But far from the best. The sets, costumes special effects, cinematography, for example, were first-rate and the acting was fair-to-middling. The weak point was the script. It changed too much of the story, in my opinion.
Agreed. Elisabeta was not even hinted at in the book, and neither was the reincarnation stuff.
The film did have some nice touches; for example, the blue flames on the ground that told of the locations of treasures, but over-all, I thought the script was the weak point in the film.
My favorite remains the 1977 BBC effort Count Dracula. This is due, in large part. to it's fidelity to the novel. The acting was superb and the atmosphere was very dark and nicely done.
1. Keanu Reeves. You'd bump the film up a solid gold star just for casting Harker more appropriately.
2. Dracula and Mina romance. I'm specifically thinking of where they go to the movies and have a few dates. It's tonally bizarre and isn't followed-through by the rest of the movie. This is, from a script standpoint, where the movie falls flat. I don't mind the prologue and Dracula falling in love with Mina, but only if done more subtly, less with this weird period romance-drama in the middle of the Gothic horror movie.
3. Winona Ryder. This is a distant third. She doesn't seem that bad to me, but I am suspicious that, if you got rid of Reeves, Ryder would start to look a little weak tea compared to Oldman and Hopkins.
As you say, the look of the film, it's design and camerawork, are spectacular. The performances of most of the main cast (Tom Waits!) was great. But there are weak points that really, REALLY hurt the film.
The whole film is beautiful visually but I do agree that the cinema/date is weird. I can't help but think it was all a bit of an excuse to throw in some "Steam punk" influence, the mix of old world and the new world mixing together.