Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
729 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Oldman is the Best Dracula Ever!
Moonlyn14 February 2005
This is the best rendition of Dracula ever captured on film. Gary Oldman's dark and sensual personae outshines any other vampire who ever dare put on a cape. To me Gary Oldman is the most talented and underrated actor ever. He becomes who he is playing, however in this role... Dracula became him... Oldman set the bar so high it is untouchable even to Bela Lugosi. Winona Ryder's delicateness suited the role of Mina/Elisabeta nicely and Keanu Reeves played the unsuspecting and naive Jonathan with satisfaction. However the whole movie comes together because of Gary Oldman's intoxicating essence. He draws the viewers into his darkness and passion and guides them through until the end. This film is drastically romantic and hauntingly captivating- just like a real Dracula movie should be. The cinematography deserved Oldman's phenomenal performance and perfectly created a true vampire realm. Francis Ford Coppola is brilliant. This is the spirit of the vampire.
340 out of 452 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
gianlucabertani-7709516 November 2017
First of all, sorry for my English: I'm Italian and I don't know if I am able to express not in my language my thoughts with the proper terms. Anyway, I loved this movie, even if I agree that the title should have been F.F.Coppola's Dracula. In fact it is a very personal read of the original script. So, I can understand, but not agree, with all critics about important differences to Bram Stoker's masterpiece. It's a movie you can love or hate, there is no midway, as all comments prove. Personally, I loved the way Coppola reviewed the classic tale, giving Dracula a reason to be what he became after the loss of his wife e to search in England the reincarnation of his lost love. Gary Oldman is absolutely fantastic, lavish, romantic,chilling, in particular as he plays an old Dracula in the beginning of the movie. Definitely the best character of his career until now (let's see how he portrays Churchill in the Darkest Hour). Winona Ryder is so sweet and adorable that I forgive the fact she hasn't been the best choice to play Mina. The other actors (except for Keanu Reeves, completely outcast and unable to act) are all good choices. The music is wonderful, as cinematography, art/set direction, make up and costumes (who cares if Dracula wears John Lennon style sunglasses...). This Dracula is seductive as no other movies ever showed and as no other actor was able to portrait the dark prince. By the way, the choice of Keanu Reeves and some screenplay bad errors and holes don't allow to give a 10. But at the same time I can understand it's not a movie for all tastes. As I already written, you can love or hate it.
25 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Visually striking, but Coppola's storytelling eccentricities are ill suited for the story itself
MovieAddict201618 October 2005
"Apocalypse Now" worked due to its hazy, surreal vision of a hellish world. Coppola returned thirteen years later and created a similarly haunting and poetic so-called "masterpiece," a supposed truthful adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula tale - when, in fact, the truth is that this movie is no more faithful to Stoker than the (superior) Universal Pictures original.

The hazy film-making is visually satisfying, and some of the special effects are - simply put - amazing. Coppola's backlighting and use of shadows is creative and unique. But, unfortunately, after a while his emphasis on style over content begins to eat away at the film's other strengths - the relationship between the heroine (Winona Ryder) and Dracula (Gary Oldman) is weak. Many story links are completely nonsensical and people appear and disappear at whimsy. The heroine's fiancée (Keanu Reeves) writes to her from Transylvania, asking her to depart at once to marry him; in a matter of one or two scenes she has suddenly traveled a vast distance and is standing at the alter prepared to wed. It seems like Coppola loses a grip on his characters and plotting very early on.

Oldman gives a chilling performance but isn't given very much to do, because he's set aside and the special effects take over. The opening scenes of his battle and his motivation to become the King of the Undead is very enthralling - if Coppola had maintained this mixture of style and content the movie would have been far better.

The casting of the weak Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder in leading roles harms the impact of the film as well. Reeves sounds like a Californian pothead imitating a Brit; Ryder treats the material as if it is a dramatic, over-the-top theatre rendition; every line she speaks is sickeningly cheesy.

Anthony Hopkins turns in a disappointing performance as the utterly forgettable Van Helsing, who is given very little to do in this particular film apart from show up when convenient and sprout fancy little one-liners, most of them dramatic closers to scenes (e.g. "We are dealing with a demon!", then a cut-away to another scene.) Overall, "Dracula" is a good film and is worth seeing for its visuals alone. It is not, however, the strongest adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel; given the hype surrounding its release in 1992, the completed effort is rather lackluster in the story department.
52 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Francis takes on Dracula and makes it into a masterpiece
Smells_Like_Cheese13 August 2001
Warning: Spoilers
One of the best known and most popular Dracula films is by Francis Ford Coppola. At the time he really hadn't made a hit film since The Godfather, he was going bankrupt. So what better way to get out of debt than to make something that is pretty much a guaranteed thing that audiences will love? We got the scares for the boys and the romance for the girls and it equals Dracula. Many people ask me what is with the appeal of vampires? My opinion; it all equals sex. The dashing handsome man coming into the young lady's room at night confessing his desire for her and her giving herself completely to him is not only romantic, but dangerous and filled with adventure. I always found it funny that Dracula was supposed to be the villain of the story, but he's offering to take the girl on this incredible adventure through the world and time yet her usually bland boyfriend doesn't want it that way so he rips her from that experience… I don't know, maybe I just look at things too differently. However moving onto the film, Francis took on the classic tale claiming to be "Bram Stoker's Dracula", not really being 100% faithful to the novel and really over glamed it, however still made this into a very good movie.

