Read User Reviews and Submit your own for Bram Stoker's Dracula

9

SpangleSep 18, 2017

A truly horrifying descent in Dracula lore and superstition, Francis Ford Coppola's take on Dracula is far longer than the original 1931 version, yet so much more terrifying to watch. Demonstrating the backstory to Dracula (Gary Oldman) andA truly horrifying descent in Dracula lore and superstition, Francis Ford Coppola's take on Dracula is far longer than the original 1931 version, yet so much more terrifying to watch. Demonstrating the backstory to Dracula (Gary Oldman) and providing the vicious vampire with more depth and emotional connection than in the original, Coppola allows his central monster to be felt as an extremely human character who only turned to evil as an expression of his incredible pain. With all of the classic characters from Bram Stoker's Dracula popping up throughout this film, Coppola's bloody descent into the very depths of hell set in Transylvania is one that lingers in the air like a dense, blue or green fog. Chilling to one's very soul, Coppola's take on Dracula may be infamous for the poor acting of Keanu Reeves, but it is so much more than anticipated.

With Gary Oldman portraying the titular monster, Coppola's take on Dracula is one laced with menace from the very beginning. Sinister, morose, and sadistic, images of Dracula's demonic horde of women seducing Keanu Reeves' Jon Harker or consuming a baby for strength are seared into the very fabric of this film. However, comes after revealing what has sent Dracula into this hellish descent into sin with Satan as his tour guide. Renouncing God and stabbing a crucifix after learning that his enemies had deceived his bride Elisabeth (Winona Ryder) into believing he was dead, which caused her to kill herself, Dracula turns his back on the Lord rather violently and becomes a vampire. Capturing souls for Satan via the seduction of spiritually vulnerable women such as Lucy Westenra (Sadie Frost), Dracula's discovery that Jonathan is set to marry Mina (Winona Ryder) who is a spitting image of Elisabeta is one that sets him on a course for London. Roping her into his world of sin and evil, Dracula is a man who is intent on mending his broken heart and delves into sin, immortality, and violence, as a method of soothing this ache in his now-dead soul. A shockingly tragic figure who, along with his minions, commits abhorrent violence, Dracula is a man who instills fear into the hearts of all those who hear of him and his ways. Yet, through his anguish, he becomes a man who is sympathetic in the sense that he was once a force for good who, through loss, let his soul and sword be used a weapon of Satan.

It is through this that the film's demonic exploits work in spite of the controversy surrounding them and why the film's "love conquers all" finale is so powerful. Tempting and using sin as a weapon against their targets, Coppola shows the bare-breasted demonic concubines seducing Jonathan by sliding through his spread legs and presenting themselves for his pleasure. Seducing him into lusting after them and committing a sin of the flesh, the women secure Jonathan's soul via this method. The disorienting camera work from Coppola and the decision to end the scene by showing the women swarm around a baby to drink its blood make the scene one that sends chills throughout the viewer's entire being. Yet, together with the characterization of Lucy as a sinful, worldly, and intensely sexual seductress of the men in her life, the film demonstrates the path by which one's soul is corrupted. Giving into this temptation leaves them open to sin, one which Lucy fully embraces and one that Jonathan stands strong and resists.

This descent into hell and corruption of good is demonstrated in Mina as well. At the beginning, she is envious of Lucy. Well-mannered, strict, and hardly a seductress, Mina is shocked to see nude images in a copy of Arabian Nights. When Lucy sees these images, however, she explains to Mina what is going on, giggles, and puts deviously sexual thoughts into Mina's head and expresses her own. Planting these seeds of sin, Mina is set up perfectly for the arrival of Dracula. Unleashing her inner sexual being, he gives her the carnal pleasure she so desires in the scene in which he takes turns her into a vampire. With Jonathan - her husband - unwilling to go into such sexuality even with his wife, she turns to Dracula as the only possible source of this pleasure and the one who makes her feel most in touch with her most forbidden desires. Demonstrating the immediate ecstasy and pleasure garnered from giving into temptation, Dracula quickly shows the downside with Mina expressing immediate regret and guilt over her sin when she collapses into Jonathan's arms after Dracula leaves.

