
Love Bites. Suck It Up.
Bram Stoker's Dracula / Agent Bedhead
On Friday, November 13, 1992, a little film called Bram Stoker’s Dracula opened, and as I recall, that evening presented the only “packed house” that I’ve ever attended. At the time, director Francis Ford Coppola was coming down from The Godfather trilogy and, having exhausted the financial resources needed to maintain comfort in genre films, he set out to razzle-dazzle a mainstream audience. Coppola’s goal was to seduce the largest demographic possible, and he chose to refashion the Dracula legend, which had already seen several incarnations, based on the 1927 stage adaptation, on television and theater screens. Not surprisingly, Coppola decided to do things differently by extracting his Dracula from the 1897 novel by Bram Stoker, who reportedly created the story from a series of his own nightmares. The screenplay, written by James V. Hart, reflects a dreamscape that is at once full of gloss and goriness, along with clashing visuals and concepts that, interpreted by Coppola, are lovely to look at but leave little lasting impact. Bram Stoker’s Dracula found much acceptance from Hollywood and was rewarded with three Oscars in 1993 for Best Sound Effects Editing, Best Costume Design, and Best Makeup. With all of this lofty grandeur, one would think that fine acting would necessarily run throughout the film itself, but apparently, Coppola was so busy managing all the visual hoo-ha and inserting random boob shots that he forgot to pay attention to the performances. This omission is perhaps best illustrated during the precredit sequence when (not-yet-Dracula) Vlad The Impaler (Gary Oldman) returns from battle and drops to his knees next to his very dead wife, Elizabeta (Winona Ryder), who visibly flinches. Oh wait, that can’t possibly be correct — lemme check ; nope, no Oscars were given to any of the actors or actresses in the film.
Bram Stoker’s Dracula, which got the Collector’s Edition release on DVD last week, is a mammoth Hollywood epic; everything done is also overdone. So, we have multiple narrations and unanswered questions that litter the film like the corpses of Dracula’s victims. Fortunately, the frenetic pace of the film doesn’t allow for dwelling upon these points, for Coppola just asks us to blindly accept what he presents and follow him to the next scene. This terminal velocity, despite its gore and sexual explicitness, prevents Bram Stoker’s Dracula from truly falling within the horror genre, for Coppola never allows the notion of suspense to clutter his already full frames. Instead, the film encompasses the hybrid epic gothic-romance spawned with the tagline, “Love Never Dies.” It’s a kinder, gentler version of the Dracula, and this deviation was significant in that it humanized the story’s blood-sucking, murderous villain. And while Coppola sticks to the basic plotline of the Stoker novel, the motivations of Dracula’s evil doings do not make the trip from the source material. Instead of committing evil for sheer hell of it, Dracula now does evil deeds to nurture his broken heart, which I guess is something that mainstream audiences can identify with.
The dizzying chronology of the entire film is far too expansive to detail in such a small space, but the basic plot is easily digestible. Before the opening credits roll and Bram Stoker’s story kicks in, Hart’s screenplay provides an opening sequence set in 1462 amidst historical inaccuracies but grounded in folklore. A knight in the order of the Dragon, Vlad Dracula, sets off to defend Christianity against the Turks. When he triumphantly returns and undoubtedly wants to sex the wife up, Vlad finds that his wife has killed herself after receiving a false message of his death. When Vlad learns that Elisabeta, as a suicide, cannot have a Christian burial, he goes batshit crazy (in a very literal sense). So Vlad The Impaler gets all down with his bad self, curses God (and himself), and stabs the sacred cross, which, naturally, begins to bleed. He vows to return from the grave to avenge her death, and thus, the first vampire is born from both rebellion against dogmatic religion and unwavering love. It’s never clear just how or why Dracula’s vampirism results from this outrage, but causality isn’t as important to Coppola as style. Somehow, these actions simply transform Vlad into Dracula, and we are at the mercy of Coppola to explain the reasons why, which he chooses not to do.
