 Where has Francis Ford Coppola gone? I understand he's releasing a movie rather soon, but that would make it a ten year hiatus. Don't get me wrong, he makes a good bottle of wine- and I hope he continues to do so. But this is a man responsible for some of the most incredibly motion pictures in the history of the cinema. It seems he's now passed the torch to his daughter. It seems Francis has lost interest in motion pictures. In 1992, he made Dracula- one of his last, and quite a strange movie for Hollywood to release.
I suppose its a very traditional and faithful telling of Bram Stoker's original story- although I've never read it and don't plan to. His is entitled Bram Stoker's Dracula for two reasons. For one, he very often gives credit to the original author's story. Think of Mario Puzo's The Godfather or John Grisham's The Rainmaker. Also, I do believe that another studio owned the title Dracula.
Starring a brilliant Gary Oldman and a ridiculously bad Keanu Reeves, the film starts off much as it should, with the story of Vlad The Impaler, the 15th century Tranylvanian king. Vlad went off to fight, and his wife, upon hearing an incorrect rumor that he was dead, threw herself from her castle, into the sea- in the film's finest shot. Upon returning, Vlad (Oldman) is distraught and lashes out, denouncing God for his undeserved tragedy. He vows revenge on mankind, and finds that blood is what is needed to survive.
400 years later, in 1890's London, Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves) is an accountant for a law firm. One of their clients is Count Dracula, currently residing in Transylvania. His former accountant suffered a nervous breakdown while visiting and is now in London insane asylum, and worhips the Count as a dark overlord. Harker sees that the Count is a bit strange. When he sees a picture of Jonathan's girl Mina (Winona Ryder), he sees that his long lost love has returned in another form. So, now its off to London- and its on, baby- its on.
For a film of such visual beauty, it is a disappointment that it looks so dated. One would hope more could have been done for the visual quality. With a direct comparison to dvd, there aren't too many marketable difference. Presented in 1.85:1 widescreen and encoded at 1080p, grains is often a consistent problem. Many of the foggy nighttime scenes are difficult to see. I suppose that's the point of a foggy scene, but I do believe more could have been done. On the plus sides, the colors are quite strong, especially the red of Count Dracula's robe. Overall detail is often lacking, however- with a general softness to the frame.
Audio is PCM 5.1 surround, and is a bit more impressive than the video- but still lacking is some essentials. Bass is at impressive levels, and comes through during some of the scarier scenes, and during the horrible storm that Dracula inflicts. Overall immersivity is disappointing, however. The surrounds kick in a bit, but I was hoping for more, especially for a film that depends so immensely on mood. Dialogue, however- is always crisp and clear- partly because the actors say their lines so damn loud. |