It is through this necessary hellish descent into sin that Coppola expresses the soul of Dracula. A torn, broken, and hideously sinful man, he resents God so he corrupts those that would belong to Him. Putting sin, lust, and deceit, into their hearts due to the wrongs that he perceives to have been done to him, Dracula brings the hellish hurt and anguish of his soul onto the Earth in order to spread the pain, hunger, and forbidden lust that he feels in his soul. He is a man who cannot suffer… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

9

FalaaxMay 28, 2018

A great gothic horror movie. According to many sources it is the most faithful to the originial Dracula story and it kept me captivated for the whole two hours.

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

10

KirsiM.Nov 18, 2007

Mistitled but a feast of interesting and stunningly beautiful images (this is, after all, a motion PICTURE), creating a dream-like atmosphere of period and fantasy. Mina and Lucy and their costumes look fabulous, albeit Stoker probably was Mistitled but a feast of interesting and stunningly beautiful images (this is, after all, a motion PICTURE), creating a dream-like atmosphere of period and fantasy. Mina and Lucy and their costumes look fabulous, albeit Stoker probably was spinning in his grave: one of his heroines was a vampires lover, other was a nymphomaniac! In Stokers novel, Lucy was the feminine ideal of " unequalled sweetness and purity" , the vampires were strong, sluttish and punishable, - yes, vamps. In this late 20th century version, red-haired firecracker Lucy, albeit clean like dewy rose in the world of crap called modern horror, is too uniinhibited to be Stokers weepy virgin. Violence and sex are stylized, never gross, and score is gorgeous. And Oldman? Much better than overrated Christopher Lee (who was never more than laughable sex fantasy) and actually quite good. Not Stokers Dracula, but great vampire flick.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful

9

Voodoo123Oct 14, 2018

Beautiful, encapsulating, meticulous, haunting, memorable yet not without its flaws...

B S Dracula is a fantastic gothic dreamscape which takes you on a pretty heavy audio visual journey of lovers seperated by time and reincarnation. EachBeautiful, encapsulating, meticulous, haunting, memorable yet not without its flaws...

B S Dracula is a fantastic gothic dreamscape which takes you on a pretty heavy audio visual journey of lovers seperated by time and reincarnation. Each time I see this movie it inspires and moves me with its creativity and invention especially knowing the visual effects were all achieved using in camera techniques which in UHD have aged far better than most of the CG effects used around 90's cinema. Only the accents of certain actors (if youve seen it you know!) have the power to take me out of the movie at times but even then Coppolas direction pulls me back in. Great movie.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

9

Rcavey92212Jun 26, 2020

I saw this in theaters when I was twelve and it just blew me out of my seat and opened my young queer mind up to fantastical, set design, glorious costumes, dramatic performances, a wonderous score and very sexy and talented Gary Oldman. AI saw this in theaters when I was twelve and it just blew me out of my seat and opened my young queer mind up to fantastical, set design, glorious costumes, dramatic performances, a wonderous score and very sexy and talented Gary Oldman. A more faithful adaptation of the classic novel than ever before. The film chronicles the tragic, grotesque and beautiful love story of Vlad the impaler and his live Mina whose been played by a stunning and passionate Winona Ryder. The film also stars a slightly goofy Keanu Reeves, Cary Elwes, Sadie Frost and a fierce Anthony Hopkins as Vam Helsing. Brilliantly creative, darkly romantic and dripping with seductive passion the film stands as near perfect and the best vampire masterpiece ever created. Budget: $40m
Box Office: $215m

