Rating: 
Summary: Creepy and Romantic
Review: Bram Stoker's Dracula is a great retelling of the classic Dracula story, plus they added some good special effects and eeriness. Gary Oldman is great as Dracula, and Winona Ryder, Anothony Hopkins, and Keanu Reeves are likable as the main characters. Not only is Bram Stoker's Dracula creepy, it also has romance, which most horror movies don't spend enough time developing. This is a great DVD, though there are no special features, and it has a great price.
Rating: 
Summary: Once Again, Into That Long, Dark Night
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: "Eye Candy"
Review: Of all the movies featuring the infamous "Count," this is the most sumptuous. The visuals are often stunning, and the musical score, with its piano and cello played in minor keys, blends well with the images. But "Bram Stoker's Dracula" manages to be like its undead title character in only one sense: it's live on the outside and dead on the inside. A pervasive eroticism fills the picture, evoking Anne Rice's vampires more effectively than Stoker's classic monster. The sexual air of this film is mixed with depictions of horror that sometimes make for a truly grotesque concoction. Some of the scenes can be absolutely gruesome to behold!The acting is either overdone or mediocre, depending on the performer. Gary Oldman goes over the top with his idea of "Dracula"; his often unintelligible, pseudo-Romanian accent requires frequent use of English captions. (As luck would have it, there is only Spanish or Korean to choose from on this DVD.) Anthony Hopkins's work as "Professor Van Helsing" is so campy that it's embarassing; Winona Ryder provides an unremarkable turn as "Mina"; and Keanu Reeves's job is virtually intolerable. Reeves seems to be the star whose acting everyone loves to bash. I feel that this criticism is exaggerated, but I quickly learned to dread his "Jonathan Harker" making an appearance! As for the quality of the DVD, the audio and video are excellent. Fans of this film will be pleased to see that the considerable lushness of the picture has been nicely preserved. It's a good thing, too, because there are NO supplements on this disc. If your only concern is the movie, you'll get a technically strong, relatively cheap product.
Rating:
Summary: Count Vlad
Review: The only thing needing a change in this movie is the title. The problem is you have purist that read the book and then slam the movie. I have seen over a thousand movies and guess what, not a one of them followed the book completely. I do agree it isn't wise to say you're doing a true portrayal of the original story and then not deliver. It is a romantic and sexy vampire movie, period. Most men and women will enjoy it. It is definitely not for the kids. Sure sometimes it is almost as funny as "Fearless Vampire Killers" with Keenu's almost excellent adventure in talking English, but I don't think it takes itself so seriously to be all that bad. Catch it if you haven't. Personally my wife and I are getting it on DVD. How many excellent vampire movies are really out there? Three maybe, and none of them are true to the book by Stoker.
Rating: 
Summary: I would scream with disgust if I weren't yawning...
Review: Read Bram Stoker's Dracula FIRST. Please. Preferably late at night, in bed, with only one light on beside you. And let the shudders run deliciously up your spine. Then watch this. If you must. What bothers me most is the gall of Coppola to call it *Bram Stoker's* Dracula. It isn't. It is visually gorgeous, erotic, if sexist (why's Sadie Frost always popping out of her top??) and presents an interesting reason for why Dracul became Dracula. As a love story, it worked, and in that context I enjoyed the relationship between Mina/Elizabeta and Dracul (during a second viewing). But I was expecting a version more faithful to the original, so was very disappointed and unable to appreciate it the first time around. I do think it is a lovely movie, but the acting left me cold (Anthony Hopkins couldn't even take it seriously, why should I?). So it gets one star, for being nowhere near as captivating as the novel, for the misleading title, and generally disappointing feel.
Rating:
Summary: I Haff Crossed Oseeuhns Off Time...To Teeckle You!
