This film looked stunning, it had a gorgeous array of colors and had an excellent level of production, but even that cant hide a weak film.
First off, the acting. Everyone else seems to have mentioned this already. Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder were dreadful at attempting to play an English couple. Winona Ryder's acting in this film was ok, but hardly her best by any standard. Gary Oldman was completley OTT as the Count, and would have been perfect for a cheesy Hammer film from the 50's and 60's. He may as well have said "I vwont to suck yur blood" and been done with it. His make up and clothing was lavish, but pure fantasy. Hardly the menacing figure of the novel.
Anthony Hopkins. One of the best actors about, and even he had to put up with another ridiculous accent. Perhaps this was all intentional, but it misplaced the film as a parody of Dracula, or a farce.
Obviously the book is far too large to be adapted faithfully to the screen, and a straight adaptation would have been awful, but some of the more memorable moments were completely skimmed over. The passage where Dracula is transported to England on the Demeter was described in detail in the novel. It creates a real feeling of dread as the crew gradually get picked off by an unseen force. Dracula is barely seen, but comes across as genuinely scary with incredible demonic powers. Yet the film only skims through the scene and drastically misses out.
Later on in the Novel, Lucy is attacked by Dracula. Van Helsing is called in and realises they are dealing with a vampire, and Lucy desperately needs blood transfusions to save her life. Again, in the novel Dracula is rarely seen, but comes across as horrific as he literally drains the life out of Lucy over the course of several evenings, creating a real sense of struggle as they try to keep her alive. However in the film, the scene is breezed through and any mystery is constantly killed of by Dracula's constant appearance as a B-movie hound or demonic creature.
Some of the scenes that were in the film lacked a real sense of atmosphere. Many of the outdoor scenes looked like they were filmed within a studio which gave the film an artificial claustrophobic feel, rather than an expansive Gothic atmosphere. More time is given to the story of Dracula's lost love and the romance between the Count and Mina, but this cripples the pace of the film, only when Mina drinks Dracula's blood does the romance have any impact, as well as horror. Adding depth to Count Dracula himself is a nice idea, but the idea of him searching for a lost love just came across as terribly cliched.
Overall the film felt deflating. Nice design, gorgeous colours, fabulous costumes, but plot and acting seemed hollow. Good for a giggle at Keanu Reeves accent, but the film felt very flat
First off, the acting. Everyone else seems to have mentioned this already. Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder were dreadful at attempting to play an English couple. Winona Ryder's acting in this film was ok, but hardly her best by any standard. Gary Oldman was completley OTT as the Count, and would have been perfect for a cheesy Hammer film from the 50's and 60's. He may as well have said "I vwont to suck yur blood" and been done with it. His make up and clothing was lavish, but pure fantasy. Hardly the menacing figure of the novel.
Anthony Hopkins. One of the best actors about, and even he had to put up with another ridiculous accent. Perhaps this was all intentional, but it misplaced the film as a parody of Dracula, or a farce.
Obviously the book is far too large to be adapted faithfully to the screen, and a straight adaptation would have been awful, but some of the more memorable moments were completely skimmed over. The passage where Dracula is transported to England on the Demeter was described in detail in the novel. It creates a real feeling of dread as the crew gradually get picked off by an unseen force. Dracula is barely seen, but comes across as genuinely scary with incredible demonic powers. Yet the film only skims through the scene and drastically misses out.
Later on in the Novel, Lucy is attacked by Dracula. Van Helsing is called in and realises they are dealing with a vampire, and Lucy desperately needs blood transfusions to save her life. Again, in the novel Dracula is rarely seen, but comes across as horrific as he literally drains the life out of Lucy over the course of several evenings, creating a real sense of struggle as they try to keep her alive. However in the film, the scene is breezed through and any mystery is constantly killed of by Dracula's constant appearance as a B-movie hound or demonic creature.
Some of the scenes that were in the film lacked a real sense of atmosphere. Many of the outdoor scenes looked like they were filmed within a studio which gave the film an artificial claustrophobic feel, rather than an expansive Gothic atmosphere. More time is given to the story of Dracula's lost love and the romance between the Count and Mina, but this cripples the pace of the film, only when Mina drinks Dracula's blood does the romance have any impact, as well as horror. Adding depth to Count Dracula himself is a nice idea, but the idea of him searching for a lost love just came across as terribly cliched.
Overall the film felt deflating. Nice design, gorgeous colours, fabulous costumes, but plot and acting seemed hollow. Good for a giggle at Keanu Reeves accent, but the film felt very flat