as that beast. Outside of the couple of scenes involving that beast, the movie is visually perfect even if it doesn't achieve what it could storywise. I find the ending a little confusing, not that I didn't understand it but that it deliberately obscured a few things and focused on something that didn't seem to be the major focus of a lot of the picture. Okay, after re-reading that sentence and thinking a little, I am wrong. It was the major focus of the picture, it wasn't the focus that I thought they should have.
Still, you should see this one. It is an outstanding example of cinematic horror and a pretty good horror movie to boot.
Posted: April 21st, 2000

Rish's Reviews
About a decade ago, I started to watch this movie. Unfortunately, I fell asleep only a few minutes into the film. After that, I decried the movie as being enormously dull, and never saw it again. Until now. I finally gave the flick another rent, having seen innumerable "Dracula" adaptations over the last ten years, and having read the awesome novel by Bram Stoker, and was able to appreciate it much more. Until I fell asleep two hours into it. Sorry.
Actually, I was able to finish it just now, and I was very impressed by the film. It was a big hit on its release in 1992 and went on to win three of its four Oscar categories (and deservedly so). They also say that it saved poor Francis Ford Coppola's beleaguered American Zoetrope studio from bankruptcy.
Wynona Ryder has never been lovelier. I was impressed by her performance here, as well as Oldman's (who manages to create a multi-layered character despite multiple layers of old age and/or monster makeup). But Hopkins seems to have been bored with his character, so he decided to make Abraham Van Helsing as eccentric and loony as possible. As for the rest of the cast, I thought Sadie Frost was good, and Keanu Reeves . . . well, he does try to do an English accent in his first scene. Oh, and Monica Bellucci appears briefly, in a scene that had been watched and rewatched so many times the tape was damaged (did anybody see the Fox television version where they digitally added clothing to Dracula's brides? Also, are they not his brides in this film, as he states that he had a wife long, long, long ago, but she is gone? I guess if you're picking up on a new woman, you don't mention the three women you've still got at home).
I honestly could have done without the silly, overdramatic and done-to-death reincarnated romance aspect of the film (some even go as far as to call the movie a love story rather than a horror film), but that element's fairly well done too. I just enjoyed the novel SO much, and since this one touts itself as "Bram Stoker's" version, I wish it had been 100% faithful, instead of only 75%.
While I agree with everything tyranist said above (though I don't like the Mina/Count love story), and also think Dracula was a little too odd-looking throughout most of the film, I thought the reptilian/bat/human Dracula was amazing, and one of the coolest movie monsters in a long time. The film has a huge scope, great effects, and magnificent set design. It's a fascinating look at a familiar story and character, and attempts to breathe new life into the tale and the vampire mythos. Who can forget the disturbing image of the Count crawling up his castle wall? Or the creepy independently-moving shadows? Or the moments when characters seem to float rather than walk?
The film is quite long (although I understand that the version I saw is slightly extended from the one everyone else knows) and perhaps a bit of its dullness is an effort on the filmmakers' part to remain faithful to the novel and the period setting.
It's visually astounding, with awesome colours, backdrops, special effects, and setpieces. It's certainly one of the most beautiful horror films Hollywood has ever attempted (right up there with Burton's Sleepy Hollow), and for that alone, it's recommended.
Line To Remember: I still recall with affection the Van Helsing line from the trailer: "She is the devil's concubine!"
Note: While there was a sequel on the boards for years and years, when it was finally made in 2004, it was so different from its original incarnation that nobody even recognises it as a sequel. So we won't, either.
Posted: October 25, 2005