Review: A blatant case of false advertising. What's really annoying is all the press where Francis Ford Coppola claimed his was the most faithful version, ever. Actually, it's no more so than the 1931 Lugosi version, based on a stage play. If Coppola hadn't ripped off the Mina-reincarnation plot from the Jack Palance 70's tv version and added a bunch of Harlequin romance scenes, he might have been able to add a little emotional depth and detail to the rest of the story. Instead, everything is rushed and compacted; the storytelling equivalent of the Chipmunks' singing voices. Winona Ryder and Kee-New Reeves produce the worst English accents yet recorded on film. We need a law against either of them attempting this again- "Yo, that vamp dude has put the most heinous moves on my bodacious fiancee... uh, OLD CHAP!" Gary Oldman, so creepily effective in "The Professional," is the wimpiest Dracula ever. More accent trouble: Oldman talks like Rich Little imitating Bela Lugosi after about 10 vodka martinis. He's so short and non-threatening, they have him turn into a werewolf in order to pump up his danger-factor. Unfortunately, the costume's about as believable as Tracy the Gorilla's from the Forest Tucker/Larry Storch tv show, "Ghostbusters." When Oldman's not transforming, he's a mild dwarf with long hair, funky sunglasses and a velvet Fauntleroy suit; he looks like Oscar Wilde's dance partner. Full of exciting visuals, yet ruined by pompous and hilarious dialogue. "We have all become God's madmen!" Anthony Hopkins declares, for no real reason other than his Van Helsing is a blood-thirsty psychopath. Funny- seems ol' Dracula used to play that part in the story.
Rating:
Summary: Father Of The Vampires
Review: When i saw this film i was 12 years old.But i cant still forget this.It was so effected to me.I think this film is the best francis ford coppolas film.The casts r wonderful and the places r so fascinating.Gary Oldman and Winona Ryder have been making an unbelievable role.I think dont miss it.
Rating:
Summary: Good film...but definitely NOT Bram Stoker.
Review: For my English class during my sophomore year of high school, our English teacher made us read Bram Stoker's novel, "Dracula", which was actually a pretty good novel. Then, after we read the novel, we watched this film. And let's get the facts straight, OK? This is not a Bram Stoker version of "Dracula". Bram Stoker would've made this movie (if he had directed it) more mysterious and a much darker film. This was headed toward a more of a love story film. Like how Mina and Dracula had a love affair. That definitely did not happen in the real novel. In fact, Mina was horrified of Dracula and she loved Jonathan Harker. In the novel, Mina was under Dracula's spell. Oh well. I guess I can understand why they made the movie this way. I mean, it's Hollywood and EVERY Hollywood film MUST have some type of romance in it...even if it's a horror film! Also, in the novel, Dracula was much more evil and darker than in the movie. He wasn't this gentle, innocent creature that they portray in the film. But above all that, this is a pretty OK film with excellent acting done by Keanue Reeves, Winona Ryder, Gary Oldman, and Anthony Hopkins. And if I were you, I'd read the real Bram Stoker novel, "Dracula", and then watch the movie so you'd understand what really happened in the novel and what did not.
Rating:
Summary: Not a horror! But a great Erotic Thriller!
Review: Alright, going into this film, I thought like most people, I would be getting a huge scare from the giant of the B-Movies. However sadly, I was misled, this is an Erotic Thriller, with only a few visuals being remotly classified as frighting and others, well being "erotic" if you know what I mean. The make up and dressing where out standing, the feeling that was given was unspeakable. Casting was fairly good, I would never of expected Keanu Reeves to be in this type of film, but you know, you must give him his props for this. Winona Ryder played this role with a feeling that no other actress could match. The film is really a 3 1/2, to bad it could not of been made better, with more of a plot. I would suggest it if you are looking for a Erotic Thriller, but if you are looking for a Horror, look else where. Thanks for reading, Have a Good one... Ryan
Rating: 
Summary: Way too Hollywood
Review: I had originally purchased the video in 1995 and purchased the novel the following year. After reading the novel, I tried to watching the video again and was very disappointed. The "romantic" scene with Mina and Dracula was so cheesy that I had to fast forward through it. This can't be what Bram Stoker envisioned.
|