After the opening credits, the film advances to 1897, and we find that Count Dracula is a swinging single living in Transylvania but interested in buying up real estate in London. A young attorney, Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves), shows up in Transylvania to assist Dracula’s real estate transactions, and we see that the last attorney on this job, Renfield (Tom Waits), inexplicably returned in a most insane condition. Despite a series of odd happenings, Harker resolves to hold on to his sanity, but when Dracula catches a glimpse of Harker’s fiancĂ©, Mina (Winona Ryder), the Count tearfully recognizes her as his reincarnated wife. After leaving Harker in the seductive, blood-draining clutches of the Brides of Dracula (including a half-naked Monica Bellucci), Dracula travels to Victorian London to reclaim his long-lost love. Meanwhile, Mina has been keeping company with her best friend, Lucy (Sadie Frost), whose largest obstacle seems to be choosing which of her three fabulously wealthy suitors to marry. When Dracula arrives, he is distracted, hungry, and in wolf’s clothing, and so he feeds upon a sleepwalking Lucy while simultaneously fucking her in a garden. The frenzied sexuality of this particular incarnation of Dracula not only supports Coppola’s preference for climaxes over coherence, but shows how far he strays from the source material.
Soon, Lucy begins to “wolf out” and the local doctor calls in Professor Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins), who administers all sorts of funky blood transfusions while Dracula transforms himself into his younger self and courts Mina. Contrasting scenes of goriness continue while Dracula flamboyantly prances around and convinces Mina to remember her past life before his inevitable showdown with the vampire-sniffing Van Helsing.
Bram Stoker’s Dracula is an entertaining film, so long as one doesn’t require conclusive meaning along with their vampire epics. The players manage to look pretty without providing much substance. One exception is Gary Oldman’s transformations within the Dracula character, who repeatedly morphs from young lover to creepy, decrepit vampire to wolf to demon. Throughout all of these aliases, Oldman infuses Dracula with a mournful, yearning spirit. Sadie Frost is also quite endearing as the 19th century tart, and Anthony Hopkins does well enough as the eccentric Van Helsing. Keanu Reeves is, of course, awful as Jonathan Harker, but Coppola probably hired him for box-office draw of teenage admirers rather than his mad thespian skills. Hell, at one point, Keanu utters the words, “I have offended you with my ignorance, and I am sorry.” After 15 years, I just might find it in my little black heart to forgive him.
Agent Bedhead (a.k.a. “Kimberly”) lives in Tulsa, Oklahoma. She can be found “wolfing it” at agentbedhead.com.
Whiskey Baby Ninja Star T-Shirts on Sale
Pajiba and Miri Make a Porno |
| Real Time Reviewing Your Favorite Show
|
Comments
Say what you will, I love this movie. it appealed to my broken little gothy-heart when I first saw it, and I still adore it. Visually gorgeous, with a great performance by Oldman, even with Keanu bumbling about and a few plot holes big enough to drive trucks through, I can't quite shake the charm. (I have found, however, that my boyfriends would mostly sit through it for bug-eating Tom Waits and the surety of getting some action after. Maybe you had to be a teenaged girl.)
Posted by: kiku at October 9, 2007 12:41 PM
I too, love this movie and have watched it a million times. The scene in which Gary Oldman licks the blood off the razor makes me tingle...in a good way.
Posted by: Pudenda at October 9, 2007 1:00 PM
It's been a very long time since I've seen this, but I remember it being the kind of movie where I talked back at it in disgust with comments like "oh my god, she's so annoying!" or "I liked Keanu better in the Bill and Ted movies" or even "wow, I don't remember Winona being such a crappy actress" etc. Luckily I saw it on cable or I would've been kicked out of the theater.
Posted by: trilbynhiss at October 9, 2007 1:14 PM
A few years back I decided to actually read Bram Stoker's Dracula, and ever since then I've realized that every single movie incarnation of the book is complete and utter crap. The book is one of the best books I have ever read, which surprised me given my unexplained bias that all old works are boring and antiquated. I'm glad to be proving myself wrong as I increasingly explore older fiction. I saw this movie when it first came out and in my ignorance really enjoyed it. But once you've read the book, and realize how good the original story is, you can't go back.
Posted by: katy at October 9, 2007 1:14 PM
Not quite right, Katy.. I can go back to the movie, but I do so for evil/sexy Gary Oldman. When I want to enjoy the story in all it's bloody glory, I read the book, which is fantastic.