9/10… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

9

ILHMFeb 2, 2013

Francis Ford Coppola gives the ageless vampire a terrifying new update in 1992's DRACULA. Coppola uniquely adapts the letters and journal entries from the original novel onto the screen in this stylish retelling. DRACULA may be the singleFrancis Ford Coppola gives the ageless vampire a terrifying new update in 1992's DRACULA. Coppola uniquely adapts the letters and journal entries from the original novel onto the screen in this stylish retelling. DRACULA may be the single most horrifying film of the 90's. Its lavish set pieces drip Gothic allure while its abominable creature designs have escaped from a world of nightmares. Why, then, did Coppola decide to drag it through the mud by hiring such an inappropriate cast? Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder couldn't have been worse choices as Jonathan Harker and Mina Murray. Judging by the film, one might think that Dracula drains his victims of talent. Their despondent performances dispel the romantic fantasy that is unraveling all around them. The great Anthony Hopkins has his hands in the matter too, with a boisterous take on Professor Van Helsing that comes across as a drunken fool. Despite his dramatic overacting, Gary Oldman proves himself the actor of the bunch, and puts forth a performance that is chilling to the bone. Just one look at his withered old Count is enough to make the skin crawl, and the buxom brides that stalk his chambers are none less frightening. From a visual standpoint, Francis Ford Coppola has directed a masterpiece of Gothic cinema, but for all of its lurid style and grace, DRACULA lacks soul.

-Carl Manes
I Like Horror movies… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

8

RegOzApr 6, 2012

I loved it! I would think of it as a 'romantic-horror- although is not very terrifying. It doesn't follow the same lines of other Dracula movies but it is good in its own way. So similar to the book! The big flaw of the movie: KeanuI loved it! I would think of it as a 'romantic-horror- although is not very terrifying. It doesn't follow the same lines of other Dracula movies but it is good in its own way. So similar to the book! The big flaw of the movie: Keanu Reeves...I think they could have picked someone better to play his part for he was a bit stiff. The best: Gary Oldman!..and Wynona Rider? she doesn't do much for me anymore, but she did okey! Lucy, was the real star there! The vestuary and Photography are absolutely stunning too, perfect! I can't believe some people are giving this movie a score a 0 for this movie...it means they don't find anything good about it...c'mon, even if you don't like the story line, there are great elements there! The Aesthetics! ...Delightful, truly delightful! ...By the way, seeing Monica Bellucci as a female vampire was fantastic! Great choice, even if it was just a minor role!… Expand

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

8

MovieGuysSep 27, 2013

Coppola does pretty well with this movie, and includes all he original Dracula elements into this on, except he makes it even more enticing and dramatic.

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

4

KamamuraJun 22, 2019

It's a parody, right? Please, tell me it's a parody. The overblown, cheap effects, the high school theatrics, the absolute disrespect for the original material, that all cannot be meant seriously. The experience resembles a ride through aIt's a parody, right? Please, tell me it's a parody. The overblown, cheap effects, the high school theatrics, the absolute disrespect for the original material, that all cannot be meant seriously. The experience resembles a ride through a cheap House of Horrors on your local carnival - and in the worst way imaginable. Cables and wires everywhere, and badly recorded maniacal laughter replayed from a cheap speaker. Bwahahahahahaaaaa! Throw in some Lovecraftian spooks that probably got lost while filming another piece and wandered onto the set, and you are ready to go (that tentacled cab driver, WTF?)

One thing it's certainly not. It's not scary. Not one bit. At least you could have had the decency to leave Bram Stoker's name from it. He certainly did not write this garbage.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

6

Meth-dudeNov 5, 2018

Despite the above average directing, the generally good acting performances, the impressive set pieces, the great practical effects and a very well made last hour, the movie's plot was too convoluted to be entertaining all the way through andDespite the above average directing, the generally good acting performances, the impressive set pieces, the great practical effects and a very well made last hour, the movie's plot was too convoluted to be entertaining all the way through and the first hour or so of the movie is very confusing and at times even boring. If you like vampire movies you might appreciate this one, if not, you're better off watching something else.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

5

ERG1008Aug 23, 2010

Francis Ford Coppola's take on Bram Stoker's Dracula.
Even though it has a fantastic cast, it's all a bit shallow. Anthony Hopkins & Tom Waits come away with decent performances but the rest of the cast are a bit like cardboard cutouts.
I sawFrancis Ford Coppola's take on Bram Stoker's Dracula.
Even though it has a fantastic cast, it's all a bit shallow. Anthony Hopkins & Tom Waits come away with decent performances but the rest of the cast are a bit like cardboard cutouts.
I saw this at the cinema when it first came out & thought it was average then. Gary Oldman is my favourite actor but this film doesn't do him any favours & the less said about Keanu Reeves & Winona Ryder the better.
Considering it's a love story, you don't feel for any of the lead characters at all.… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

