Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) User Reviews

Visually striking, but Coppola's storytelling eccentricities are ill suited for the story itself

[MovieAddict2016 · 7/10 · 18 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.

Visually audacious, eerie and operatic version of the undead legend

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 23 May 2010]

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 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

Oh My Goodness!

[Hitchcoc · 8/10 · 30 December 2016]

Excuse me, but I just read a series of reviews by people who are disappointed by the fact that this movie didn't follow the same old script that has been done over and over and over again. They gave a provocative movie a rating of "1" so they could sabotage what most people thought. Go do something else besides writing about films. This is not a perfect movie, but it takes the basic text of the Stoker novel and extrapolates from it. People seem to be reacting tot he sexuality of this. If we go back to the seminal movies, "Nosferatu" being the greatest example, we see that sexual tension dominates these films as well as the books. Dracula has power over people. He can draw women to him. He is not an animal, but he is a sub-human with desires to dominate. Coppola uses this to show his evil intent. Gary Oldman is the most eccentric and wonderful Dracula to come along in years. When did it become written that every Dracula should be the black-caped Bela Lugosi figure that kids still dress up as on Halloween. He is a force to be reckoned with; he is evil; and he is powerful. Remember, people accept the scenes of him sucking the blood out of women without any trouble. Why not an evil abuser of their being? Remember, they are under a spell over which they have no control.

Oldman is the Best Dracula Ever!

[Moonlyn · 10/10 · 14 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.

A well done modern version of the horror tale...

[AlsExGal · 8/10 · 4 July 2023]

... although I keep remembering that this "modern" tale was filmed 31 years ago.

James V. Hart's script seemed heavily indebted to Fred Saberhagen's The Dracula Tape (1980), which was a re-telling of the events of Bram Stoker's novel from the POV of Dracula, whose POV was missing from the Stoker original. It was also much more favorable towards Dracula, and added a lot of the romantic elements.

One thing that it did get right was having all the actual characters from the original novel. Many of the adaptations removed one or more of the suitors, especially the American Quincy Morris, or age up Dr. Seward, or make him the father of Mina or Lucy. This version did present them as they were in the novel.

Stylistically, it was unusual even for 1992, with Coppola said to be attempting some sort of visual homage to silent and classic film techniques, with some things looking deliberately artificial.

I recall at the time thinking Keanu Reeves was highly miscast, and his awkward performance nearly undid the whole film for me. Anthony Hopkins was coming off his Oscar win for The Silence of the Lambs, and he did seem to have his performance pitched to the rafters. His characterization seemed more in line with the Saberhagen book, where Van Helsing is depicted as more of a religious fanatic with a cruel streak.

The whole enterprise was a cash grab for Coppola who was coming off the relative disappointment of The Godfather Part III. It was a success, and kickstarted a "prestige horror" trend over the next several years, with Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, Wolf, and Interview with the Vampire.

Pompous, overblown, flawed...but not without merit

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 24 May 2014]

BRAM STOKER'S Dracula is a lavishly Gothic adaptation of the Stoker novel, directed by Francis Ford Coppola like he's doing an imitation of Tim Burton. This is Dracula as high camp, with a highly theatrical performance from Gary Oldman (with tongue firmly in cheek) playing the Count as both an old-time romantic and modern-day ghoul. Let's be clear: Oldman's performance is far from definitive (that honour goes to Christopher Lee), but it is memorable.

Elsewhere, the film is hit and miss. For every hit there's a miss, for every great idea there's one that doesn't work. The art direction and set dressing is top notch, and I appreciate all the artiness of the direction; the stuff in the skies, the blood fountains like something out of Kubrick's THE SHINING, the overblown musical score. Elsewhere, the special effects have dated considerably, particularly Dracula's transformation into a cheesy giant bat. Plus the whole romantic sub-plot drags things down and goes nowhere.