And I completely second Pudenda's innapropriate appreciation of Vlad's bloodlust.. mmmmm.
Posted by: Lisa at October 9, 2007 2:00 PM
My favorite line from this movie: "Take me away from all this DEATH!" SUCH a shocker Winona didn't nominated for an Oscar, really!
I have a soft spot for this movie - it was the first R-rated movie I ever saw in the theatre; I was 14 when it came out.
Posted by: JanetFaust at October 9, 2007 2:01 PM
Keanu was so, so awful in this movie. So horribly miscast. Ryder was annoying, painfully whining her way through the film. Gary Oldman is perfect in my mind, so we'll let him be. Anthony Hopkins always gave me the feeling he was in this movie as a favor. But I loved it when it came out, saw the damn thing a dozen times. Probably couldn't watch it now, though.
Posted by: courtney at October 9, 2007 2:16 PM
Oh man, I only saw this recently, but it was while I was taking a Gothic literature class, and man, it hit so many of the right buttons with me. I tried to sit through it a second time and found myself rolling my eyes profusely, but the first time around, I couldn't have enjoyed it more. Very silly, very flawed, but pretty awesome, nonetheless. A very accurate review, indeed.
Posted by: kalexal at October 9, 2007 2:20 PM
The scene in which Gary Oldman licks the blood off the razor makes me tingle...in a good way.
In SUCH a good way....
Count me in as someone who watches this when I stumble upon it.
Love it.
There is something so oddly compelling about Oldman as The Count.
Reeves, of course, sucks as does Ryder, but not enough to ruin the film. They couldn't find any English actors to play these parts?
Posted by: Jules at October 9, 2007 2:33 PM
Ugh, this movie was so bad. I mean, it would have been a decent, low-grade horror movie... if it wasn't based on one of the best novels in HISTORY. Jesus. I mean, it's on par with Branagh's Frankenstein, another novel-to-film abortion. It's stupidly entertaining, but taken in context with the source material, it's terrible.
Although, it did introduce me to Sadie Frost, who is quite a cute little crumpet. So not a total loss.
Posted by: TK at October 9, 2007 2:35 PM
Sorry, but my overwhelming memory of this movie (aside from the beginnings of my Monica Bellucci crush) was nearly getting thrown out the cinema for laughing too much.
My two friends and I had all read the book not long before and had high hopes that this was going to be the definitive movie of the source material. We soon found out that all it had in common with the book was the names of the characters.
And despite a generally decent cast, it seemed to be wall-to-wall hamming, from one ludicrous scene to the next.
By the way, do I recall correctly that Winona Mk 1 committed suicide by throwing herself down a 1000 ft ravine, only for her body to turn up with just a slight nosebleed?
It just grates that Coppola deigned to call it Bram Stoker's Dracula, despite the fact that Bram Stoker actually had bugger all to do with it.
Posted by: Simon B at October 9, 2007 2:42 PM
All I remember from this movies are the atrocious accents (Keanu's, especially) and the wolf scene.
Posted by: Fe at October 9, 2007 2:46 PM
i love watching this movie just to hear keanu reeves's pronunciation of "budapest". oh yeah, and gary oldman's in it. i watch anything starring gary oldman.
Posted by: kelley at October 9, 2007 2:59 PM
I enjoyed it, despite it's flaws.
Or maybe I just enjoyed seeing Winona ryder in those period dresses...
Posted by: Matt R at October 9, 2007 3:10 PM
Tom Waits' awesomeness makes up for everyone else's terrible acting, in my opinion.
I remember watching this at my mother's house a few years ago; my mom poked her head in at one point to ask whether I was watching porn. There's a lot of breathy moaning and sighing going on in this movie.
Posted by: Erin Elizabeth at October 9, 2007 3:41 PM
The score is also appropriately ravishing. Ryder is of course, inept as usual. Why didn't Sadie Frost have a bigger career after this? She acted circles around Winona. Then again, who hasn't?
I love the sequence of Dracula looking for Mina after he arrives in London.
