Unloved, force fed garlic, staked through the heart, exposed to sunlight and promptly decapitated by critics the world over; Francis Ford Coppola's studious, if uneven, adaptation of Bram Stoker's 'Dracula' has lain dead & buried for over a decade...until now. As if in response to strange, spontaneous acts of collective reappraisal, 'Dracula' rises from its cinematic grave; no longer the overblown, big-budget debacle marred by overacting, dodgy accents and a haphazard narrative structure, but restored to its rightful place in film history as an enjoyable, wonderfully bizarre B-horror with an A-list cast. I was rather disappointed first time around, after all, one expects a lot form 'The Godfather' and though this movie's commercial success kept 'American Zoetrope' out of the red, it was arguably the last time we saw Coppola the innovator at work. Championed by Winona Ryder (who had to drop out of 'The Godfather III' due to illness), both star and director where eager to put a new spin on an old story; and thus Coppola turned his focus to a timeless love affair between the Count (Gary Oldman) and Mina (Ryder). Personally, I didn't like on the idea of mixing an author's literary inspiration (i.e. historical Vlad Tepes being Stoker's template for Dracula) with a director's cinematic ambitions, for the clash often detracts from Stoker's motifs of religious violence (i.e. crusades as a symbol of man's failure & greed) societal collapse under an unstoppable juggernaut of modernity (a very real, and not entirely irrational, Victorian fear) and perceived internal apostasies (e.g. Darwinism, women's lib etc) as harbingers of a moral & intellectual dark age culminating in the destruction of faith, order and civilisation itself. Screenwriter James V. Hart almost botches an otherwise interesting pre-credit origin story by fictionalizing aspects better told as fact, whilst the filmmakers desire to portray Vlad Tepes a.k.a. Vlad 'The Impaler' as some kind of tragic anti-hero, doesn't work beyond a particularly thrilling, monstrous encounter with professor Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins) towards the end. In Stoker's novel, Dracula represents the worst of both worlds; a predatory, fanatical ideologue who exalts archaic delusions with lines like: "blood is too precious a thing in these days of dishonourable peace..." and "...glories of the great races are as a tale that is told". Here, Drac never really convinces as having been part of 'The Order Of The Dragon': an ancient neo-pagan, proto-Masonic Christian cult who took part in many crusades alongside the Serbs and began hostilities against the Ottoman-Byzantine House of Sultan Okhan Bey Ibn Ghazi (eventually leading to the Islamic Turkish invasion & conquest of Europe). One of the main reasons why 'Dracula' was laughed off our screens was down to its inaccuracy: Not entirely faithful to the Irishman's Gothic masterpiece (whose name only appears due to a last minute title change after 'Dimension' films secured the rights to 'Dracula' sans Stoker for their own film). Another was the oddball cast: Now what can you say about Keanu Reeves's English accent that hasn't already been said? the man is living proof that there is a God, and its His will that Keanu act no matter how bad he is at it. Winona Ryder is stunning as usual, giving a good performance as Mina Harker; her character a metaphor for the advent of women's lib in synch with emerging secular ideals; breaking away from Victorian repression towards an exhilarating, and dangerous new horizon. Anthony Hopkins gives the best performance by far, and seems to be the only actor who's got the measure of the movie; playing it fast & loose with his spot on portrayal of eccentric vampire killer Professor Van Helsing. Some say Van Helsing represents Protestantism's last stand against both the anachronistic bloodlusts of its crusading predecessor, the looming threat of the industrial revolution as a pre-curser to another age of imperial tyranny / intra-faith corruption (i.e. Protestant colonialism of Asia, Africa, Australia and the Americas). Its an interesting theory, especially since Dracula is allegedly a close relative of Deutschland's Saxe Cobourg Gotha (i.e. the British Royal family), Busch (i.e. George H.W. Bush & family) with the story representing a variety of symbolic acts associated with the so-called global elite. Also look out for an unexpectedly credible performance by Sadie Frost, yes Sadie 'worst actress in the world' Frost, who somehow manages to hold her own against Ryder, as the reinvigorated Count's first victim; Lucy Westenra. Frost's traumatic transition from giddy bride-to-be to bloodthirsty bride of Dracula is excellent, for the aesthetic, atmospheric brilliance of the sepulchre scene when she finally turns, is enhanced by her ability to look genuinely evil / lost to the dark side. I usually find her acting style intensely annoying, but credit where credits due: 'Dracula' easily ranks as Sadie's finest hour. A visually arresting picture with plenty of cinematic flair (e.g. the peacock feathers to train tunnel transition, a nod to Bava with the Count's eyes in the sky etc) 'Dracula' is a film I've grown to like over the years. And if, like me, you're a Gary Oldman fan; then I'd definitely recommend watching the extras for some great rehearsal footage with Oldman taking himself far too seriously, scaring Winnoa Ryder with his outbursts (though to be fair, it must be frustrating to try and get the lines right) and generally acting up like a true ac-tour ought to. Fangs for the memory Francis.