Bram Stoker's Dracula (1993)

Terrific version of “Dracula” from director Francis Ford Coppola that, shock of all shocks, actually lived up to it’s much ballyhooed hype “way back” in 1992. Just about every genre fan knows the story of Dracula, at least the one derived from Stoker’s novel, so I won’t elaborate too much on that. Coppola’s film does to tend to put much more emphasis on the “lost love” aspect of the story that from my memory of the novel was not so prevalent as it is in the film. I guess in a way you could almost see this one as a love story just as much as a horror film. The film’s strongest points are without a doubt the f/x and overall look of the film. From the extravagant set pieces and period costumes, Coppola comes away a winner on the visual side of things. It’s just as well, since the visuals tend to make the viewer forget that Dracula’s love interest, Winona Ryder as Mina, can’t act (but boy do her boobs bounce real nice!) and that a mannequin would have done just as nice a job in place of Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker. The character of Dracula (played by Gary Oldman) is presented in various forms; from young, to ages old, to werewolf, bat creature and back again, monster buffs will get a kick out of the bloodsuckers various forms for sure. Another highlight besides the f/x and look of the film was Anthony Hopkins portrayal of Van Helsing. Many fans claimed foul that Hopkins played the character as more of an eccentric type with a very black sense of humor, but it worked well in the film. Besides all this technical talk of acting and “surreal look” of the film, we also get the stuff us viewers really want to see. Of course, I’m talking about naked and horny vampire brides, who we get plenty of, and what was surely a showstopper in the multiplex malls with 15-year-old teenyboppers looking on...a werewolf getting it on missionary style with a nubile young broad! Perhaps that was Coppola’s tribute to “The Beast”, you think? Good fun and a terrific update on an ages old story.