In 1897, newly-qualified solicitor Jonathan Harker takes the Transylvanian Count Dracula as a client from his colleague R. M. Renfield, who has gone insane. Jonathan travels to Transylvania to arrange Dracula's real estate acquisition in London, including Carfax Abbey. Jonathan meets Dracula, who discovers a picture of Harker's fiancée, Mina, and believes that she is the reincarnation of Elisabeta, his long lost love. Dracula leaves Jonathan to be seduced by his brides and sails to England with boxes of his native soil, taking up residence at Carfax Abbey. In London, Dracula appearing young and handsome during daylight, meets and charms Mina. When Mina receives word from Jonathan, who has escaped the castle and recovered at a convent, she travels to Romania to marry him. In his fury, Dracula transforms Lucy, her best friend, into a vampire. The men: Van Helsing, Holmwood, Seward and Morris kill Lucy. After Jonathan and Mina return to London, Jonathan and Van Helsing lead the others to Carfax Abbey, where they destroy the Count's boxes of soil. Dracula confesses that he murdered Lucy and has been terrorizing Mina's friends, but a confused and angry Mina admits that she still loves him and remembers her previous life as Elisabeta. At her insistence, Dracula begins transforming her into a vampire. The men are now determined to save her before her transformation is complete by killing Dracula.

What makes this film so special compared to other Dracula movies? I think it was Gary Oldman's performance, he made a very memorable Dracula. Ranging from creepy and disturbing to romantic and charming. I think a lot of people connected with the love story, even if it was over romanticized, a lot of people would like to think that "love never dies" and someone would "cross oceans of time to find them". Does the film have flaws; oh yeah. Between the laugh fest that was the battle of the bad accents between Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder. There are scenes that are very over the top and over acted, sometimes also equaling a little too MTV generation. However, you cannot deny that the style of the film is absolutely memorizing and very elegant. The costumes and sets are very stunning and who could forget Dracula's "butt" hair-do? This film has had so many parodies making fun of the lines and hair, but I think that goes to show the impact that the film had. It also started a stream of the Universal Studio remakes with "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" and "Wolf" later on. The film may be flawed, but I still love it. It's not faithful to the novel, but gets more things correct compared to other films like Dracula's death and some lines directly taken from the novel like "Yes, I too can love". I think this will go down in the horror classics when it comes to vampire movies, it's got class, violence, blood, style and a lot of sex appeal.

111 out of 153 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
One of Coppola's Best
nico-1042 January 2005
Though I did not read the book and can't compare it to the movie, I found Bram Stoker's Dracula quiet excellent. The costume design, lighting, camera work, make-up-fx are all very good and make for a very atmospheric movie.

There are some truly outstanding things in this film.

1, the editing... excellent, I love the way they worked with dissolves, the hypnotic feel they created with the careful editing. Every frame flows in the other, the whole style grabs you and never lets you go... I simply could not turn my eyes off the screen.

2, the acting... Gary Oldman is THE Dracula, IMO. Seductive, strong, bad and scary in his own distinctive way, yet really romantic.

Hopkins is funny as Van Helsing and quiet ironic.

Winona is a great Mina. Beautiful, innocent. She looks great in these Victorian costumes.

Keanu Reeves is not as bad as many of you think. He makes the best of his underwritten character.

3, the Score... haunting, romantic, scary. It works beautiful with the pictures.

I think this movie is a great cinematic achievement and very underrated. It's a shame they don't make movies like that any more.

228 out of 330 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Treat For The Eyes And Ears
ccthemovieman-122 April 2006
As is the case with many of these latter-day horror movies, this is visually stunning. This one is particularly so, with beautiful colors, wild special effects, lavish sets and a handful of pretty women, led by Winona Ryder.

It isn't all beauty; there are some horrific, bloody moments in here. I've seen the film three times and the first two times was terrifying to me in parts. The last viewing wasn't as scary, but maybe I was distracted by seeing this on DVD for the first time, which enhanced the visuals and added some nice 5.1surround sound.