The cast is equally mixed. Anthony Hopkins really gets into the spirit of the thing, delivering a performance loaded with high camp as Van Helsing. Tom Waits's Renfield is arresting, Cary Elwes and Richard E. Grant are fine in minor parts, and somehow Sadie Frost works as the sexually frustrated Lucy. But two of the main parts are given to Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder, and it's clear from the outset that their hearts aren't really in it. They give dejected, dispirited and artificial performances, which isn't great.

Still, with all the gory effects and imaginative interludes on offer, BRAM STOKER'S Dracula is a film that it's hard to dislike. Indeed, when I first saw it as a 14-year-old boy, I loved it to bits. Many years later, it feels deeply flawed, a movie that's all over the place. Coppola's scattershot film-making works in some places and not in others, and it's fair to say this is a bit of a mess. A riotous, entertaining mess, but a mess nonetheless.

The Blood Is Life

[dk777 · 10/10 · 27 January 2021]

This is definitely the best film adaptation of Dracula's character.

Gary Oldman is fantastic as Dracula, and the whole casting is great. The atmosphere is dark and gloomy and completely draws us into the story.

The cast and excellent direction make this film special. The details are subtle and carefully run through the story making this a great film experience. The start of the film is particularly impressive, and Dracula's armour is amazing.

Dracula is a story about sinking into evil, a story about redemption and the search for love. Narratively well composed, this film is a true example of how to turn a book into a film.

Gary Oldman is an excellent choice for the role of Count Dracula, the casting in general is excellent. Anthony Hopkins is interesting and funny in the role of Van Hellsing, but the other actors also did a great job.

The costume design is great, the makeup department really did a great job, There are some minor gripes, but they are so few that they are not even worth mentioning. The impression of the film is surrealistic, the colours and composition are interesting and fully correspond to the theme and story of the film.

The very beginning of the film is impressive, it shows despair and anger and ultimately all that is born out of it.

What is really interesting is that Dracula is not a simple villain, he is layered and at some points we understand him and sympathize with him, even though his actions are monstrous. That's what makes this movie and this story as close to perfection as it can be.

Brilliant details, great cinematography and an excellent cast.

I have offended you with my ignorance, forgive me

[petra_ste · 6/10 · 6 August 2007]

This Dracula adaptation accomplishes a seemingly impossible task: it's both a quite faithful AND an astonishingly unfaithful adaptation of Stoker's novel. It's faithful because no other adaptation I know of keeps all the characters of Holmwood, Seward and Quincey Morris. Besides, apart for the prologue, the story is basically true to the Transylvania (first act)/London (second act) /Transylvania (ending) structure of the novel.

And yet Coppola's movie is, character-wise, very much unfaithful to the book: the Count is a tragic character rather than a soulless monster; Mina is the reincarnation of Dracula's lost wife, so the script actually develops a romance between the two. Now, when it comes to adaptations I am not against changes, AS LONG AS the final result is true to the spirit of the book: here, it's not.

The always awesome Oldman is a charismatic and chilling presence as Dracula, but other performances are either forgettable (Ryder, Elwes) or hammy (Grant, Frost, Hopkins). I was especially disappointed by the latter: his Van Helsing is turned into a comedic character, a sort of Grampa Simpson on drugs. Waits is an effective Reinfield, but the fact Dr. Seward is so absurdly over-the-top makes their scenes together ridiculous - the madman here does not seem weirder than his doctor.

The worst is by far a miserable Keanu Reeves, here the very portrait of hilarious miscasting, who appears to break the fourth wall while uttering the quote I put in the review title. With his repugnant English accent and laughable delivery - my favorite lines being "if I may inquire", "blue inferno" and especially "Look! He's grown young!", which had me howling with laughter - he gives the kind of performance which should be punishable by law.

At least Dracula is visually compelling: it's luscious, with interesting composition, odd colour palettes, memorable costumes - Coppola toying with every trick of the medium.

6,5/10

Francis takes on Dracula and makes it into a masterpiece

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 8/10 · 13 August 2001]

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.

8/10

Interesting and Mostly Accurate Take on the Horror Classic.