Posted by: Andrew at October 9, 2007 3:42 PM
I must admit to loving this movie. Mainly for the wonder that is Gary Oldman, his was the first Dracula that I found really sensual (on screen). As for the rest of it...campy, over the top fun for all
Posted by: stef at October 9, 2007 4:01 PM
After growing up watching saturday monsterflicks, I bet i've seen every vampire movie short of the original Nosferatu. Then I read the book and realized just great the book was, and how badly Dracula was mangled in all those films. So while the acting was breathtakingly craptastic (second only to "Titanic"), I've got a soft spot for the film for the mere fact that it at least attempted to stay close to the original story.
Posted by: summerteeth at October 9, 2007 4:05 PM
I don't care how good this film looks. The acting (except Oldman) is sooooo bad, that it's unwatchable. Coppola would be wise to stay retired from film making.
Posted by: Dano at October 9, 2007 4:06 PM
Art direction is gorgeous, maybe that's enough to sit through it. Yeah, Keanu and Winona were horribly miscast. But Gary Oldman as Dracula was kind of inspired. Can't remember if I paid to see this when it came out. I hope not. It would have been a waste of about $6. But I'll watch it on cable if there's absolutely nothing else on.
But I think we can all agree (well, all the chicks, anyway) that the hottest Dracula was Gerard Butler. Shitty, shitty movie, but a damn good-looking Dracula.
Posted by: LL at October 9, 2007 4:07 PM
I don't care how good this film looks. The acting (except Oldman) is sooooo bad, that it's unwatchable. Coppola would be wise to stay retired from film making.
Posted by: Dano at October 9, 2007 4:07 PM
I totally agree with katy et al. about the book's incredible betterness than any of the film adaptations, and pretty much all vampire movies ever. This thing is still in my top five vampire movies, though. Silly? Gothy? Overwrought? Yes. Still fun? Yes.
Posted by: Kiku at October 9, 2007 4:17 PM
I'm with Katy. I only read the book about a year ago, and it really made me hate this movie, especially what they did to the character of Lucy. In the book, what happened to her was tragic because she was a genuinely good person. By making her a tart the movie just fell into the old slasher-movie cliche of the slutty girls getting killed. A review at the time this movie came out said that it should've been titled Bram Stoker's Dracula If Francis Ford Coppola Had Been There To Tell Him How It Should Be Written.
Also, Keanu and Winona aren't British and can't act. I mentioned to my mother that Keanu is supposedly starring in a remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still. Her oh-so-perfect response: "He'll be the robot, right?"
Posted by: Todd at October 9, 2007 4:47 PM
hey! i was just thinking about this film the other day when i was researching lobotomies and learning about the history of asylums via wiki. did you know that people used to pay a penny to enter the asylums and get sticks to poke the insane with?
what can i say, i get bored at work.
Posted by: smash at October 9, 2007 4:48 PM
I definitely agree with all the Oldman-love in this movie! When he and Mina are in bed together at the Asylum, and he starts to bite her, then can't, and he's so destroyed by it, and then he's biting her and holding her and....
Sorry. I think I need to go do something private now.
Reeves SUCKED, Ryder sucked, but damn, Gary Oldman as an emotionally tormented Dracula still makes me horny.
Posted by: AnnArrogance at October 9, 2007 4:59 PM
Reeves SUCKED, Ryder sucked, but damn, Gary Oldman as an emotionally tormented Dracula still makes me horny.
YES!!!
The movie does follow the general plot of the book, excepting, of course, for the love affair between Dracula and Mina. Anthony Hopkins is obviously having some fun, and Tom Waits is ridiculously awesome. Gary Oldman is really, really sexy and made my 11-year-old self feel extremely naughty the first time I saw this film. I love it, I don't care.
Posted by: Jen at October 9, 2007 5:12 PM
Also, whilst in college, I changed my laptop sounds to quotes from this movie (all Gary Oldman) and drove my roommates crazy. My laptop was crap, so it would start producing errors in the middle of the night, embedding them into my subconsciousness, no doubt.
Posted by: Jen at October 9, 2007 5:18 PM
A few years before this movie came out, I went through a reading-books-aloud phase with my high school boyfriend and realized early into Dracula that Jonathan Harker is a little twit who essentially passes by 5,000 clues that Something Bad Lies Ahead in his haste to get to Castle Dracula.
