BONUS: 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' [1992]
Francis Ford Coppola hits a mark somewhere between Baz Luhrmann and Tim Burton with his version of the undead Count. The doppelganger love interest theme from Dan Curtis' 1973 adaptation gets reprised here, starring a host of well-known faces running the gamut from atrocious to OTT and everything in between.
Should I start by saying how awful Keanu Reeves is in this? Do I have to? It's achieved legendary status, of course, and I won't be able to offer anything new. He is hamstrung by being coerced into an accent that goes past stilted into something else entirely unique. Then, later, he is made to look even more ridiculous with prematurely grey hair. Why? Was Coppola jealous of him or something? And then there's Gary Oldman as Dracula. As the ancient Count, he looks somewhat like a pantomime dame. I suppose if you hire Oldman, you expect some scenery chewing and he doesn't hold back. As the dashing prince, he is more subdued. Acting is balance, yer see?
Sadie Frost does well as the flighty friend Lucy and Winona Ryder appears better than she is by being paired with Reeves. Anthony Hopkins might be my favourite Van Helsing so far - he is part-crazed himself yet also matter-of-fact and nonchalant about cutting off heads. Richard E Grant, Cary Elwes and Tom Waits all perform admirably too. Well done, sirs.
In terms of spectacle, you are not left wanting. There is always something to see on screen - too much, perhaps. Coppola borrows heavily from Murnau's 'Nosferatu' with his use of shadows, the rising form the coffin, etc, though Universal Studios gets a look in now and then. Despite the lush settings, Hammer seems less of an influence, with only Drac's blood-red eyes being noted.
So, is it any good? Well... It's certainly something to see. Sets, costumes, make-up, effects - it's wonderful to look at and it's rarely boring (well, Keanu...) It's not definitive Dracula but there's something so preposterous about it that it would be a shame not to experience it first hand.