Bram Stoker's Dracula

Rating:
Summary: A Guilty Pleasure
Review: Sure, Keanu is wooden and Winona's accent doesn't work, but for some reason this remains high on my list of all time favorites. Maybe I'm touched by how seriously Gary Oldman takes his tragic role (a heroically earnest performance), maybe it's the majestically fake-looking sets and costumes, or perhaps I'm simply a sucker for movies where desire and decaptitations merily coexist. It's sexy, gaudy, at times mis-guided, and doesn't possess a single moment of irony. Which is probably what keeps it afloat. END

Rating:
Summary: An excelent blend of talent and brains!
Review: Bram Stoker's Dracula is a fasinating film with absolutly brilaint casting! It consits of Wonona Ryder as the inosent Mina Murry whom is suduced by Gary Oldman as Count Dracula. Oldman gives a new and origanal style to the Count. Keanu Reves is not a favorite of mine but in this project, he is unbeatable. Sadie Frost is a great sexy Lucy Westrenra. Bill Camble gives Quincy Morris a grand look. While Cary Elwis gives a great proformence as the rich Arthur Hlomward. And Last but not least is Tom Waits who sepparates is role from the rest yey adding to the great line of Renfields from previase Dracula films. END

Rating:
Summary: The most interesting book.
Review: Brem Stocker's Dracula is the most interestig book that I've ever read. I strongly recomend you to read it, and you'll see that I'm right. END

Rating:
Summary: Oh Yeah!!
Review: Dracula is probably one of the greatest movies ever made. It has some of the greatest actors ever like Anthony Hopkins or Keanu Reaves. This movie focuses on Dracula's search for his beloved Elizabeta. This movie is not one minute boring, but exciting and suspenful till the end. You should see it.

Rating:
Summary: Bram's Stoker's best
Review: You can't go wrong with Drakula, and this is the best translation to film of Bram Stoker's Masterpiece to date.

Rating:
Summary: Stupid, Bloody, Pointless -- A Feast ofCatholic Sexual Guilt
Review: Plenty of smart people have pointed out how awful this movie is, but I would like to step back a little further and ask the question why. This is clearly a case where the director not only has no feel for the material -- he hates the material and is determined to debase it as much as possible.

Dracula is not only the story of a great romantic hero. It is the story of Woman at her purest and most passionate -- a story of love and longing and mystery and romance. It becomes brutally plain very early on that Francis Coppola hates -- literally hates --- the idea that sheltered maidens like Mina and Lucy could find Dracula attractive.

Coppola does everything he possibly can to make Dracula ugly and repulsive, and to demean the romantic feelings he inspires in women. Coppola, like far too many Catholics of a certain age, apparently equates physical desire with bodily filth. Every scene he shoots not only plays up the eroticism -- which others have complained about -- but also tries to link it to ugliness, filth, and (literal) bestiality. The priests and nuns really did a number on this guy! When it comes to wiseguys machine gunning each other, he can make it into a romantic ballet -- but love and sex are disgusting to him.

The irony is, all this sabotages his own film, makes it all but unwatchable. The gross out gore is no substitute for suspense, chills, and romance, which is what the classic original supplied in abundance. And Wynona Ryder and the sadly unappreciated Sadie Frost are all but wasted in this movie. Wasted in a different way is Keanu Reeves -- "Dude! This movie sucks!" -- but he was a fun loving goof who really had nothing to lose in any case.

But you do -- so stay away from this ugly film!

Rating:
Summary: Dracula, Eat your heart out
Review: This is without question one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen. It's production values are rich and gorgeous. The hauntingly original music, lusciously dark cinematography, visual effects, set decoration, art direction, and magnificent costume design are unlike anything I've ever witnessed. I wish I could live in this world. Now, the performances are NOT the greatest. Reeves and Ryder look good, but their readings are too wooden. Gary Oldman is perfectly cast as Dracula. Amazing. Waits as Renfield is a casting coup. It's a shame this hasn't received the DELUXE treatment on dvd. If you own a laserdisc player there IS one to be found, released by Criterion. Columbia / Tristar needs to port ALL of Criterion's materials over to a new dvd edition NOW and give it a new remastering. Again, the performances are the film's major flaw. When films like this look this good (and using OLD filmmaking methods to boot) it can be forgiven.

Rating:
Summary: Intriging
Review: I saw this film when it was first released and it has stayed stayed in my mind as the best movie made about Dracula. I agree with the reviewer who wrote that this is Francis Ford Coppela's version of the classic story because he went deeper into the story and delved into Dracula's motives for his evil. It was a good decision because it works better on film and also keeps it from being just a hack and slash horror movie with one big bad that everyone hates.

The wardrobe and set designs are beautiful and atmospheric, as is the music which is romantic, exciting and errie at the fitting moments. Two of the best scenes is poor Lucy in all white and the awesome race against the sunset, very well done. The only thing that I don't think was as good as it could have been is Keanu Reeves' fake British accent because it was very obvious in some of his scenes. All in all a well made horror film worth seeing.

Rating:
Summary: A Very Good Version Of The Story
Review: Anyone that has read the book and then seen any of the many films based on it realizes that there is no such thing as a definitive film version. Perhaps the style of the book prevents more of a literal film.

But the book remains the taking-off point for a director's interpretation of the story. As for me, any film that can capture some of the mood of the book is valid. Each generation seems to have a need to tell the story on film, and each one will be different.

This version does capture the essence of the book. Anthony Hopkin's portrayal of van Helsing as an eccentric seems to me to be very fitting. Could an expert in such things be really 'normal' himself?

This film also deals with the sexual undertones of the book quite well. Count Dracula is much more than a monster that sucks blood. He is a tempter, something forbidden, hence even though a 'monster', holds a great deal of attraction. Most films emphasize this underlying sexuality more than the book, for in the book Dracula is not portrayed as a handsome Count from Eastern Europe at all.

So the book will always exist at a different level than any film based on it. Perhaps the inherent differences between the visual medium of film and the written word of a book accounts for most of this. But this film is very good, really takes us into a glimpse of the darkside. Recommended!

Rating:
Summary: Excellent, a classic in the making
Review: Of course it is not the book, as some other reviewers are so adamant at pointed out. No, not the book - but a movie.:) Yes, and a great adaptation of the book was never finer in cinematic form. And this from a gal who grew up watching every Dracula movie ever made, and analyzing them to the fullest degree! Coppola, Oldman, Ryder....in this version, you can't go wrong.