6

j30Jan 26, 2012

Even though the movie stays some-what true to Bram Stoker's classic book, the movie fails to bring any suspense or surprises to the table (Keanu Reeves still sucks at acting). It is hard, however, to look away from the brilliant costumes,Even though the movie stays some-what true to Bram Stoker's classic book, the movie fails to bring any suspense or surprises to the table (Keanu Reeves still sucks at acting). It is hard, however, to look away from the brilliant costumes, make-up, and set designs. The film is great to look at, but the chilling mood from the book is still absent.… Expand

1 of 5 users found this helpful14

All this user's reviews

0

AtticusDApr 10, 2009

Easily on of the worst movies I have ever seen. Keanu Reeves seriously needs to learn how to act.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

1

DavidMOct 4, 2009

The worst film I've seen, read the book, it's much better.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

2

imthenoobNov 12, 2018

It's a visually stunning movie and still lives up in comparison to films nowadays but my lord, This has to be one of the worst acted movies I've ever seen. If it's not over-acting by the lead talent, It's the junk performance by Reeves thatIt's a visually stunning movie and still lives up in comparison to films nowadays but my lord, This has to be one of the worst acted movies I've ever seen. If it's not over-acting by the lead talent, It's the junk performance by Reeves that really drives it home. It's a hard film to finish because it's so laughably bad at times.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

7

gracjanskiJan 21, 2021

Classical story with top actors. The visual effects look a bit outdated. In addition the story is so well known, so maybe you have enough of it.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

9

talisencrwMar 6, 2016

Although it certainly won't make you easily forget earlier interpretations of the seminal horrific character by Max Schreck, Bela Lugosi, Sir Christopher Lee or Klaus Kinski, Gary Oldman definitely finds a way under your skin. As well, theAlthough it certainly won't make you easily forget earlier interpretations of the seminal horrific character by Max Schreck, Bela Lugosi, Sir Christopher Lee or Klaus Kinski, Gary Oldman definitely finds a way under your skin. As well, the resoundingly sumptuous cinematography will sweep you off your feet--unless you're dead to begin with... =)… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

RobertOBrienJul 13, 2015

Visually stunning but creatively challenged, this adaptation of Dracula is a visual experience but an emotional snoozefest. The plot is not the focus point of the film, so anyone who is looking for a story that will immerse them and take themVisually stunning but creatively challenged, this adaptation of Dracula is a visual experience but an emotional snoozefest. The plot is not the focus point of the film, so anyone who is looking for a story that will immerse them and take them on a journey will be surely disappointed.

The film is backed by a good cast and good directing, but it's writing falls short. Its a feast for the eyes but not very stimulating it terms of plot. It's not terrible, just mediocre. I feel as though it doesn't take as much from the book as it should have. Also, Dracula's beehive hair, need I say more? But even with that, the art director for this film deserves an oscar, it looks beautiful.

The film is disappointing all around. But the visuals bring it up from a 4 to a 5.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

8

kyle20ellisMar 14, 2022

There were several reasons why I wanted to see Bram Stoker's Dracula, and after seeing the film finally I was really impressed. No seriously I was. It is not perfect, but on the whole it is very well done.

I have read Bram Stoker's bookThere were several reasons why I wanted to see Bram Stoker's Dracula, and after seeing the film finally I was really impressed. No seriously I was. It is not perfect, but on the whole it is very well done.