At two hours and 10 minutes, it's a bit long but there are very few lulls, if any. Gary Oldham gives his normal intense performance as Dracula and it never hurts to have Anthony Hopkins in the film.

The only negative I found was Keannu Reeves, who sounds a bit wooden in his lines. Is it my imagination, or is he a terrible actor? Maybe it's just his voice. Nonetheless, Cary Elwes, Richard Grant, Sadie Frost and Bill Campbell all give good support to this film which is a real feast for the senses.
115 out of 166 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An Artistically Rendered Tale Of Darkness
jhclues24 March 2001
The most famous vampire in the history of literature and film is brought graphically to life in `Bram Stoker's Dracula,' directed by Francis Ford Coppola, and starring Gary Oldman as the Count from Transylvania. Working from a screenplay (by James Victor Hart) that is a faithful adaptation of the novel, Coppola takes an artistic approach to the material and creates some startling and effective images-- some quite intense and erotic-- to tell the story of Count Dracula and his world of the undead. Unsettling at times, and often shocking, the film is mesmerizing and thoroughly engrossing, delivered with a full palette of colors and shadows that form a backdrop against which the characters so vividly emerge to play out the drama. It's a visual and emotional feast that is satisfying in every respect, beginning with a brief history of Dracula and the circumstances of his life that ultimately allied him with the forces of darkness and evil. Initially, the casting of Gary Oldman as Dracula seemed inauspicious and ill advised; in retrospect, the choice of Oldman was inspired. Though many actors have done the role before and since (Schreck, Lugosi and Lee, just to name a few), Oldman manages to make the character uniquely his own, with a nuanced performance infused with depth and acuity. Even when delivering famous, oft quoted lines from previously filmed versions of the story (Lugosi's `Children of the night, what music they make,' for instance), Oldman makes them spontaneous and fresh, with a conversational tone that makes you feel as if you're hearing them for the first time. His presence is self-assured and menacing, which makes the character strong and intimidating, and you sense his longevity and the dark wisdom afforded him by his many years of existence. There is a fastidiousness about Oldman's methods of inhabiting a character that makes you wonder if there is anything as an actor that is beyond his grasp. At this point, I would think not. As Van Helsing, Anthony Hopkins puts his personal stamp on a well known character as well. His portrayal of the famous professor is zealous and lively, and touched with an eccentricity that makes him an interesting and welcome presence in the film. Winona Ryder, too, gives a believable performance as Mina, a somewhat emotionally challenging role she addresses with the restraint demanded of her by the character. With her dark, winsome looks and natural intensity she is perfect for the part, and displays a femininity that contrasts well with the overt sexuality of Dracula's three `brides.' And Tom Waits gives a memorable performance as the mad, insect-eater, Renfield, as does Sadie Frost, as Lucy, Mina's young and nubile best friend who unwittingly falls prey to Dracula's dark powers. The single member of the cast who seems to struggle a bit with characterization is Keanu Reeves, as Jonathan Harker; he gives a passable performance, but fails to ever get a firm grasp of the character. Still, he has an engaging presence and, though lacking depth, his portrayal is at least credible enough to maintain the continuity of the film. The supporting cast includes Richard E. Grant (Dr. Seward), Cary Elwes (Lord Holmwood) and Bill Campbell (Quincey). Exacting in detail and imaginatively rendered, Coppola's `Bram Stoker's Dracula,' is an impressive, memorable film. By boldly juxtaposing images and shadows, embracing the innate sensuality of the vampire, and blending it all together so seamlessly, Coppola has taken his film, not only to the zenith of the horror genre, but beyond. It's a journey into the regions beyond the known, wherein the forces of darkness thrive and survive; a cinematic experience you'll not soon forget, courtesy of Coppola, a superlative cast, and the magic of the movies. I rate this one 9/10.
104 out of 150 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Interesting and Mostly Accurate Take on the Horror Classic.
tfrizzell18 April 2003
"Bram Stoker's Dracula" is one of those films that reeled people in by making its audience believe that it would be an intense horror film on par with productions like "Rosemary's Baby" or "The Exorcist". Instead, director Francis Ford Coppola stayed more true to Stoker's novel and put a focus on an intense love story that transcends time, the elements and even life and death. This naturally turned off many horror enthusiasts who would rather see a film that thrives on shock value rather than a movie that thrives on heart, brains and emotion. The film is naturally about the titled character, an immortal man (played superbly by the nearly always exceptional Gary Oldman) who has turned against God and now lives through the powers of darkness. By the late-19th Century, the titled character is trying to lure back a reincarnation of his one true love (Winona Ryder) and of course attempting to eliminate all those that might stand in his way (Ryder's fiance Keanu Reeves and professor Anthony Hopkins most notably). Overall "Dracula" is an amazingly good looking film that benefits from high production values and guaranteed performances (mainly from Oldman and Hopkins). Coppola's direction is strong, but a bit overbearing at times and sometimes it is unclear what the tone of the production truly is. Watch for Italian beauty Monica Bellucci as one of Oldman's beautiful, but deadly wives. 4 stars out of 5.
121 out of 192 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The best Dracula movie ever made.
silicondoc21 March 2006
I have watched this movie probably ten times. It is no doubt the best Dracula movie ever made. The cinematography is superb, the sound effects are absolutely incredible. It is enchanting, haunting, endearing, and enthralling all at once. It is the type of movie that is done so well it seems there are endless stories within it, and you can certainly lose all sense of yourself when watching it. Absolutely tremendous. Top of the line. A classic for all time. It has a bit of a good western in it, some of the old style early movies, plenty of modern visual effects, a good amount of sexual flair without overdoing it, the enduring innocence of the several young ladies that lighten the screen. The first person storytelling aspect that fades in and out is also a very well done key effect, detaching you from the scenes in an observant listener fashion without danger of entering, allowing you to witness or imagine the coming horror unfolding, then drawing you in deep within the screen until you're lost in it's essence.

