There were several reasons why I wanted to see Bram Stoker's Dracula, and after seeing the film finally I was really impressed. No seriously I was. It is not perfect, but on the whole it is very well done.

I have read Bram Stoker's book several times and love it to death, it is rich in detail, it is haunting and it is shocking. This film is not the truest film version of the book, and that's putting it mildly, but it is one of the more visually beautiful and intriguing ones. That is no way a flaw, I am not the sort of person who says if this adaptation is untrue to the book I pan it, or at least I try not to. Speaking of flaws there are two significant flaws, one is more significant than the other, that stop the film from perfection. At over two hours the film is probably a little too long. But the biggest problem is Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker. I know it is not old news to rag on Reeves's performance, and I will say I am not a fan of his, sure he has been in some very good films but he is nearly always one of the weaker assets which is exactly the case here. Jonathan Harker is an estate agent who is threatened by Dracula, but I found Reeves's acting far too too inept, flat and emotionless, complete with a very unimpressive accent. For instance, when he says "Oh, I'm very sorry"- Keanu I know there aren't many ways to say that phrase strictly speaking, but do actually try to sound as though you're sorry.

Flaws aside, Francis Ford Coppola's film is very, very good. It is eerie, it is romantic and it is even operatic. For one thing, it is exquisitely mounted, very grandiose in its visual approach. From the sumptuous costumes, the lovingly crafted settings, the superb make up and the basic yet atmospheric lighting complete with more sophisticated techniques it is a feast for the eyes. Another strength is the score, it was very like an opera, rich, soulful, haunting and melancholic. I also liked the script, it was poetic, it was intelligent and it was sophisticated, and the plot is coherent with some effective scenes such as Mina following Lucy into the garden when Lucy is later attacked by Dracula. And the direction is wonderful, a lot of fashioned touches are made to make this film very watchable at least once.

With the exception of Reeves, the acting is very good. Winona Ryder is an improvement certainly, she is beautiful and intense thus she becomes the object of Dracula's devastating desire. Her chemistry with Reeves wasn't quite there, but with Gary Oldman it was pretty much smouldering. Anthony Hopkins was one of the main reasons why I wanted to see this film in the first place, he is a brilliant actor, one of the best there is actually. See him in The Elephant Man, Shadowlands, Howards' End and the Remains of the Day, all wonderful films, and he is impeccable in all of them. I enjoyed him here, here he plays Dr Van Helsing, a famed doctor who dares to believe in Dracula and in the end even dares to confront him, and gives a delicious performance making the most of some inventive one-liners. Richard E.Grant, Cary Elwes and Bill Campbell all give great support, but it is Gary Oldman's towering performance as Dracula that dominates the film. An excellent, underrated actor(Immortal Beloved is just living proof of his talent),Oldman is menacing, suave, handsome, charismatic, tragic and just amazing here, his transitions from old to young and from man to beast are completely believable, in short it was one of the more interesting interpretations of Dracula. Also look out for Monica Belluci as one of Dracula's wives, she is breathtakingly beautiful, even Sadie Frost was surprisingly good as Lucy.

Overall, if you want a faithful adaptation of the book, you may be disappointed. However, if you want a visually stunning, richly scored and compelling movie this is perfect for you. Regardless of how it deviates from the book, I liked it a lot, and would definitely see it again. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Although it is not possible to ever replace Bela Lugosi as Count Dracula, Gary Oldman offers us an interesting interpretation of the most famous of vampires in Francis Ford Coppola's version of Dracula. This film is probably closest to the novel that Bram Stoker wrote which in fact is a series of recollections of the events of the story by its various characters.

Added to it is a prequel where we see that the Count back in the 17th century was a warrior repelling the Ottoman Turk invasion. But on arriving home from the wars, Oldman discovers that his beloved has died. Cursing the Deity, the Deity gets back at him by leaving him undead with a thirst for human blood. His beloved is played by Winona Ryder.

Flash forward to the end of the 19th century and the story picks up in many ways from the classic film with Bela Lugosi. Dracula has moved his base of operations to London to be near the reincarnated version of his true love, also played by Winona Ryder. She's slightly engaged to Keanu Reeves who is held as a prisoner by Dracula's demon wives after closing the deal on Carfax Abbey in London.

Dr. Van Helsing is played by Anthony Hopkins who dusts off the accent that Laurence Olivier perfected back in the day. Hopkins does overact a bit here, but the part is a showy one, almost as much as the title role.

I did see a college production of the play made from Stoker's novel and this one was closer than any other Dracula I've seen.

But with all due respect to the fine cast involved, there will never be another Bela.

BRAM STOKER'S Dracula is a lavishly Gothic adaptation of the Stoker novel, directed by Francis Ford Coppola like he's doing an imitation of Tim Burton. This is Dracula as high camp, with a highly theatrical performance from Gary Oldman (with tongue firmly in cheek) playing the Count as both an old-time romantic and modern-day ghoul. Let's be clear: Oldman's performance is far from definitive (that honour goes to Christopher Lee),but it is memorable.

Elsewhere, the film is hit and miss. For every hit there's a miss, for every great idea there's one that doesn't work. The art direction and set dressing is top notch, and I appreciate all the artiness of the direction; the stuff in the skies, the blood fountains like something out of Kubrick's THE SHINING, the overblown musical score. Elsewhere, the special effects have dated considerably, particularly Dracula's transformation into a cheesy giant bat. Plus the whole romantic sub-plot drags things down and goes nowhere.

The cast is equally mixed. Anthony Hopkins really gets into the spirit of the thing, delivering a performance loaded with high camp as Van Helsing. Tom Waits's Renfield is arresting, Cary Elwes and Richard E. Grant are fine in minor parts, and somehow Sadie Frost works as the sexually frustrated Lucy. But two of the main parts are given to Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder, and it's clear from the outset that their hearts aren't really in it. They give dejected, dispirited and artificial performances, which isn't great.

Still, with all the gory effects and imaginative interludes on offer, BRAM STOKER'S Dracula is a film that it's hard to dislike. Indeed, when I first saw it as a 14-year-old boy, I loved it to bits. Many years later, it feels deeply flawed, a movie that's all over the place. Coppola's scattershot film-making works in some places and not in others, and it's fair to say this is a bit of a mess. A riotous, entertaining mess, but a mess nonetheless.