Looked at that way, Keanu Reeves starts out as perfect. By the time any sort of gravity of demeanor is called for, however...
Posted by: gloom raider at October 9, 2007 5:31 PM
Gary Oldman's Dracula deserves a far better movie.
I admit, though, that this is one of my favorite Halloween flicks. It's so breathy and overwrought and repressed-Victorian . . . I think I'll pop in the DVD right now!
Posted by: minorblue at October 9, 2007 6:08 PM
The lil goth chick in me absolutely loves this movie. Gary Oldman was really good in it, as he always is. As for Keanu, he is really truly awful and watching him awkwardly act thru this is like a stake through the heart (groan yes i know bad pun), and I adore Winona Ryder (she's one of my guilty pleasures as an actress). But it's quite an opulent film that puts most people to sleep, for me, I'm riveted because I fucking love vampires, even old ones, and the stories that surround them.
Posted by: ph at October 9, 2007 7:01 PM
Very silly, very flawed, but pretty awesome, nonetheless. A very accurate review, indeed.
Posted by: kalexal
My opinion of the movie, exactly from the very first time that I saw it. But I do so love it for its Gothier-than-Goth high drama-queeniness. And Oldman! Oldman! Oldman! I had heard of him when this came out but I didn't realize how FREAKING AWESOME he was until this. (Or was The Professional first?)
My favorite line from this movie: "Take me away from all this DEATH!"
Such a horrible line, so horribly delivered - and yet I forgive her even Mr. Deeds for its sheer magnificence.
And despite a generally decent cast, it seemed to be wall-to-wall hamming, from one ludicrous scene to the next.
Me, I always thought that was the whole point of the movie. Dracula was just the frame that Coppola hung his conceit from.
FYI: Annie Lennox's "Love Song For A Vampire" is on high rotation on my iPod. Just heard it today, as a matter of fact.
Posted by: Meander at October 9, 2007 7:09 PM
Gary Oldman was great in this. Almost enough to make up for how shitty Keanu Reeves is. Almost.
Posted by: jvon at October 9, 2007 7:14 PM
I sorta liked the movie when I saw it...but people--Gary Oldman's Old Dracula wig? The visual definition of asshat. Remember the buttocks coif? Worth seeing just for that.
Posted by: Cris at October 9, 2007 7:17 PM
Grand Guignol! That was the phrase I was looking for!
Posted by: Meander at October 9, 2007 7:22 PM
While I do not mean to downplay the random boob shots - which were righteous - the Wojciech Kilar soundtrack was far and away the best part of the film; just a masterpiece.
Posted by: Flea at October 9, 2007 7:23 PM
LOVE this film!!! Say what you want about the (sometimes) bad acting, the melodrama, the overt sex, the deviations from the original plot.... it's still fucking awesome.
Posted by: Ariel at October 9, 2007 7:49 PM
It is a gorgeous film. And even as a fan of the book (Yes, I own a copy), I can roll with the changes to the story.
The unforgivable part is the casting of Winona and Keanu. Say those names together. Don't they sound silly? Winona was bad, but Keanu should never speak in public. Every time I try to watch this movie I need a new remote from pressing the mute and fast forward buttons when these two nitwits are on screen.
The Oldman saves it. I am a long-time Oldman apologist. I even forgive him for The Fifth Element.
Posted by: greer at October 9, 2007 8:06 PM
This movie rocked my preteen world. I don't care, it's awesome...Keanu and all. And I say this even after having read the book.
I'll also admit the way Winona Ryder pseudo-whistles whenever she says the "s" sound is one of my all-time guilty pleasures.
Posted by: Dingles at October 9, 2007 8:55 PM
I so anticipated this movie's release but was both disappointed and intrigued when I finally saw it -- Gary Oldman and the costumes were great, Sadie Frost and the soundtrack are compelling, everything else... meh.
Later I saw it as a revival double feature with The Hunger playing first. The Hunger is just exquisite -- this movie didn't have a chance playing after it. The whole theater laughed off & on all the way through to the end.
I still love my book on the costumes.