Tremendous film. Definitely recommend. Do not deprive yourself.
24 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
One of the most romantic stories ever told
stamper29 October 2001
Warning: Spoilers
The background of this story is the myth / legend of Count Vlad Dracula (son of count Dracul) ‘nicknamed' Vlad Tepes (Vlad the impaler). Vlad was, as the film tells us a warlord in the 15th century who fought the Turks. According to the myth he drank the blood of his victims and impaled them. This is a real myth, as it was and maybe even is still believed in Rumania. A lot of information about Vlad Dracula was later gathered by Irish writer Bram Stoker, who, combined it with myths of vampires into this tale of the well known blood -–sucking Vampire. Another thing that is real in this film are the pictures in the book Vampyr, which is read by van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins) in this movie. The pictures you find there are also to be found in history and school books, complete with ancient writings beside them.

I will not reveal to you the nature of the plot, but I must say this bloody horror film is one of the most sad and romantic stories ever told. It is about a man who loses his wife and cannot rejoin her in another life. So he turns against anything people in the 15th century believed in and is punished by god to wander the earth as the undead. He is cursed to be feared and hunted, for he needs to drink the blood of man to keep alive. He is nosferatu (vamyr), he is Count Dracula.

He lives miserably for about 400 years until he falls in love again. And by doing so we are dragged into the fortune and misery of a creature who lives eternally. He is alive, but lifeless on the inside. He is rich, gentle and loving, yet he must feast on humans to survive. He is damned forever, whilst he did not do anything wrong.

The settings of this great story is late 19th century Europe (England and Karpathia). Karpathia is not well known to man, the wild side of Europe. All this bears with it the mysticism of this story and the epic and tragic background. As for Dracula (Gary Oldman) himself, he drags us into a world of blood, lust and erotica. He seems only to be driven by his great love for Mina (Winona Ryder) and the need of being together with her. TRUE LOVE

There are some great (and famous) actors in this film: Anthony Hopkins, Winona Ryder, Gary Oldman, Cary Elwes and Keanu Reeves. They all contribute greatly to this film, although I must say that the best acting comes from Gary Oldman (Dracula), Sadie Frost (Lucy), Sir Anthony Hopkins (van Helsing) and music legend Tom Waits (Renfield). Do not get me wrong the rest is good to and do their job's well, but these four really put the dot on the i.

Besides the actors there are a lot of things that stand out (look at the list of prizes and nominations at the Oscars), but I must say two people are left unaccounted for there. The director Francis Ford Copolla and the genius behind the haunting and touching music Wojciech Kilar. They both bring so much to the greatness of this film, I would have felt like an idiot if I had left them out.

This does not only make an excellent horror / epic / romantic film, but surely is (in my opinion) a great date flick, about love everlasting and the tragedy of a man who is cursed to live forever and roam the world alone, for he is feared and hunted.