[tfrizzell · 18 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.

Lavish style covers some deficiencies

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 27 October 2013]

It's 1897 and it's been 400 years since he lost his beloved Elisabeta (Winona Ryder). Young lawyer Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves) travels to do business with Dracula in Transylvania, but is imprisoned by the Count. Dracula travels to London to seduce Harker's fiancée Mina Murray(also played by Winona Ryder).

Gary Oldman is deliciously evil but Keanu Reeves is well overmatched by his acting counterpart. Winona Ryder is pretty but her role desperately need her sexuality. Director Francis Ford Coppola has created one of the most beautiful lavish Gothic film. It is erotic but it isn't sexy.

The movie looks amazing but it lacks the pace, the tension, and worst of all, it lacks the scares that a real Dracula horror should deliver. Coppola has built a beautiful piece of art, but not a great piece of story.

A Treat For The Eyes And Ears

[ccthemovieman-1 · 9/10 · 22 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.

Hammy Horror

[Theo Robertson · 6/10 · 4 November 2003]

DRACULA gets off to a great start as 15th century Romania finds itself on the front line against muslim hordes charging into Europe leading to a Romanian hero losing the love of his life

That`s the best part of the film . Other good aspects of DRACULA carry on throughout the movie , aspects like the very moody cinematography and the very impressive visual tricks , but there`s things that clog up the works , things like the intrusive ham acting on display . A lot of people have commented on Anthony Hopkins ham performance but I don`t have a problem with it and neither do I have a problem with Gary Oldman`s performance either . I do however have a problem with Sadie Frost`s performance as Lucy and Tom Waits as Renfield , both give over emphatic performances while both Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder are utterly unconvincing as 19th characters from England ,both are miscast and they`re not even bad enough to be entertaining. Francis Ford Coppola`s directing style may lead to accusations of " ham " directing ie over directing but it should be remembered this directing style was very common in the early 1990s and a lot of American directors did this most notably Martin Scorsese and Oliver Stone . I do wish Coppola had more input into the script ( He is one of the best and most under rated screenwriters Hollywood has produced ) because the one here by James V Hart isn`t all that good . The dialogue isn`t memorable and in several scenes , especially romantic ones , it`s rather corny . It`s also rather over long and not very well paced , but I`m led to believe Bram Stoker`s novel is badly structured but even so that`s no excuse

This version of Dracula has its moments but it`s never the sum of its parts. It`s probably Coppola`s best film since APOCALYPSE NOW but can anyone name me a good film he`s made since the surreal `Nam epic ?

this movie is disgrace for Bram Stoker and his fans

[night_hawk333-1 · 1/10 · 27 December 2004]

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!

A visual feast.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 9/10 · 16 January 2020]

I have seen multiple versions of Dracula, but none compare to 1992's version starring Gary Oldman, the definitive Count Dracula in my opinion. This film is lavish, decadent and wonderfully vivid. It captured the gothic spirit of the novel, it's deep, romantic, and mixed with tender and violent moments. The visuals to this day are exquisite, the costumes, sets and scenes of Victorian England are superb.

Oldman is incredible, but the supporting cast of Reeves, Hopkins and Ryder are terrific, Winona Ryder's delicate character is superb. The accompanying soundtrack was also fantastic, great songs from Annie Lennox.

A true classic. 9/10

One of Coppola's Best

[nico-104 · 9/10 · 2 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.

10/10

A rich telling near the source material

[bob the moo · 14 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.

Weird.

[bennie538-725-685483 · 6/10 · 2 March 2014]

I found this movie really confusing the hell out of me, my excuses, but I didn't get it. Then he's Vlad, then he's Dracula or something, and it goes on and on like that, I didn't like this movie that much, it was quite interesting in the beginning but it just confused me greatly, the actors where well played but as i already said, confusing. I'm not telling with this review that the movie was awful but just really weird and confusing, also I didn't get the places that much, where it played and how the story was building up, that was also quite weird, even so.. I still liked the story, even if I'm not that a Dracula fan, it was still interesting.