Posted by: Angry Cat at October 9, 2007 9:13 PM
You're all idiots. This movie sucked ass in 1992 and it sucks ass now. As far as goth-y vampire flicks are concerned, it doesn't have the gusto to hold INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE's sweaty, blood-stained jockstrap.
Posted by: Case at October 9, 2007 9:53 PM
But I think we can all agree (well, all the chicks, anyway) that the hottest Dracula was Gerard Butler. Shitty, shitty movie, but a damn good-looking Dracula.
Damn skippy he was. I might have to rent that one just for the pretty. I'll just fast forward through all of the crappy parts. Should be done in about 15 minutes or so.
I've always been meh on this movie. I have only seen it a couple of times, a long time ago. The only thing I remember is wondering what the hell Keanu was doing in the movie and why did he have gray hair. Yes, random, I know. Gary Oldman does tortured soul very well, but sexy he wasn't.
I appreciate the general acknowledgment that Winona can't act. She skated by on her doe-eyed prettiness for years, and people were acting like it was a travesty when she dropped out of the acting scene (due to her, um, personal issues). I say good riddance, your time has passed, please for the love of pete do not cast her in any more roles, casting people.
Posted by: Daphne at October 9, 2007 10:41 PM
"But I think we can all agree (well, all the chicks, anyway) that the hottest Dracula was Gerard Butler. Shitty, shitty movie, but a damn good-looking Dracula."
i also agree with that too,i watched the movie on tnt while back and it was one of those watch and forget about it movies.the only reason i wathched it in the first place was for gerard butler...hes one sexy dracula nuff said...
Posted by: anna at October 10, 2007 12:52 AM
"I'll also admit the way Winona Ryder pseudo-whistles whenever she says the "s" sound is one of my all-time guilty pleasures."
Dingles, really? Oh my goodness, that coupled with her breathy little voice, is the reason that I absolutely DETEST Winona. I can't watch the parts in Girl Interrupted where she's talking to her shrink solely because of her pronunciation. Atrocious woman.
Despite her presence, I heartily enjoyed Bram Stokers Dracula. Tom Waits AND Gary Oldman...how delicious...
Posted by: Ali B at October 10, 2007 1:54 AM
This is one that I'll always watch if I happen to stumble across it while channel-hopping. It's a big, exuberant, colourful, chaotic mess, and as long as I remember not to take a moment of it seriously, I love it every time. Not to mention the fact that 'a half-naked Monica Belluci' grabs my attention every goddamned time.
Posted by: dillthedevil at October 10, 2007 4:17 AM
I simply adore Winona and the movie was pretty good.
Posted by: Tom at October 10, 2007 5:40 AM
The one way Winona Ryder might have redeemed her dreadful performance was to do what all the actresses in the film were doing and get her kit off.
As for Keanu, it's nice to have this type of ammunition available for whenever someone tries to make the case that because of The Matrix he can act just a little. He can't.
Posted by: hendero at October 10, 2007 7:28 AM
The one way Winona Ryder might have redeemed her dreadful performance was to do what all the actresses in the film were doing and get her kit off. Sadly, she didn't. As for Keanu, it's nice to have this type of ammunition available for whenever someone tries to make the case that because of The Matrix he can act just a little. He can't.
Posted by: hendero at October 10, 2007 7:30 AM
I bought this on an ex-rental VHS for $3 last Halloween because really, that's about all it's worth, but this movie is still glorious in its cheesiness. Try the drinking game! Whenever there's an ill wind, flash of lightening or a heaving bosom on screen - drink!
Posted by: M at October 10, 2007 7:31 AM
Case, I must disagree with you. I personally feel that "Interview With The Vampire" was a flaming pile of cow dung. The movie completely deviates from the book, there are so many important plot points that are removed so we can have an extra few minutes worth of Tom Cruise (whom I despise with a passion) brood and flash his fangs. I like Brad Pitt and Christen Slater, but would have been much happier if River Phoenix's unfortunate overdose didn't prevent him from bringing his skills to the film. Anyway, I'll take Gary Oldman's performance (and tongue lapping blood up with such desire and sexual tension) than a two hour homage to Tom Cruise's mediocraty and raging Napoleon complex anyday. We'll just have to agree to disagree. But can we do that without any name calling please? Thanks.
