For one thing, it's not very scary; any horror is supplanted by the decadence and sexuality of the film. Coppola doesn't seem to care less about frightening the viewers; he seems much more interested devloping themes: for example, people and things spend A LOT of the film falling, and climbing back up again (I suppose this is sin and redemption) and there is a real feel of decadence and over-ripeness throughout. But it's never any more focussed than that - It's not clear exactly what he's getting at, other than just inverting the conventional wisdom.
The treatment of the good count is unusual; there's more than a sense that he's the victim in all of this - he's pegged out as having lost true love in tragic cirucmstances which, by operation of dastardly Christian law, inevitably pitted him against God and, by implication, the Great & Good.
But the film isn't consistent about this - on one hand Dracule is painted as a noble warrior defeating the (decadent) hoardes and re-taking Constantinople and cruelly being deprived of his one love, but then later, according to Van Helsing, he's Vlad the Impaler, who ritually murdered defenceless prisoners and drank their blood.
In any case the vamps definitely have the most fun: Gary Oldman has a whale of a time in the various iterations of the Dracula character (his Transylvanian accent is priceless) and Sadie Frost is sex on a stick as the doomed Lucy. Good guy Keanu Reeves, on the other hand, is as dreadful as you would expect - the man can't act, and his English accent, when he manages to hold it together, is surely one of the worst to ever have graced celluloid.
I don't think Coppola succeeds in making any grand statements, though he certainly tries. But the film works at pure entertainment level, so it doesn't really matter.
What did you think of this review?