BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA - DVD review

In this 1992 version of the Dracula legend, director Francis Ford Coppola sought to recreate the original Bram Stoker novel as closely as possible, something most previous Dracula films had not tried to do. Oddly enough, it was the very first, silent-movie version of the novel, F.W. Murnau's 1922 "Nosferatu," that had earlier come closest to the spirit of Stoker's book. Several other films made the attempt, like "Horror of Dracula" with Christopher Lee in 1958 and a television production with Jack Palance in 1973. But Bela Lugosi's 1931 film was an adaptation of the stage play, as was Frank Langella's 1979 rendering; and almost every other Dracula film was a complete departure from the initial story.

In "Bram Stoker's Dracula," Coppola tried to stick to the book, overdoing it sometimes, to be sure, but in the process creating a first-rate cinematic experience. The movie is also good for showing off the splendor of a DVD's picture quality and sound, which is why, I'm sure, Columbia TriStar chose to remaster it in their new videophile Superbit process. The result makes an already good-looking, good-sounding film look and sound even better.

The plot begins with an elaborate recounting of how Dracula came to be the way he is. I don't remember this sequence being in the book, but it makes a nice prologue to the action and helps to establish the Count's character and generate some sympathy for him. Then we are into the actual plot with young Jonathan Harker, played by Keanu Reeves (struggling valiantly with a British accent), going off to Dracula's ruined castle in Transylvania to arrange for the Count to purchase a new home in England. Gary Oldman plays Dracula, but not as the sinister Lugosi, the frightening Lee, or the suave Langella; instead, Oldman plays the Count as a tormented creature, more to be pitied than despised, convinced that Harker's fiancee, Mina, is the reincarnation of his long-lost love.

The first sequence in Dracula's castle is really quite effective, with Dracula at this time a spooky old gentleman (topped with a coiffeur that later begged to be parodied by Mel Brooks). While it is somewhat silly, it is still fun if one suspends one's disbelief and goes along for the ride. When Dracula leaves for England (where the stage play takes up the story), things are not quite so enterprising. Dracula has regained his youth, sports a top hat and a pair of dark glasses, and is off to seek the modern embodiment of his long-ago sweetheart. Winona Ryder plays Mina, the object of both Harker's and Dracula's affections. Anthony Hopkins visibly delights in his role as the fearless vampire hunter, Professor Abraham Van Helsing, going over the top in almost every scene he's in. And as always, my favorite character is R.M. Renfield, the mad bug eater, this time played with commendable repulsion by Tom Waits.

There are no plot twists for anybody who already knows the story, but Coppola keeps things reasonably fresh with imaginative touches throughout: Dracula's shadow moves independently of his person, a pinch from "Peter Pan" perhaps, and the scene in a turn-of-the-century movie arcade is strikingly dramatic. Yes, you could say Coppola overproduced the whole thing, practically every scene rather bigger than life, and the film might have been scarier if it were toned down a bit. For instance, when our heroes confront Dracula toward the end of the film, just as he has finally succeeded in seducing Mina, the Count turns into a huge satanic beast and then dissolves into a cluster of rats that scurry away in all directions. In the book? I doubt it; but it's been a long time. All the same, scary or not, it's a memorable effect.

"Bram Stoker's Dracula" is an old-fashioned monster movie on a grand scale, a Gothic horror spectacular in the best and, if you want to be cynical, the worst sense of the words. It's weird, eerie, funny, thrilling, bizarre, and eccentric, filled with demonic rites, Christian symbolism, and erotic imagery; indeed, it is more sensual and sexy than any prior Dracula film has dared to be. Perhaps, above all, Coppola's vision of "Dracula" is that of a romance. In fact, it may be as a love story that the film works best, and how this fact sits with diehard fright-flick fans will probably determine their ultimate reaction to it.

Video:
These Superbit Editions from Columbia TriStar are attempts to transfer images and sound to disc with the highest possible resolution, no matter how much space it takes up. Starting with high-definition masters, Sony encodes these new editions at nearly twice the bit rate of conventional discs. As the Sony folks (Columbia's parent company) have written, "The Superbit Collection utilizes a high bit rate digital encoding process which optimizes video quality while continuing to offer a choice of both DTS and Dolby Digital 5.1 audio." Obviously, this means the encoding takes up more of a disc's storage capacity, thus eliminating most of the disc's room for bonus materials.

In any case, this new Superbit DVD reproduces the movie's creative energy and visuals with consummate ease. Unfortunately, that also means it reproduces the film's murkiness, age marks, and grain, too. I wish Sony had restored the picture as well as remastering it at a high bit rate. Oh, well....

The 1.78:1 ratio widescreen format provides something close to the perspective of the theatrical release, and the colors, often intentionally muted and pale to establish the atmosphere, appear the way I remember them in a theater. It is only at intervals that the DVD is required to show off its ability to replicate sharply vivid images, and when it does, it succeeds in this regard, too. But the real test is whether the Superbit Edition provides any distinct improvement in visual clarity over Columbia's previous DVD release, and here I needed some careful comparison. The first release was already decent enough, but I had no way of comparing the images of the two discs side by side. By the time I took out one disc, put in the other, and cued up the same positions, my memory was apt to play tricks on me. However, I was sure I saw noticeable amendments in sharpness of focus and deepness of color. Pure imagination? I hope not; but if it was, the added security of knowing this is the best transfer standard-definition possible is enough to keep me happy.

Audio:
In addition, the newly mastered Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound (DTS 5.1, too, if you have the capability) delivers its creepy noises and menacing music from the most unexpected places. This is one of the best, most forceful, audio tracks around, not for its spectacle alone but for its nuances--voices, birds, wind, rain, creaks, howls, cries, and moans--coming with pinpoint precision from all five speakers. It wasn't for nothing the movie won an Academy Award for Sound Effects Editing; and, incidentally, it won Oscars for makeup and costume design, too.

Extras:
Now, I suppose one could say Columbia should still have given us more in the way of extras, perhaps on the flip side of the disc. Of course, with the Superbit process using up most of one side of a presumably double-layered disc, there is little room left over for bonus features. And to manufacture a double-sided, dual-layered disc is tricky. So, you'll have to go elsewhere for audio commentaries, documentaries, production notes, outtakes, bloopers, and theatrical trailers. What you get is English-only as a spoken language; English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Korean, and Thai subtitles; and twenty-eight scene selections (replacing the fifty-two on Columbia's previous disc).

Parting Thoughts:
OK, so there's nothing much besides the film on the disc. Yet if it's the film you're after, and picture and sound quality are your primary considerations, I think you'll be happy with what you get.