From one of your so-called "stupid idiots"
Posted by: Pudenda at October 10, 2007 9:34 AM
And to M, I don't own a copy of the movie, but I'm more than ready to try your game. So...you bring the video and I'll bring the Tequilla. (Or would it be more approproate to do Vampire shots while playing this particular game?) Anyway, let me know if your ready to play.
Pudenda
Posted by: Pudenda at October 10, 2007 9:39 AM
I have this on tape and I watched it a dozen times as a teen. My tape is worn from all the rewinding at the part where the "young" Dracula stares Mina through the crowd wearing blue glasses. I was obsessed with mr Oldman (as it seems were a whole bunch of people) even though the film was otherwise kind of tacky.
It's a shame Gary Oldman really hasn't been cast in truly great films for a long time. Sure the Batman begins was okay but Oldman's role in it didn't really seem to require much from him. Guy is brilliantly talented, somebody give him a challenge, I say :)
Posted by: scandy at October 10, 2007 10:27 AM
Pudenta,
I was on set at the plantation ( I was a tour guide through high school and college and had to wear the stupid hoop skirts.) for Interview and I remember Anne Rice boycotting because of Tom being chosen to Lestat. She said she invisioned Sting for the role. I agree with you that River would have been great.
BTW, from that experience I will always have highest regard for Brad and NO regard for Cruise- total asshat.
Posted by: ShannonAnn at October 10, 2007 10:53 AM
Speaking of Interview, one of my daydreams is to remake Interview with Stuart Townsend as Lestat, and the rest of the cast in place. Queen of the Damned was an awful movie, but Stuart made a great Lestat. So slinky and dangerous . . .
Posted by: minorblue at October 10, 2007 1:12 PM
i loved this movie--it was all about gary oldman. the clothes were really fabulous also! the scene with dracula and mina on the bed, and gary is tormented and crying, i thought he would have surely been nominated for an oscar, but i guess the movie overall sucked too much for that...plus, the rumor was that gary was a pain in the ass during production.
Posted by: maxpurr9 at October 10, 2007 4:35 PM
oh man...i was a senior in high school when this came out and i remember watching it in the theatre with a guy and girl friend and we just ripped on it the whole time. and yet, i have always been SO HOT for gary oldman becasue of this movie, and the eroticness (eroticity?) of this movie awoke something in me that never went to sleep. i listen to tom waits, i read the book and i wanted to do absinthe because of this movie.
you know gary oldman is the f*cking bomb because the simpsons parodied it in treehouse of horror iv.
Homer: Oh, Lisa, you and your stories.
"Bart is a vampire."
"Beer kills brain cells."
Now let's go back to that...building...thingy, where our beds and
TV...is.
Posted by: djkimcheelove at October 11, 2007 10:32 AM
Gary Oldman is never sexier than in this film. And, yes, licking the blood off the razor is...just....hot.....
Keanu...."like, dude, you're like totally a bloodsucker! Whoa!"
Posted by: dammitjanet at October 11, 2007 2:26 PM
I was 14 when this movie came out, and Gary Oldman made thighs tingle. I guess combination of Oldman, and me being so young, I never saw anything wrong with the movie.
Where is Gary Oldman these days, anyway? He was excellent in The 5th Element, too. "You know what I love? A killer. A dyed in the wool killer. Cold-blooded, clean, methodical and thorough."
Posted by: Olivia at October 11, 2007 2:30 PM
Oh, Gary Oldman in this movie... and Gerard Butler in Dracula 2000...
Anyway, I think Francis Ford Coppola latched onto the idea that the book was incredibly erotic for it's time (because it was) and ran with it, trying to make the movie equally erotic and cutting edge and not understanding that the reason the novel was so erotic was because of the themes it dealt with, not just boobies for the sake of boobies.
Posted by: Scarlett at October 11, 2007 4:48 PM
I saw this movie on a date with my now-husband 15 years ago (GAH!). Totally entertaining and led to some incredible early-in-the-relationship kissing. And I'm not all goth and into vampire lore and wearing my beloved's blood in a vial around my neck.
