Rating: 
Summary: THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER
Review: I, personally, consider "Bram Stoker's Dracula" to be the greatest movie of all time. Gary Oldman gives a wonderful performance as Dracula. Perhaps my favorite scene is when Dracula's brides drink Jonathan Harker's(Keanu Reeves') blood, if not when Keanu Reeves falls into the river and, unfortunately, doesn't meet the same fate as Dracula's 15th century bride Elisabeta. Everything about the movie was great(for the most part) even though it is not identical to Bram Stoker's novel. But, if you think about it, there has never been a Dracula film that has been completely true to the book. The historical facts are a welcome difference to previous films. Perhaps, one day, we'll see a Dracula film that is both historically accurate and loyal to the book, though that may never be done because the book itself is not historically accurate. Until some miracle-worker comes along that is able to produce such a film, I highly recommend that you take the time, if you haven't already done so, to rent or buy "Bram Stoker's Dracula" and watch it as much as possible.
Rating: 
Summary: F.F. Coppola's Dracula... or is it a Harlequin romance?
Review: Coppola is a hit-and-miss director, sometimes scoring a majoracheivement (the first 2 Godfather movies, Apocolypse Now, TheConversation), sometimes wallowing in nonsense (The Godfather Part III, The Outsiders, Rumble Fish). But he seems to have embraced some sort of comfortable combination of hitting AND missing in Bram Stoker's Dracula.Though the title is a bit misleading (it should actually be called Francis Ford Coppola's Liberally-Amended Version of Bram Stoker's Dracula), it actually is the closest Dracula film to its source novel. Unlike other filmed versions of Dracula, this one actually manages to get the characters straight. I've never been sure why other versions have Dr. Seward as old (if not older) than Van Helsing, of whom the former was once a student. And I can't think of another Dracula movie where Mina and Lucy are not confused as one character, or at least switched around for some baffling reason. What this version fails to do is cast the proper actors in many of the characters' roles. True, Anthony Hopkins is a marvel, dare I say one of our finest living actors, and Gary Oldman, no matter how bizarre, is always a thrill to watch. But Keanu Reeves as a stuffy British lawyer? A black hole of charisma, Reeves actually sucks all the credibility out of nearly every scene...so painfully miscast him. But aside from some right-out terrible casting, and the fact that it masquerades as a horror movie yet never really creates any feeling of horror, this film is actually quite enjoyable. It's almost campy in its homage to classic horror films, and Oldman's intriguingly outrageous performance is one that will never be topped in a Dracula movie. Never. And as much as Bram Stoker's novel is NOT a romance between Dracula and Mina, the romance here adds an element to the story that propels Coppola's version into its own unique niche. Coppola also succeeds in using just about every conceivable film trick to craft a visually stunning piece of cinema. It truly is one of the best looking films ever made, and it absolutely MUST be seen in widescreen. (F.F. Coppola's Liberally-Amended Version of) Bram Stoker's Dracula may fail to amaze the too-serious veiwer, and may cause even a casual viewer's tongue to firmly plant itself in cheek, but I think that's part of the point. It's one-part horror, four-parts silly romance, two-parts comedy, one part-good casting, five-parts bad casting, and twelve-hundred-parts opulent visuals. Don't take it too seriously and you'll be fine. If you have a hard time abandoning your grave manner of film interpretation, just keep in mind the fact that it's a vampire movie starring Keanu Reeves. That should help you suspend your seriousness.
Rating:
Summary: Great story, not Bram's though
Review: This is a beautifully filmed, (mostly) well acted tale of romance and suspense. It is not however Bram Stoker's story. Coppola managed to fool a few people who haven't read the story but not this one. Although a few elements that had been left out of previous film versions of the book are here, for the most part this is just a reworking of the story. Kinda of a "what if this is how it happened instead..." deal.
Rating:
Summary: Good acting, but should've been more clear
Review: This film lost a star because of plot ambiguity. There are several moments where the viewer is left wondering "What was that all about?" or "What was the significance of that scene?" But overall, this was a great movie. The acting was strong and convincing, particularly Anthony Hopkins's, and the special effects and makeup are astonishingly good. Quite gory in some places, but still retaining good taste. For the men, you'll be happy to know there are quite a few bare breasts thrown in to maintain interest in the slow spots. Definitely a film worth having, even if the only things you like about it are Winona Ryder and the scene in which the werewolf/vampire is doing Lucy.
Rating:
Summary: Wildly uneven
Review: From the opening shot till the final credit Dracula is filled with wonderfully weird images and a great performance by Gary Oldman. There is real tension and drama in this telling but...Firstly, Wynona Ryder, while doing a fine job, is just to cute to be the inspiration of all this depravity. I just can't see Dracula, the ruthless knight, crossing oceans of time over her. Then there is Keanu Reeves who is soooo bad and has such a terrible English accent he destroys every scene he's in. And Lucy's suitors were just as bad. Anthony Hopkins, whom I usually think is great, was distractingly hammy but still fun. All in all a good film with some glaring flaws.
Rating:
Summary: Breathtaking...
Review: I am a vampire enthusiast and I have to say that this movie is BY FAR the best vampire movie ever made--the costumes were beautiful, the scenery magic, and the effects awesome. I agree that this movie is different from the original novel, but the movie is so much more tragic and romantic and interesting. I especially enjoyed Sadie Frost's (Lucy's) performance; I'm sad to not have seen her in any other movie since. I also enjoyed Ryder's performance (of course!). So if you're thinking about buying this, BUY IT!
Rating: 
Summary: Very Poor
Review: This movie has it all wrong! It's NOT Bram Stoker's Dracula-it's something else that the director made up! If you read the novel, you would understand why, too. I mean, it does have the same characters and the same main plot and problem, it's just all mixed up. Sometimes, I wonder if the person who wrote this movie had even ever read the novel before. First of all, Mina does NOT fall in love with Dracula and she does NOT have a love affair with him. Dracula is a hateful, unloving vampire-not a kind, gentle vampire! Second of all, the ending is totally different. My advice to you is to read the novel before you decide on watching this movie-'cause then if you watch this movie before you read the novel, then you'll probably be disappointed if you read the novel later and find out that's it's different! The only good thing about this movie was the acting (with the exception of the guy who played Jonathan Harker, that is). But, I would really not recommend this movie-especially if you haven't yet read the novel. Read the novel-it is soooo much better and more horrifiying than the movie was. The movie turned this horror story into a romance story-and the horror version is MUCH better than the romance story!
Rating:
Summary: gary's show time
Review: what can ý say,film shows what it was. ý liked it more than the other films ý ever seen.
Rating: 
Summary: Okay but not great.
Review: I liked the movie in some ways. I liked it that it was exactly of what Bram Storkers classic story discribed it. But what I didn't like it that some parts of the movie made you wondering, "What just happened?". So what I am saying that it is a great vampire movie but not a classic.
Rating:
Summary: It's the best movie!
Review: I don't know what to say,but everyone has to see this movie.It's the best I have ever seen except for "Interview with the Vampire."Well, thats my review.It's really a great movie
|
