Official Synopsis
A Transylvanian prince (Gary Oldman) who travels from Eastern Europe to 19th century London in search of human love. After centuries alone in his crumbling castle, Draculas taste for humanity has grown bold with desire, drawing him out of seclusion. When the charismatic Dracula meets Mina (Winona Ryder), a young woman who appears as the reincarnation of his lost love, the two embark on a journey of romantic passion and horror.
While critically this was panned when it first arrived in theaters, and rightfully so for a few reasons, Francis Ford Coppola’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula had some very bright spots that might have been overlooked.
First, let’s discuss the story.
{media load=media,id=3664,width=720,align=center,display=inline}
The story itself was sorta/kinda true to the book, although there were some jump gaps here and there, which might have created some initial confusion with the story. The main plot point is that Dracula (Gary Oldman) is forever damned by God for denouncing him after the death of his long lost love, Elisabeta (Winona Ryder). Grieving and immortal in a blood hungry body, he meets his long lost love again through Mina Murray (also, Winona Ryder) hundreds of years down the road and must find a way to bring her back to him. That much of the story was pretty darn clear. The motivation for Dracula was on point where it should be and it was sickly endearing.
Things get shaky with the story due to the lack of true development with secondary characters. For instance, we don’t get too much of Mina’s husband, Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves), to feel comfortable with his purpose. He acts as merely the catalyst to Mina and Dracula’s connection, as he fatefully takes a trip to Transylvania to complete a land deal with Dracula and ends up revealing Mina to Dracula (via a picture), but really nothing more than that in the movie. I won’t spoil what happens to him, but just know when he shows back up later in the film he still isn’t defined or developed.
Lucy (Sadie Frost) is also another casualty in the ‘not developed enough’ issue. She is the first victim of Dracula, but we don’t know anything about her other than she is Mina’s friend. She serves no purpose other than acting as another bridge to Mina, which is sad considering there was enough beef behind her written character to make her significant and interesting. The same goes for the slew of gentlemen callers that play her protector and eventually murderers, as well as the doctor trying to help her named Dr. Jack Seward (Richard E. Grant). Coppola treats this characters as if he has to include them, but doesn’t really want to include them and because of that they actually interrupt the flow of the main plot point. Secondary characters are supposed to push the story along, not stop/start it, which, again, interrupts the flow.
Wrapping up the story, the one bright, entertaining spot in the troop of secondaries is Professor Abraham Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins), who does a marvelous job of pulling off the Van Helsing character, but seemingly just pops into the story out of nowhere. When he does pop in, he thankfully starts defining his role pretty quickly and is necessary when leading up to the film’s conclusion. I think the credit for making the development of Van Helsing work should go to Hopkins because I’m not sure the role would have worked as well without his acting ability. In fact, I’m certain it would not have worked well at all. Alas, he still interrupts the flow to introduce himself, but out of the bunch gets in the flow of the film quite quickly.
Another problem with Dracula, and this might be the biggest issue of the bunch, is the woefully miscast roles of the characters. I love Winona Ryder in some movies (Beetlejuice, Heathers and various 90s films), but she just didn’t sell or bind with Mina at all. The same goes for Reeves, who can act beautifully in films (see John Wick for details), but just didn’t fit the bill of Jonathan Harker. Miscasting the roles creates a terrible imbalance in delivery. For example, towards the end of the film there is a scene between Mina and Dracula, which was completely one-sided. Gary Oldman just absolutely fell and landed into his role as the dark prince, while Ryder brought it down because she just didn’t nail Mina. A lot of scenes, not just with Ryder/Oldman, went like this between characters. A lot of the actors seemed to feel less than comfortable with their respective roles.
With all the negative out of the way, the movie is still a treat to watch for costume design, cinematography (breathtaking/gorgeous) and pace (when it gets going). I don’t love this film, but I could watch this film on any given Saturday, which says a lot about the longevity of it. On the technical side of things all the pieces were there, but the story and acting just fell short to make this a complete package. Watching it again after 20 years has made me realize the better things about it, but also reminded me that it could have been so much more than it was.
As for the 4K remastering and Blu-ray transfer, it’s done well and looks solid. Sony Pictures did a great job with the HD transfer and treated this unusual classic impressively. You won’t find any issues with graininess, artifacts or any signs of color banding. Those with 4K televisions and appropriate audio receivers will probably see the best benefits from the transfer. Regardless, solid job.
On the special features side of things it’s mostly rehashing of old DVD features with a few new items included. It certainly provides some nice perspectives of Dracula after so many years since the release. Anyway, here is the list of what’s included:
– New interviews with director Francis Ford Coppola and Roman Coppola
– Reflections in Blood: Francis Ford Coppola and Bram Stoker’s Dracula
– Practical Magicians: A Collaboration Between Father and Son
– Rare 1993 Commentary with Francis Ford Coppola, Roman Coppola and Greg Cannom
– Deleted Scenes
– Audio Commentary & Film Introduction by Director Francis Ford Coppola
– 4 Legacy Featurettes
Anyway, onto the summary!
