Within that metaphorical space, Van Helsing is then set up as the one of the avatars of the Industrial Revolution, of progress driven by machines and science that will wash away the old ways, Dracula’s ways, of doing things. Dracula is a story laced with many metaphors, but one of its most potent is Dracula as aristocrat, literally drinking the blood of those he finds beneath him, sucking the masses dry as he buys up chunks of London real estate and prepares a new path to conquest after years of solitude.

In a film full of memorable performances, it’s quite possibly the most important, the counterweight to Dracula’s own madness and a truly great piece of work from one of our finest actors.īy the very nature of the story, Dracula and Van Helsing are set up as opposites, two forces at war with another, the great prince from the wild unknown of Eastern Europe and the dogged scientist from the West, each striving to bring the other down. We talk about a lot of things, but at least anecdotally, it always feels like we never give quite enough love to Anthony Hopkins’ fearless turn as Professor Abraham Van Helsing.

We talk about the costumes, and the practical effects, and the transformative creature makeup that made Gary Oldman’s ferocious performance all the more terrifying. It’s been three decades, and we’re still finding things to appreciate in its phantasmagorical wonder.Īnd yet, despite the continued, even growing, love for the film, I always feel that one particular element is too often left out of the conversation.

Francis Ford Coppola’s 1992 film adaptation of the foundational horror novel has always been a sexy, kinetic nightmare, but in an age when audiences worship at the altar of “believability” and CGI and LED Volume stages consume the visual language of film, the practical wizardry and expressionistic depth of the film makes it shine even brighter. The more time passes, the better Bram Stoker’s Dracula looks.

Dracula di bram stoker anthony hopkins