Fire at Will!'s Review

Male Stars - Good 3.0

Reeves and Grant could be said to also be the stars here, but as no-one gets as much screentime as Oldman does, he is to my mind the main male star, and his performance is brilliant, if camp. He has the rare ability to become a totally different person in any role, with any performance, and you really forget that it's Lt. Stansfield/Sirius Black/James Gordon hamming it up as Count Dracula. As said before, Oldman is failed by the rest of the cast and the fact that Coppola had decided not to adapt the story as it was, but to create an erotic thriller with the legend of Dracula thrown in.

Female Stars - Bad 1.0

Winona Ryder is one of two women featured in the film, and as such should probably be considered the female "star". Though her performance suggests the name is a little undeserved! Unlike Keira Knightley has managed to achieve, Ryder can't be taken seriously in period dramas, and her accent is terrible. Her and Reeves, in this film at least, are a match for each other in their staid performances, when they should be leading the film and making you care for them; something that never happened for this reviewer.

Female Costars - Barely OK 2.0

Sadie Frost (yup, Jude Law's ex) plays Lucy Westenra, who succumbs to Dracula's charms. And despite this being quite a good acting performance, she doesn't have much to do, and disappeared from films after making this one. It's a shame, as she plays Lucy as the fun-loving, man-chasing woman that she is made out to be in the book, but Coppola makes her a whore, and it's a shame to see that a good performance is lost through a bad adaptation.

Male Costars - Barely OK 2.0

Keanu Reeves, Richard E. Grant, Anthony Hopkins, Cary Elwes and even Tom Waits are the more than awesome support for Gary Oldman. But as no-one but Reeves and Hopkins are given much time on-screen, it can be seen as a real waste of talent. Reeves is terrible at convincing us that he's English, and like Ryder, it's a shame they've been taken out of their comfort zone and forced to play totally different characters to any they have before. Hopkins is just ridiculous as Van Helsing, the man who just might be able to solve the mystery surrounding Dracula, and his over-the top performance means that Grant and Waits, who both play interesting and detailed characters, are in mere short scenes that only hint at what could have been.

Direction - Pretty Bad 1.5

Coppola had a turbulent time leading up to this film and after "Apocalypse Now", going bankrupt. This film was likely not cheap, and some of the visuals (epic castle sets, a recreated 18th century London) certainly reflect that. But whilst focusing on this, and on the new, erotic bent to the story, Coppola loses what makes the original book so good; its characters, and the ambiguity of the Count. Throwing it all out for the audience to see takes away the menace and power of Stoker's narrative.

Dialogue - Barely OK 2.0

Most of what Oldman says is in some sort of awful, Romanian accent that can't actually be understood, and that takes away from his performance somewhat. However, the parts of the film that adhere to the book's epistolary structure (ie. when letters and diaries convey plot to the reader) are that much more dramatic because they're taken from the book wholesale; in short, Coppola does best when he ACTUALLY adapts from the book.

Music - OK 2.5

Disturbing, grim and heavy; just as it should be in a film like this, about such a figure. Tragedy and horror aplenty is conveyed through the soundtrack, and this is one of the better parts of the film. Shame about that Annie Lennox song in the credits though!

Visuals - Great 4.0

This is where Coppola strikes gold; just as with the horse's head in "Godfather" and with the 'Ride of the Valkyries' scene in "Apocalypse Now", the director provides some visuals that stick in the mind. Whether it is the shadow of the wizened count having a life of its own in the castle, or the heroes' discovery of the Count's first victim, and their meeting, Coppola manages somehow to make it both memorable and disturbing. It's a shame that in his quest for this, he has neglected the story, as the film could have been much, much better if he had got a balance.

Sex Erotic 3.2

Violence Brutal 2.9

Rudeness Polite 1.0

Circumstantial - Fantasy 5.0

Biological - Fantasy 5.0

Physical - Fantasy 5.0