Rating: 
Summary: Boring!
Review: It was truly painful to sit through this movie. You couldn't get me to watch it again. Bram Stoker's Dracula was one of my first books, so I read it over and over again. It is a classic horror story. I am beginning to believe that it cannot be translated to film. I guess I knew from the very first act that the story was being perverted. Christopher Lee's Dracula evoked more horror than this cheesy version, who at times looked like Liberace,John Lennon and a pathetic werewolf. The lovestory ruined it for me. It dominated the whole movie. I liked Frank Langella's sexy Dracula more. If you're looking for "vampires who have sex", The Hunger is a much better movie. It bothers me to think of all the time and money that was wasted on this colossal flop. It evoked no emotion in me at all other than to wish it was over sooner. Read the book.
Rating: 
Summary: Achingly Devine
Review: This is one of my all-time favorite movies! It's a beautiful (although heartbreaking) story. Gary Oldman is an intense, passionate, and exquisite actor. The music climbs into your head and stays there. The camera work is excellent. The movie is so skillfully erotic, it's painful. Anything with vampires is okay in my book!
Rating:
Summary: A beautiful movie
Review: All-in-all, it was a great movie. I loved it. The retellingof the Bram Stoker story was beautiful and elegant. It is a truemasterpiece. Applause to Coppola for his brilliant direction. Gary Oldman was absolutely a genius in this film.
Rating:
Summary: Superb
Review: This is movie is so beautiful. It's more of a supernatural drama than a horror film. The characters and the story are wonderfully elaborated. Dialogues are often breathtakingly beautiful. Gary Oldman, Hopkins and Winona Ryder all have great performances. And Keanu Reeves...most people dislike his acting, but I think he did well here. Maybe it's because this film is so magical... Costumes and soundtrack are simply the best ever.
Rating: 
Summary: Dracula : the legendary continue...
Review: Well, I don't know what to say that hasn't been said before. The movie is one of the best I ever saw : ambiance, dresses, actors, background music and the most important thing : THE STORY ! Really nice... Remember : Vampires are among us ! Slurp !
Rating:
Summary: Dracula as Opera: Sets, Filmaking, and Colors are Incredible
Review: I love this movie for the pure audacity Coppola uses in his filmaking technique. This is DRACULA as Opera! The costumes are audacious in color and form. Coppola uses silent movie techniques all through the movie -- the special effects are practically done "live" (shadows and levitations). The music is bold and romantic. The acting is not subtle. I really love this movie. Coppola is showing off a bit, but it's so enjoyable. I love his use of narration and journal-entry to advance the story. Then he shows us the journal superimposed over the action on screen. A lightning bolt is obviously a neon light, but it works so well! I agree with most comments about Keanu. But he's ok. Winona is very good. I think Gary Oldman does very well -- his accent is a bit over the top, but so is the whole movie! And Anthony Hopkins looks like he's having a ball. Most importantly, I think this film proves you can do an intelligent rendering of a horror story without grossing the audience out. I'm not interested in gore. But a few shocks or decapitations done tastefully and artfully are fine with me! This film is a work of art and yet fun all at the same time! My DVD freezes every time I try to go to the menu. Playing the DVD is fine ... I just can't use the DRACULA menu option. Does anyone else have this problem ??
Rating: 
Summary: Good at times, but too over-the-top
Review: This film could have been really brilliant. The great performances by Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins are shadowed at times by the cheesy and over-the-top accents (and I use that term loosely) of Ryder and Reeves. Whoever cast Keanu in this film should be taken out and used for target practice. Talk about a mismatch! The other actors are pretty good, though, but I think that Coppola tried too hard. He could have backed off with some of the effects and let the story run its course. Still, though, I watch this movie over and over for three reasons: the music, Gary Oldman (who is one of the most underrated actors on the planet), and it's a vampire film.
Rating:
Summary: A real true masterpiece.
Review: This film is exerlant. It is the real story of dracula and one hell of a masterpiece. I was very impressed when I first saw this film, I have got because when I saw I loved it and neede it for the cllection of films I've got. This film in no way can be improved, it is a classic horror movie masterpiece.
Rating:
Summary: Leg munchingly good
Review: Looks like Coppola set out to give vampires a good name -- nothing better than a bloodsucker you can feel sorry for. I admit it seriously strays from Bram Stoker's ideal but for an "American re-write" it's still recognisable. Casting's definitely a tad odd though. I realise Keanu Reeves was hot after Bill and Ted but surely they could have found someone, somewhere with a more believable accent? As Elizabeth Graza says it's the phoniest ever -- one to rival Dick Van Dyke's in Mary Poppins. But it's still one of my favourite films. I've seen it so many times I'd rather chew off my leg rather than see it again. Of course that hasn't stopped me buying it on DVD.
Rating:
Summary: Awesome Movie, but at the same time a bit of a let down
Review: Bram Stokers Dracula is by far one of the most thrilling horror books ever written. The movie is for the most part unchanged, but hollywood had to add its spice and spoil the overall taste of the story. the ups are the cinematography, Gary Oldman, and a marvelous soundtrack, a great feel for historical europe, and a great set.
| 