Posted by: Louise at October 12, 2007 2:18 AM
I don't want to be "that girl", but DAMN Gary Oldman is zexy!!1 Even as nutjob Zork in Besson's craptastic "The Fifth Element".
Posted by: piedlourde at October 12, 2007 5:20 AM
Like many of you, I too love this film :) I love it when it is really really good, and I love it when it is really really bad. "Take me away from all this...DEATHHHH!" is fantastically overacted, ridiculous fun. Keanu getting a blood-sucking fellatio performed by naked Monica Belluci and friends is deeelicious. Gary Oldman was amazing. Sadie Frost stole the show in every scene she appeared in. And Annie Lennox's "Love Song For a Vampire" is awesome.
Posted by: Well, well... at October 12, 2007 6:42 PM
I actually think Keanu Reeves was well cast for his role as it made you think of how much of a dipshit Mina was for not going off with Gary Oldman and becoming immortal.
Posted by: EvilSamurai at October 12, 2007 9:01 PM
Richard E. Grant was in this and wrote an excellent chapter on it in "With Nails".
This was like Baz Luhrman's Romeo and Juliet - amazing looking but no substance. Neither movie sold that "love never dies" thing.
'Shadow of the Vampire' is better than this muck and Interview with... but add my vote to the Gary Oldman camp, and that of Sadie Frost and Monica Belluci.
Posted by: rosie at October 13, 2007 9:26 AM
Francis Ford Coppola: "Okay, Tony. I want you to be in my Dracula movie, but I can't pay you your regular fee because we're way over budget as it is."
Anthony Hopkins: "So what are you offering?"
FFC: "In exchange, I'm going to let you overact as much as you like."
AH: "For real? For example, how about this awful line... here..."
FFC: "No problem."
AH: "YOU ARE THE DEVIL'S CONCUBINE! YE-HEY! (pause) How was that?"
FFC: "That yell is a bit much."
AH: "Good."
Posted by: mutantreptile at October 13, 2007 5:54 PM
Winona was ok, Gary was ok, Anthony was ok.
Posted by: manatwork at October 14, 2007 4:29 AM
'Vind! VIND!' And, 'I know (odd pause) where the bastard (odd pause) sleeps!'
Cracks me up every time.
Posted by: Fatmammycat at October 14, 2007 1:55 PM
All said and done, this was one gorgeous looking movie. Gary Oldman managed to transcend just about everything in the tattered script. And for a teenager, Keanu was great eye candy. Yep, Coppola made a good potboiler!
Posted by: Diviya at October 16, 2007 11:54 AM
Reasons why this movie will always be a favorite of mine, despite all the reasons I shouldn't like it:
1. The soundtrack, although someone's already mentioned it. I'm a huge film score geek, and this is one of my favorites. Also, the first CD I ever bought.
2. The costumes. I can't recall the costume designer's name right now, only that she's Japanese and also did the costumes for "Cell," another dreadful/wonderful movie. Yukio Ishioka? That sounds right.
3. Gary Oldman.
4. Anthony Hopkins.
5. Tom Waits.
6. The fact that computer-aided graphics are only used for one scene in the movie: the blue flames that the coach rides through. This at a time when CGI was really beginning to take off in moviemaking and was already in danger of being overused. Coppola used old-fashioned trick photography to get the surreal imagery.
7. The little details here and there: the blue eye in the sky as Harker reads Dracula's letter; the severed head that segues to the roast beef on a plate.
That being said...good Gawd, why Keanu and Winona? Did the casters think that American audiences wouldn't be able to accept an entirely European cast?
Posted by: Noelegy at October 28, 2007 9:13 PM
Fabulous, fruitcake movie. Ah, I love it.Mistitled? Hell, yes! But who cares...
Posted by: christine at January 19, 2008 9:29 AM
I'm still a big fan of the Frank Langella version. I saw it on cable when I was very young and I loved it. I still think FL makes a very sexy Dracula, plus Lawrence Olivier as Van Helsing is cheesy goodness. The soundtrack was good, too, very overwrought and melodramatic. I think John Williams did it.
Posted by: gelis at February 24, 2008 4:39 PM