9 out of 10
106 out of 169 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
After Gary Oldman as Dracula, there is no other Dracula
ienge16 December 2004
This movie I feel has not gotten high enough vote in your system. Therefore I gave it 10 points despite a few details that would normally deprive it of one point.These are firstly that the character of Jonathan does not measure up to the standards of the rest of the actors. The second little detail is the scene with the party where Lucy joins together her worshipers. Quincy is holding his hat in front of the sofa when Lord Holmwood arrives. The next time we see him he is given his hat with apologies from the doctor Jack Seward who apparently has sat down on the hat. He already sat there in the former scene when Quincy is holding the hat. Very irritating with such a big blunder in a super movie like that. Now, what makes the movie a "tenner" is everything else, in particular Gary Oldmans interpretation of the count, and Anthony Hopkins as doctor van Helsing.The scene with Mina and Dracula in bed is one of the greatest romantic scenes ever, and sure to make any girl cry.
147 out of 240 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Lush and Sensual
Cheetah-614 January 2002
This one really nails it. Lush, sensual, sexy\gory, beautiful and creepy. With just the right touch of humor to keep it in perspective. Tom Waits as Renfield gone bonkers is great comic relief. Nosferatu of 1922 or Werner Herzog's version of 1979 are also very good but they've got nothing on this one. It stands well with them and is a must for any Vampire story lover. This one pulls of Dracula's story in high style! One of Coppola's Best works.
119 out of 194 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Coppola ruins a great novel by adding his own flavor.
rturner23131 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I was supremely disappointed by this, "Bram Stoker's" Dracula. I have read the classic novel by Bram Stoker, and I don't think this would have gained his approval. The only things common between the movie and the book are the names of the characters, and that Count Dracula is from Transylvania. I don't know why Francis Ford Coppola felt he had to spice up a story that has stood up for generations of scrutiny as a classic story of good vs. evil and dress it as a love story. There is a reason that other horrible characters have been created in literature, but there are only a few that endure. Dracula is one of them, and it is because of the chills a reader feels when in his presence in the world Stoker created. The novel has suspense, feeling, and good, noble characters throughout. The movie has none of these qualities.

Everyone in the book has their own vices and greatness. Dr. Seward: doubtful but brave. Dr. Van Helsing: brilliant and cunning. Quincey Morris: simple and impetuous. Arthur Holmwood: sophisticated and selfless. Jonathan Harker: loving and loyal. Coppola manages to remove all these qualities from the characters in this movie. But the worst tragedy of them all was the butchering of the character of Mina Harker. She is the heroine in Stoker's story, a great woman who was indispensable in their pursuit and ultimate destruction of the monster. In the movie, she is the reincarnation of Dracula's lost bride and loses all of her charm and any connection with the audience by pining for an undead demon. Who, by the way, Coppola manages to humanize by somehow justifying his thirst for blood by showing us how much he loved his bride hundreds of years ago.

If I had not read the book, I might be less disappointed with the movie. I did enjoy Anthony Hopkins' performance as Dr. Van Helsing, although he turned the doctor into a bit of a religious crackpot. I have never seen the "Dracula" starring Bela Lugosi, but I intend to, if for no other reason to go back to a time where movie makers developed plot lines and characters rather than just splashing blood and bared chests across the screen.
127 out of 210 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
this movie is disgrace for Bram Stoker and his fans
night_hawk333-127 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
This movie have excellent cast, director, photography, atmosphere BUT writer is complete idiot. He butchered the beautiful story. It would be OK if movie don't have name: Bram Stocker's Dracula! STOKER TURN OVER IN HIS GRAVE after this film. All characters are disgusting: Dracula wasn't romantic pathetic Don Juan, he was tyrant and evil!!! Lucy wasn't whore, she was kind shy girl! Mina was never in love in Dracula!!!! She loved Jonathan more than everything in the world and their love defeated Dracula!!! And Dracula never transformed in ugly hairy monkey and raped Lucy on cemetery(that is the worst scene in movie) Story from book was very original and there weren't necessary to make it more pathetic and more stupid American to make great movie. I hope that some wise director make one real version of Dracula to correct Coppola's greatest error in his life!
138 out of 234 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A rich telling near the source material
bob the moo14 November 2003
Opening with his vow to rise from his grave and take revenge on a God who allowed his beloved to die while he defended Him on the battlefield, we see Count Dracula in the 1890's, conducting business with a London firm. When his first consultant goes mad, Jonathon Harker is sent to Dracula in his place, only to find himself trapped in the castle. Meanwhile, Dracula travels to London where he feeds on the lovely Lucy Westenra. Her various suitors try to help her and call for Professor Van Helsing to come and help – they realise that this is not a simple battle against a disease of the blood.

Although a little too long for my liking, this film is a very rich gothic telling of a story that has become watered down slightly with the many different versions of stories with the characters. Here the basic plot follows the tale from the creation of Dracula, his love and his confrontation with Van Helsing and the various suitors of the lovely Lucy. The story is told with a real respect for the source, perhaps a little too much as it can be a little to heavy and lacking in spark at times. However, for the most part the gothic telling works very well and feels very lavish and rich.

Visually the film is great – rich colours in the scenery and costumes really bring the goth out of the film. Meanwhile Coppola works well with shadows and images in the backgrounds to make the film have the feel of an old silent movie version (eyes in the storm) but with modern standards. It's not really scary, but I didn't need it to be, I was more interested in the overall story, and that worked well.