I have read Bram Stoker's book several times and love it to death, it is rich in detail, it is haunting and it is shocking. This film is not the truest film version of the book, and that's putting it mildly, but it is one of the more visually beautiful and intriguing ones. That is no way a flaw, I am not the sort of person who says if this adaptation is untrue to the book I pan it, or at least I try not to. Speaking of flaws there are two significant flaws, one is more significant than the other, that stop the film from perfection. At over two hours the film is probably a little too long. But the biggest problem is Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker. I know it is not old news to rag on Reeves's performance, and I will say I am not a fan of his, sure he has been in some very good films but he is nearly always one of the weaker assets which is exactly the case here. Jonathan Harker is an estate agent who is threatened by Dracula, but I found Reeves's acting far too too inept, flat and emotionless, complete with a very unimpressive accent. For instance, when he says "Oh, I'm very sorry"- Keanu I know there aren't many ways to say that phrase strictly speaking, but do actually try to sound as though you're sorry.

Flaws aside, Francis Ford Coppola's film is very, very good. It is eerie, it is romantic and it is even operatic. For one thing, it is exquisitely mounted, very grandiose in its visual approach. From the sumptuous costumes, the lovingly crafted settings, the superb make up and the basic yet atmospheric lighting complete with more sophisticated techniques it is a feast for the eyes. Another strength is the score, it was very like an opera, rich, soulful, haunting and melancholic. I also liked the script, it was poetic, it was intelligent and it was sophisticated, and the plot is coherent with some effective scenes such as Mina following Lucy into the garden when Lucy is later attacked by Dracula. And the direction is wonderful, a lot of fashioned touches are made to make this film very watchable at least once.

With the exception of Reeves, the acting is very good. Winona Ryder is an improvement certainly, she is beautiful and intense thus she becomes the object of Dracula's devastating desire. Her chemistry with Reeves wasn't quite there, but with Gary Oldman it was pretty much smouldering. Anthony Hopkins was one of the main reasons why I wanted to see this film in the first place, he is a brilliant actor, one of the best there is actually. See him in The Elephant Man, Shadowlands, Howards' End and the Remains of the Day, all wonderful films, and he is impeccable in all of them. I enjoyed him here, here he plays Dr Van Helsing, a famed doctor who dares to believe in Dracula and in the end even dares to confront him, and gives a delicious performance making the most of some inventive one-liners. Richard E.Grant, Cary Elwes and Bill Campbell all give great support, but it is Gary Oldman's towering performance as Dracula that dominates the film. An excellent, underrated actor(Immortal Beloved is just living proof of his talent), Oldman is menacing, suave, handsome, charismatic, tragic and just amazing here, his transitions from old to young and from man to beast are completely believable, in short it was one of the more interesting interpretations of Dracula. Also look out for Monica Belluci as one of Dracula's wives, she is breathtakingly beautiful, even Sadie Frost was surprisingly good as Lucy.

Overall, if you want a faithful adaptation of the book, you may be disappointed. However, if you want a visually stunning, richly scored and compelling movie this is perfect for you. Regardless of how it deviates from the book, I liked it a lot, and would definitely see it again. 8/10 Bethany Cox… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

7

eva3si0nJul 23, 2021

Francis Ford Coppola was scolded more in the last years of his career. Nevertheless, he passed his career peak by the beginning of the 1990s. Dracula is the last landmark film of his career. Great cast. Both recognized meters and only noviceFrancis Ford Coppola was scolded more in the last years of his career. Nevertheless, he passed his career peak by the beginning of the 1990s. Dracula is the last landmark film of his career. Great cast. Both recognized meters and only novice actors (Keanu Reeves is even aging?). Yes, the plot is surreal, the film is clearly shot in the wrong genre. If he were darker and closer to t would have turned out better, especially since Coppola had Hopkins and Oldman. And so it turned out a surreal drama.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

7

LoRevisorJan 28, 2015

Um gênero chato de assistir romance de vampiros,porém é bem executado. E Ainda temos Gary Oldman arrasando na atuação como o mito Drácula,Anthony Hopkins também é ótimo,Winona Ryder faz um bom trabalho e Keanu Reeves dar uma medianaUm gênero chato de assistir romance de vampiros,porém é bem executado. E Ainda temos Gary Oldman arrasando na atuação como o mito Drácula,Anthony Hopkins também é ótimo,Winona Ryder faz um bom trabalho e Keanu Reeves dar uma mediana performance. O Filme tem suas cenas marcantes,mas não é nada demais.… Expand