An Artistically Rendered Tale Of Darkness

[jhclues · 9/10 · 24 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.

An interesting take

[neil-476 · 7/10 · 22 November 2012]

Dracula is a bit like Batman - the original creation has been filtered through so many different creative viewpoints over the years that it must now be accepted that the character is capable of multiple interpretations. Francis Ford Coppola chose to interpret Dracula, not as a murderous bloodstained monster, but as a tragic romantic hero. Personally, I have a bit of trouble with that particular take on Dracula, but I don't have any problem with accepting it as a valid creative option.

Coppola's film is lushly gorgeous - sensual, sexual, with rich colours hidden in the looming shadows, and oily, serpentine, unnatural movements all adding to a sense of unease. Winona Rider does quite well as Mina - here portrayed as a virtual reincarnation of Dracula's tragic lost wife - and the cast of helpers are all quite good: even Keanu Reeves customary stoic (read "woodon") persona quite suits Jonathan Harker. Hopkins has great fun chewing some scenery, not too excessively, and Gary Oldman gets deep inside a very mannered portrayal of Dracula. Perhaps too mannered, some might say, but there is no question as to the quality of the performance.

All things considered, though, Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula isn't my Dracula at all.

Stunning

[gianlucabertani-77095 · 9/10 · 16 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.

Bram Stoker's Dracula

[CinemaSerf · 7/10 · 20 October 2022]

Gary Oldman is super in this hammy reimagining of the tale of the legendary Count Dracula. Having lured his lawyer - the unsuspecting, and frankly rather insipid, "Harker" (Keanu Reeves) to his Transylvanian Castle he employs cunning and guile to use him to acquire "Carfax Abbey" in England. He also has designs on the young man's glamorous fiancée "Mina" (Winona Ryder) and is soon set to acquire much more than just the eerie stately pile. Luckily, "Prof. Van Helsing" (Anthony Hopkins) is on hand to help our rather hapless hero and perhaps they can thwart the evil intentions of their vampiric visitor? Francis Ford Coppola presents us here with a highly stylised interpretation of the legend. At times it does border on the Hammer style of production with the gore and peril really unconvincing for most of the film. The heavily made up Reeves is easy enough on the eye, but his accent is tougher on the ears and his performance is more about box office than generating any sense of menace as his red-clothed nemesis marauds around in a wig Marie Antoinette would have found fitting. It does send itself up, and that works - there is plenty that is theatrical about it, and that is what helps make this iteration distinctive. Oldman looks even inch the megalomaniac as he effortlessly glides, purrs and munches his way from Romania to Victorian England. Ryder delivers well - her part has very little substance to it, yet she does rise above the all too obvious damsel in distress persona. There are also valuable supporting efforts from Richard E. Grant and the eagle eyed might spot sword and sandals veteran Jay Robinson as "Hawkins". Wojciech Kilar's score helps create quite an atmosphere too, especially as we enter the last half hour of against the clock drama. I didn't much care for the way the ending is portrayed but after two hours of quickly paced and colourful entertainment, that maybe didn't matter so much. This really does need big screen visuals to have any real impact, and if you can find a cinema screening then this is very much at the better end of the Dracula genre of output - even if it does play rather fast and loose with the book!

Lush and Sensual

[Cheetah-6 · 10/10 · 14 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.

Not a scary evil vampire movie... but a good Gothic horror romance

[maggiemaexo · 7/10 · 25 October 2012]

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. 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. rich colors 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

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.

Bram Stoker's Dracula is one of my favorite movies of all time, and the movie is a grand experience in movie making. Everyone should go out and rent it, but don't expect to see a horror movie about an evil vampire, but a tragic love story about a cursed prince and his reincarnated princess falling in love during a very dark and horrifying time.

Coppola ruins a great novel by adding his own flavor.

[rturner231 · 1/10 · 31 July 2006]

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.