The cast suffer from a bit too much respect for the material, some of their performances are a little too hammy and heavy. Oldman is good when compared to the better known image of the `Bela Lagosi' Dracula, but I did still find him a little too hammy at times. Likewise Rider is not totally convincing. Hopkins is quite fun to watch and the three suitors (including Ewles and Grant) very much play stiff upper lipped straight men! Of course of their performances tower with majesty above the sheer miscast ineptitude of Reeves. From the start his accent is horrid, but his inability to bring out emotions and character basically kills his character off before the film has even got going.

Despite this the film is actually very enjoyable even if it is a bit too respectful and long – occasionally making it feel a little heavy going. The rich presentation and loyalty to the source material makes for a very enjoyable story even if it isn't really what we'd see now as a horror.
59 out of 96 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Coppola's commercial classic...
Don-1027 January 1999
While Bram Stoker's Dracula was being made, the press made a lot of stink regarding this as Coppola's "Cape Fear", referring to Scorsese's big-budget remake of the original of 1962. Scorsese did a commendable update of that flick, but Coppola, a director known for his eccentricity and innovation, has taken an old myth and turned it upside down. I've never seen such visual effects, creating an expressionistic mood that would make F.W. Murnau (director of 1922's silent Nosferatu) proud. This is German Expressionism and Dali mixed together in color. On top of its visual power is the treatment of the Dracula story, remaining very faithful to Stoker's vision.

Gary Oldman turns in his best performance to date, both terrifying and compassionate, and is the most frightening Count since Max Schreck donned the Dracula gear back in the 1922 original. He takes on forms past filmmakers could only dream of putting on film. Obviously, the chemistry between Winona Ryder & Oldman is there. Hopkins is solid as always playing Professor Van Helsing, who has a few supernatural tricks of his own. Of course, Keanu Reeves is as solid as a piece of plywood, but that's another story.

It's the visuals and effects that really put an auteur's mark on the picture. You can tell a lot of money was spent, but Coppola utilizes every penny (something he has failed to do in some past films i.e. One From the Heart, Rumble Fish). We see some seriously disturbing images such as eyes in the sky and a stairwell in the Count's castle that seems to go beyond the infinite underneath. What a movie. This is a must see for all film fans and a reminder that Francis Ford Coppola has and always will be one of the best directors of all-time. Just sit back and let the film assault your senses.
14 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
In my opinion, this is still the best film of all time
Rubyowl5 January 2020
I've watched a lot of films, but everytime I see this film, it still stands the test of time! Everything - the soundtrack, the outfits, the cinematology, the actors - absolutely everything in this film is spot on perfection. I love gothic, supernatural horror so I am little biased. But this film, I've lost count the amount of times I have watched it and each time I notice a small detail that I didn't before and how fitting it is. It is still the best rendition of Bram Stoker's Dracula that you will ever see.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Very little even watchable material in this film
p_liles24 January 2006
There are two good things about "Bram Stoker's Dracula". They are: Gary Oldman (as Dracula) and Anthony Hopkins (as Professor Abraham Van Helsing).

Other than that the negatives regarding this movie are seemingly endless. I'll touch of the main problems.

1. This movie had beautiful costumes and sets, but I was unable to enjoy them with the herky jerky camera editing that the director Francis Ford Coppala decided to go with. I got a headache trying to focus on the action.

2. Many movies have been made based on books. There are varying degrees of staying true to the original story. However, if you title your film "BRAM STOKER'S Dracula", then you better stay true to Bram Stoker's version of the story. I had just read the book, and was eagerly anticipating the film. It didn't take long to see that most of the original story is either simply ignored or actually changed. I'm not talking about minor details. I am talking about major themes in the book that are totally destroyed. The movie should have been named "Coppala's Vampire", then I wouldn't have wasted my money on going to the theater to see it.

3. This movie, in my opinion, has to be one of the worst cast films in the history of movie-making. At least, when you consider that the two main characters are played by Keanu Reeves and Wynona Rider. They are two of the most limited actors in Hollywood, and should never have even been allowed to read the script in the first place. As bad as they are, they do not even give a good performance even by their standards, most likely due to the poor matching of script to abilities.

Watching this movie is literally one of my least favorite movie-going experiences ever. It's basically a case of "three strikes and you're out", because of the poor acting/casting, lack of staying even close to the original story & irritating editing that leaves you straining to focus on what's happening.
91 out of 159 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Quite impossibly bad
nico_jones6 March 2006
I must be missing something here, as this is easily one of the most shockingly terrible, tear-my-eyes-out-so-I-don't-have-to-see-it, train wreck mess of an excuse for a film that I have ever had the severe misfortune to bear witness to. I am sitting here in my living room literally unable to come to terms with how execrable this 'film'was.

