The horror film for today is a pretty famous one: Bram Stoker's Dracula starring Gary Oldman as the Count, Winona Ryder as Mina Harker, and surprisingly enough Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker. Finally, there is Anthony Hopkins as Van Helsing.
I have heard about this movie my whole life, but hadn't seen it until yesterday. I have heard that it's slow, boring, shitty, quick, exciting, and awesome.How was it?
Well...
I thought it was really well done!
Having read the novel in Junior High (if you haven't read it, you really should) I can't remember all of the details of the novel, but I can say that what I do remember was portrayed rather acuretly (especially the scene of Jonathan shaving and Dracula coming up behind it). The only thing that was changed drastically was the sometimes excessive amounts of sexual material in the film. The film really strays away from the novel towards the last half, but i thought the way they changed everything was unique and gave the film it's own identity.
I loved the effects (all practical, by the way) and I especially loved how Dracula's shadow was it's own character, moving independently of it's host. The effects of Dracula's wolf and bat forms were interesting ways to convey his transformative powers. Rather than being a normal animal form, he was a monstrous hybrid fusing the respective beast with Gary Oldman's distinct features.
But how does it fair against the other Dracula films?
Trying to compare this film to them is extremely difficult, because it really doesn't try to be like any other Dracula movie. Whereas the Bela Lugosi one is a classic, and the Christopher Lee's take the original to another level, this one throws it's own unique spin on it but still being recognizable as a Dracula film. Gary Oldman was a fantastic Dracula, that didn't feel like a parody of other actor's performances.
Overall thoughts: A film that stands apart from other incarnations, and succeeds. Definitley worth a look if you can get a chance.
8.5/10
