I watched the film 'Dracula' at college during our time in English Language Literature studying the Bram Stoker novel of the same title. The review kind of goes hand-in-hand with the second one that I will post, but there's not much else I can say right now without spoiling what follows. So! Enjoy, and I'll post another review soon!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Film Review: 'Dracula' (1992)
‘Dracula’ (1992) is an award-winning, bare-boned attempt to show an interpretation of Bram Stoker’s legendary nineteenth century gothic novel. Whereas other Dracula-based films seem to use the novel as a basis for their own vampiric stories, this particular rendition is a cover-to-cover summary. It is also an abysmal film.
To start on a positive note, the sets used in the film were quite impressive. The darkness of Dracula’s castle and the snowy wastelands of Transylvania could have been taken right out of the book, and the film presented an acceptable look for the streets of Victorian London. I sincerely hope that this film has not damaged the career of the set-designer too badly, as he or she was one of the few people who managed to do their job properly in this movie.
The film opens with a backstory of Dracula’s ‘previous life’ which comes in the form of a typical, greek tragedy-esque flashback. Simplicity is not a problem in this sequence, however. The problem is that Dracula’s armour looks like it was bought from the Early Learning Centre. Although this shouldn’t have made a huge impact, it was certainly distracting during the dialogue (and the following enraged screaming that, try as I might, I couldn’t take seriously).
Gary Oldman’s screeching at the heavens, however, is nothing compared to Keanu Reeves’ cringeworthy portrayal of Jonathan Harker. Every time the man came into the shot I felt like I wanted to projectile-vomit blood like Lucy (we’ll come to that later). Reeves’ acting, if you could call it that, was as wooden as a coffin and had less depth. His English accent physically hurt me inside.
Acting alongside Reeves in the first few scenes of the film was Gary Oldman as Count Dracula. Now, I am personally a fan of Oldman’s work, and in my opinion he managed to bring at least a smidge of dignity to the film (he even won a Saturn Award for his portrayal of the title character). This goes especially for the old and withered version of the character, as when playing this he was actually creepy and disturbing to watch, but in a good way that was intended for the character in the book. Although his hair looked like cleavage, the costume design here was also effective, and the effect of him scuttling across the sheer surface of the castle wall was altogether both unsettling and delightful.
Now, on to Lucy. Perhaps that is a poor choice of words, as most if not all of the characters in the film seemed to be ‘on to’ Lucy at one point or another. The writers butchered the character, making her a two-dimensional airhead, and Sadie Frost’s whiney portrayal of her was the final nail in the coffin that sealed her complete unlikability.
Realism was a serious issue in this film, or rather the lack of it. Of course, I don’t mean the fact that there were giant bat-people jumping around. What I mean is that within the context the story is set in it is completely unrealistic. For example, the female characters were wearing dresses that showed almost the entirety of their chests. If they tried to do that in the real Victorian England, they’d most likely be locked away.
The unrealism strikes again with the scene in which the newly vampiric Lucy projects a jet of blood from her mouth to cover Van Helsing. I can only presume that this was an attempt to shock viewers since the themes of Dracula that shocked Victorian readers would no longer have an effect on the audience of today. However, this felt misguided and unnecessary and, along with Lucy’s demonic writhing, had me fooled into thinking I was watching a parody of ‘The Exorcist’.
Whilst I disapproved of this effect, some of the other effects in the film were admittedly impressive, such as the pyrotechnics and the effect of Dracula turning into a mound of rats (the rats were also better actors than Keanu Reeves). One of the most prominent effects ran through out the film – the projection of fluid shadows onto the set that move separately from the actors. I could see what they were trying to achieve with this effect, and it was a sound idea. The achieved result, however, was distracting and looked shoddy and ineffective.
A positive aspect of the film is that it pretty much summarises the book. If you’d never read the original novel, by watching the film you’d get at least a rough idea of what happens in it.
However, one of the biggest things that put me off the film was the absence of the relationships between the characters which made the book so involving. The sense of togetherness, support and determination that was supposed to shine from the group of Van Helsing, Harker, Godalming and Morris, was completely missing. This drained all sense of sympathy the audience may have had for the characters. When R.M. Renfield, played by Tom Waits, is a more engaging and interesting character than Van Helsing, you know something is amiss.
To top off all of this, the film had severe continuity issues: Jonathan Harker’s hair changed from grey to black; the sun went from just setting to mid-day. If the film makers cannot sort out such trivial things as these, it is no surprise that their attempt at adapting one of the most legendary horrors of all time was altogether abysmal.
My Rating:
* *
(2/5 Stars)
- J. Boulton
No comments:
Post a Comment