How anyone can think this is good is quite beyond me. A few points: -The look of the film is not 'grandiose' or 'lush', it is crap. The effects are crap, the sets are crap. It's just a royal glut of crapness from start to finish.

-Every cast member excerpt Gary Oldman turns in a career-worst performance par excellence.

-Calling it 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' is an exercise bordering on the farcical. This film should be called 'Francis Ford Coppola's unashamed molestation of Dracula, aided and abetted by the most staggeringly inept fake English accents ever committed to celluloid'.

Keanu Reeves' English accent is (deep breath) worse, yes WORSE than Dick Van Dyke's horrific cockney aberration from Mary Poppins. This in itself is quite an achievement and almost makes the film worth watching. Actually, no it doesn't.

To sum up, by all that you hold dear do not watch this film. Spend two hours removing your skin with a power-sander then have a salt bath. It will be a less painful experience. I bid you good day.
129 out of 233 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Bram Stoker spinning wildly in his grave!
Tin Man-58 June 1999
It is called "Bram Stoker's Dracula." The title is deceiving.

This film is an incoherent mess, to put it rather bluntly.

The effects, which look beautiful, only take away from the story-- you forget that this is a vampire movie and you are left with an impression that it is a special effects promo. And for crying out loud, what is with that tagline "Love Never Dies?" This film has taken a classic story and mutated it into a romance. Granted, there were huge romantic elements in the original Dracula-- the gothic horror classics such as it and Frankenstein flowed elegantly like poetry, and romance was used. But this film has taken something that Bram Stoker never intended and made it the key focus: Mina is now a riencarnation of a lover who Dracula lost while still Vlad the Impaler, and the whole film is basically an endless trek as they find each other and rediscover their lost love. OOOOKAY!

As far as events in the book goes, it is pretty accurate, but that's not the point. The point is, they completely changed the focus on some kind of unnesseccary love story. If Coppola had made the film an accurate account of the legend, it would have worked great. If he had changed the title from "Bram Stoker's", I might have liked it a little better (Even though the endless effects, as I have mentioned, made it mind-numbing and incoherent). Instead, it is only boring, tedious, and an insult to everything Bram Stoker hoped to accomplish. Poor Mr. Stoker....If he knew such trash like this would come out of his work, I'm sure he would have never written it.

If you want to see a good Dracula film, watch the Klause Kinski version of Nosferatu. It certainly isn't faithful to the novel, but at least it doesn't PRETEND to be, like this sorry excuse for a Dracula epic does.

I would give this film a negative two hundred on a scale of one to ten, if not for Anthony Hopkin's brilliant performance as Van Helsing. Truly, he's the only brillaint thing about it.
88 out of 157 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Francis Ford Copolla should get on his knees and BEG for forgiveness from Bram Stoker!!!!
MamzelleLilliette30 January 2007
Firstly, I'm NOT going to say that the story of Dracula is strictly for Gothic culture (whatever's left of it) because, truthfully, such a fabulous example for literature is something that anybody of refined taste should enjoy. However, Dracula, due to being a story about the children of the night and their haunting impulse on the world of the living, has become associated with Gothicism. But it makes the Gothic genre of art and literature (I'm referring to Byron, Henry Fuseli, the Romantics etc) look poor and squalid because of the way it has been TAKEN and MAIMED by modern day Hollywood. Now this review is not about me personally, but I want to mention how I, as a Gothic, can no longer look at this story and admire it. Want to know why? Because every time I hear the name 'Dracula', horny, tanned and frankly un-vampiric Gary Oldman and his groaning, self-orgasm-ing miniature Harem (the three brides, Mina AND Lucy, for those of you who didn't guess) fill my head! What has Francis Ford Copolla done?! What possessed him to mutate such a beautiful piece of Victorian literature? And what the Hell makes him think-HONESTLY THINK-that his pornographic, dirty, lecherous,flea bitten vision is SO worthy of the title "Bram Stoker's" Dracula?

I could talk all night about the mistakes he's made. For one thing, Johnnathen Harker and Mina Murray, not just as sweethearts but also as aristocratic Victorians, have a CHASTE and PURE relationship; a relationship that does not require sloppy, sweaty sex to show virtue and passion. F.F.Copolla has not only discarded of Johnnathen Harker's importance to the story, he has also totally distorted Mina's gentle, heroic character by pretending to himself that she is actually Dracula's long lost reincarnated 'love'. Having a tag line like 'LOVE NEVER DIES' and a theme of love between Dracula, the wraith, and Mina, the maiden, is ludicrous.Its not only ludicrous because its NEVER what Bram Stoker intended; its also ridiculous because Mina and Dracula DO NOT love each other! How can Dracula rape Lucy, have a harem of brides AND adore Mina all at once? Whenever the two are around each other they behave like sex-deprived, sex-seeking, silly little lustful teenagers-sucking each others nipples and canoodling each other in public places. Where is the love-REAL love-in that?

