← Back to Reviews
in
Dracula, 1992
Dracula (Gary Oldman) is a warrior who returns home to find that his beloved wife is dead. Renouncing the church, he vows to live forever, even if it is a damned existence. Years later, Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves) is sent to Transylvania to complete some real estate transactions. This sets off a series of events in which Dracula comes to England and preys on Mina (Winona Ryder), Harker's fiance and also possibly the reincarnation of Dracula's dead wife. Mina's salvation may lie in the expertise of Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins), a man whose scientific mind and faith intertwine in his practice.
So . . . . uf.
Here's the thing: I somewhat recently read and quite enjoyed Stoker's novel. The thing that really caught me up with this film was the fact that they changed almost all of my favorite parts of the novel. This made it hard to appreciate what the film was trying to do with its interpretation of the story.
Annoyingly, I quite like almost all of the actors in this film. That even extends to Richard E Grant and Tom Waits in their supporting roles. But the gap between the characters in the novel and the interpretation in this film was just a bit too hard for me to reconcile. For example, the Van Helsing in the novel is a determined, but very gentle and compassionate man. While he doesn't exactly run around slinging one-liners, the idea that Van Helsing would glibly talk about cutting of a woman's head (repeating this idea to both the woman's fiance and her best friend) just felt wrong. His first meeting with Mina--in which he grabs her and pushes her body against his to dance with her--was straight up creepy and weird.
I also really disliked the revised take on Mina's character. In the novel, Mina is part of the team. She is logical and patient, and she bravely puts herself in danger to protect her husband and to help destroy Dracula. But here, she just slowly falls under Dracula's horny spell. Ryder is good in her role, but I straight up just hated this interpretation.
Now, setting aside my dislike for the ways that the novel was changed, I still took issue with several aspects of the film itself. The editing and flow was just . . . bad. The novel is epistolary for the most part, with letters serving as the main narration punctuated with a handful of diary entries. The film sort of keeps this conceit, but it's so choppy and randomly applied that it detracts from the film. For example, the movie is rolling along when suddenly Van Helsing introduces himself in a voice-over. Why? There are multiple storylines being juggled at once, and instead of adding energy, the movement between them just feels disorienting and (again) random. Many of these storylines never cohere in a satisfying way, especially Renfield's.
The visuals and costuming were probably what I liked most about the film. There's a deliberate excess to it all that I found really charming, such as Lucy laying in her room and a virtual explosion of blood erupting on both sides of her bed. I enjoyed Lucy's absurd, bridal burial outfit. Some of the effects were fun, such as Dracula's man-bat form.
Ultimately, though, the film's sex-crazed take on the story just didn't work for me. Around the fourth scene with Lucy suffering from that old ailment Perpetual-Orgasm-With-One-Boob-Out, I was just kind of over it. I didn't find anything particularly compelling about the attempted eroticism. Sex and death is a classic combo, but I didn't feel that the film was actually saying anything about it. And a lot of that is probably down to the lack of character development. For example, if we get a better sense of Lucy's relationship with her fiance, it adds some tension to her fatalistic sexual entrapment. Despite the 2 hour plus runtime, only Dracula himself gets any depth.
Not sorry I watched it or anything, but definitely not an enjoyable interpretation of the story.
Dracula, 1992
Dracula (Gary Oldman) is a warrior who returns home to find that his beloved wife is dead. Renouncing the church, he vows to live forever, even if it is a damned existence. Years later, Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves) is sent to Transylvania to complete some real estate transactions. This sets off a series of events in which Dracula comes to England and preys on Mina (Winona Ryder), Harker's fiance and also possibly the reincarnation of Dracula's dead wife. Mina's salvation may lie in the expertise of Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins), a man whose scientific mind and faith intertwine in his practice.
So . . . . uf.
Here's the thing: I somewhat recently read and quite enjoyed Stoker's novel. The thing that really caught me up with this film was the fact that they changed almost all of my favorite parts of the novel. This made it hard to appreciate what the film was trying to do with its interpretation of the story.
Annoyingly, I quite like almost all of the actors in this film. That even extends to Richard E Grant and Tom Waits in their supporting roles. But the gap between the characters in the novel and the interpretation in this film was just a bit too hard for me to reconcile. For example, the Van Helsing in the novel is a determined, but very gentle and compassionate man. While he doesn't exactly run around slinging one-liners, the idea that Van Helsing would glibly talk about cutting of a woman's head (repeating this idea to both the woman's fiance and her best friend) just felt wrong. His first meeting with Mina--in which he grabs her and pushes her body against his to dance with her--was straight up creepy and weird.
I also really disliked the revised take on Mina's character. In the novel, Mina is part of the team. She is logical and patient, and she bravely puts herself in danger to protect her husband and to help destroy Dracula. But here, she just slowly falls under Dracula's horny spell. Ryder is good in her role, but I straight up just hated this interpretation.
Now, setting aside my dislike for the ways that the novel was changed, I still took issue with several aspects of the film itself. The editing and flow was just . . . bad. The novel is epistolary for the most part, with letters serving as the main narration punctuated with a handful of diary entries. The film sort of keeps this conceit, but it's so choppy and randomly applied that it detracts from the film. For example, the movie is rolling along when suddenly Van Helsing introduces himself in a voice-over. Why? There are multiple storylines being juggled at once, and instead of adding energy, the movement between them just feels disorienting and (again) random. Many of these storylines never cohere in a satisfying way, especially Renfield's.
The visuals and costuming were probably what I liked most about the film. There's a deliberate excess to it all that I found really charming, such as Lucy laying in her room and a virtual explosion of blood erupting on both sides of her bed. I enjoyed Lucy's absurd, bridal burial outfit. Some of the effects were fun, such as Dracula's man-bat form.
Ultimately, though, the film's sex-crazed take on the story just didn't work for me. Around the fourth scene with Lucy suffering from that old ailment Perpetual-Orgasm-With-One-Boob-Out, I was just kind of over it. I didn't find anything particularly compelling about the attempted eroticism. Sex and death is a classic combo, but I didn't feel that the film was actually saying anything about it. And a lot of that is probably down to the lack of character development. For example, if we get a better sense of Lucy's relationship with her fiance, it adds some tension to her fatalistic sexual entrapment. Despite the 2 hour plus runtime, only Dracula himself gets any depth.
Not sorry I watched it or anything, but definitely not an enjoyable interpretation of the story.