You see, the Victorians had extremely strict ideals about love and marriage. Mainly all marriage was prearranged, the entire point of the corset was to keep a woman faithful to her husband (the husband laced her corset up in a specific way so that, if it was ever undone and then redone up, he could tell.)...and the characters in Bram Stokers book just go to show that that scummy thing we call 'sex appeal' is not actually important. Stokers characters are valiant, beautiful, in corrupt. Or were.

I think Copolla should be ashamed for ruining such a beautiful story. If he wanted to make a movie-another scummy excuse of a vampire movie-he should have wrought it with his own story and his own characters. Why he felt he had to deform this perfectly beautiful story about the triumph of purity over Death, is beyond me. And I will hate him forever for what he has done.
65 out of 115 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Grandeur of the Piece.
SeductivePhantressVampir22 December 2005
There will never be a more sexually drawing and enticing performance of Dracula then there was in this. Gary Oldman has been the best and, most likely, always will be. His ability to use several accents makes his Dracula a dark, mysterious, sexually arousing lover and character. It makes some forget the true horror he is supposed to instill, but that shall never be a problem in my book. It would have received a 10 if Lucy's lovers didn't always seem to be sucking up to her or another one person. They just seemed to be constantly quarreling in their minds about one another and always trying to win Lucy from Arthur! This should of course seem normal, but just makes them seem weak. Overall though this movie is great for Romance and slight amounts of Horror.
12 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Awful adaptation of the book
punk_rawk_chick1816 September 2006
I saw Bram Stoker's Dracula last year without having any knowledge whatsoever of the book. As I watched it, I was almost certain that it was an inaccurate representation as there is so much vile nudity and violence that it seemed to be a glimpse into Coppola's disgusting, misogynistic brain rather than a 19th Century classic. I have just finished the book and I would like to proudly say I am correct. Although the book subverts women entirely and paints them as weak, timid creatures that need to be protected by men, they are at least far from wanton (except, of course, for the siren-like vampires). Lucy's character is completely corrupted from what Stoker intended her to be, and never in the book does Mina even have the slightest desire to become a vampire. There is NO love between Dracula and Mina and this is absolutely crucial to the story. This does NOT add a 'cool twist,' nor make the story any more interesting. It betrays the original Victorian notions that are embedded into the story and turns it into a gratuitous, abhorrent representation of modern Hollywood. Dracula is the embodiment of pure evil; he abhors life, purity, goodness and wishes to gather as many that he can to join in his evil existence and to do his bidding. The love in this story comes from Van Helsing, Dr Seward and most of all the love between Jonathan and Mina. The ending of the book captures this beautifully, yet this horrid film (no pun intended) fails to graciously offer its audience a glimpse into what this story is about.
71 out of 128 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Platine8 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I have watched This masterpiece yesterday and i thought it would be a good idea to comment on it.

The first time a saw this movie in theater i didn't thought that more then 10 years later it would still be my all-time favorite movie. The introduction until you see the title give you a good idea of what will be the next 2 hours or so.

I don't think a movie introduction have been so perfect in any other movie and to be honest, every time i watch the introduction, i can't help it but i have to see the rest of this incredible work of art.

*** Spoiler ***

Many will say that the movie era should have been kept in 1462 or so and i'm one of them but to be honest if they would have done that i don't think we would have seen a love story. I'm sure we would have seen a man bringing death to anywhere he went, showing no mercy children women would have been brutally slain and i don't think Coppola wanted to go to that avenue.

*** end of spoiler ***

So what about the acting ?

Well of course Gary Oldman is great Hopkins too. As for the other goes, they did a good job and this is why this movie is that good, because so many movies have been made with lots of big name and the result was catastrophic (batman and robin is a good example)

So to end this review, i can't think anything else but to give credits where credits are earned so i'll give a perfect score for a perfect movie.

16 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
This movie would be fine, if not for the title...
argyle2 February 1999
... This simply isn't "Dracula".

By naming it "Bram Stoker's Dracula" Coppola holds himself to a higher standard of faithfulness to the original book than any other version of the story, past or future. And he falls flat on his face.

"Dracula" was never a romance, nor was it intended to be. If Coppola wanted to make a vampire love story, he was more than welcome to do so. But not Dracula. Dracula was about conquest, and NOT the romantic sort. If Dracula falls in love, it blows the entire plot and subtext of the original. How does that qualify as faithful to the original story?

Yes, beautiful cinematography. Yes, great cast (with the obvious exception of Keanu Reeves, who couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag). Yes, great costumes, score, yada yada.

NO, it was a LOUSY rendition of Dracula.
56 out of 100 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed