Rating: 
Summary: Masterfully Done
Review: Coppola captured it all so elegantly. If you like a bit of art and eroticism in the ultimate Gothic horror tale, one cannot do better than this. This film is lovely and terrifying. Excellent perfomances, romance, suspence, horror, all directed and produced with flamboyance. I was very entertained and consider it to be one of the best horror films in my own personal collection.
Rating:
Summary: I am Dracula, And i bid you Welcome, Mr. harker to my house
Review: This is probably the most realistic, most enternaing Dracula movie of all time. It is also one of the first Dracula movies ever to recieve academy Awards. It won Three. The [clothes] dracula wears in this Dracula, are probably better than Dracula wearing a cape and a tux. Dracula is described exactly from the book. And yes, [i]n the book it does say he is old in the beginning. The ending comes the closest to the book than any other Dracula movie. And Dracula was once [a] Prince of Hungary, and he impaled people, that is a true story. In real life there [was] a dracula and his bride did [plunge] into a river. Great love story. The best costumes ever [I] have seen.
Rating: 
Summary: Quite good....
Review: Bram Stoker's Dracula isn't quite the exact adaptation of the novel version. While it is fairly good, as well as shortened and all that, Coppola decided to throw in the romance between Dracula and Mina, which NEVER happens in the book. In fact, in the book, we never know about Dracula's past. However, I suppose this is the closest version to Bram Stoker's than any other film. It's quite good. Winona Ryder and Gary Oldman really rock the movie (of course, since Im a huge Winona Ryder fan). I'd definitely recommend this to anyone.
Rating: 
Summary: Bram Stoker's?
Review: I had just finished reading the book Dracula, and I decided to watch this movie. It was so disappointing. The characters were all there, but most of the movie was not even in the book. I did not at all understand the part about Dracula's obsession with Mina, that did not at all happen in the book. And I guess I must have been the only person who did not feel that the whole blood sucking routine was not at all sexual, what was the point of having women running around topless? (I must have missed that part in the book) I also thought the the character of Mina was terribly written; in the book, I felt that she was one of the most respectable characters, and truly loved her husband, however, in this movie I really hated her, and I don't think the viewer was supposed to. The whole movie in general was overly done, and not that bad, but I would not have a problem with it, just don't call it Bram Stoker's.
Rating:
Summary: See It Once
Review: This movie fails on so many levels it's difficult to know where to begin. Keanu Reeves' ridiculously phony English accent provides great comic relief, as do Ryder's not-so-fabulous acting skills. Both of them, they act like the same character in every movie they're in; how about some facial expressions besides just opening one's mouth in horror at something scary or surprising? Having never read Bram Stoker's novel, I found the leaps in logic strange and awkward. For instance, vampires can't be touched by "holy" relics? How believable is that? And also, I understand that Dracula killed because he was eternally starved for blood, but why did he rape someone? It just doesn't make any sense, because in most of the scenes he seems like a sensible, sensitive being. And there are many more instances of a badly-written script, which I won't go into. Of course the problem most likely lies in how the book was written, but then the film makers should have altered the plot when transferring it to the screen. Then there's oodles of female nudity, which really adds nothing to the film, except to titillate male viewers. What about us female viewers? Keanu and Oldman are fully clothed, except for one scene where Oldman has his shirt off. But still, it's worth watching just for Gary Oldman; he's wonderful as Dracula. If only the movie had been written better.
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding Version of "Dracula"
Review: This was the next Dracula film to come out to challenge the 1979 version starring Frank Langella. Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula makes Dracula real by giving the creature real humanity and putting a little history of the Count into the story line. Starring Gary Oldman as Dracula, Winona Ryder and Keeanu Reeves, this movie is a must for any true fan of the genre.
Rating: 
Summary: what was coppola thinking?????
Review: What was coppola thinking when he cast Reeves, you can see that his british accent is artificial everytime he opens his mouth.
The most annnoying thing about the movie was the sets, it would make one think this was a B-movie or something.
The one thing i didn't get was that part where 2 women start kissing for no reason!!!
Rating:
Summary: My favorite film version of a century-old legend.
Review: Generally I am not big on horror films or gore-fests. I do not consider this a gore-fest. It is however one of the horror films I like a lot. I remember reading the novel DRACULA as a young boy and feeling a chill and an excitement all the way through. This film captured that for me.
What more can I say? The actors and actresses involved all sank their teeth into their roles with relish (pun intended) and it showed. Gary Oldman did a terrific job of not only giving us the typical "monstrous" side of Dracula but also depicting the tortured anguish of a man who has lost the woman he loves, has endured CENTURIES without her, and would do almost anything to get her back. That would drive most people mad I think, being without the one they cherish most. They do say love overpowers everything and it's evident here. Anthony Hopkins gave us a Van Helsing appropriately scholarly and wise, while also a bit goofy and amusing. Keanu Reeves was good as Jonathan Harker too, appropriately reserved, seeming just like a normal man who thrust into extraordinary circumstances. All the other actors and actresses were very good in their roles as well and were very interesting to watch. If Hopkins and Oldman had switched roles, it COULD have been VERY interesting but I think they made the right choice with Oldman as Dracula and Hopkins as Helsing.
The sets and costuming were all exquisite and grand here, giving a real feel of 19th century England and ancient Transylvania. Castle Dracula in particular stood out but EVERYTHING had a sense of grandeur, of mystery, of danger waiting to strike in a time and place you didn't expect it. The things just plain looked good. The music perfectly captured the mix in the story of danger, foreboding and the tenderness of a love lost, yearned for and rekindled.
As I said before this is NOT as gory as most horror or slasher flicks out today. It IS however the bloodiest and most sexually explicit and graphic of all Dracula films to date (except maybe Wes Craven's Dracula 2000 but I did not see that film and frankly I have no interest in that film at all.) There are things that make me really love this film. For the first time we get an idea of WHY Dracula became a vampire and how. (Love can drive a person to do crazy things after all, but in their mind they are worth it). We get a Dracula who is not JUST a monster(He is seen telling Mina "I cannot let this be. I love you too much to condemn you"). Also the killing of Dracula in this film is (mostly) accurate according to the novel. He was NEVER stabbed through the heart with a stake, shot with silver bullets, submerged in running water, or exposed to too much sunlight. (The novel DOES have him being stabbed through the heart with a big knife at the same instant as another knife cuts off his head. Mina striking the death blow here at a time shortly after the initial stabbing of Dracula by Johnathan Harker and Quincy P. Morris was likely done to give it the feel of a "mercy" killing. That worked just fine for me too and made his death mean more somehow to me.)
To make a long story short, I liked this film for it's visual style, it's overall ambiance, and for the fact that it gave us a Dracula who could and DID love, who was both monster and man, villian and tragic figure, ALMOST a kind of tragic hero if you want to go that far. The climax with Dracula begging and receiving the mercy of Jesus struck home with me. It made it all worthwhile to see. It was already a great film and that made it even better. In short, this thing had heart that no other Dracula film in history has had. That alone makes it a modern classic in my book. Enjoy it. You just might learn to love it. I certainly did. Peace.
Rating:
Summary: One of my favorite films... but...
Review: The sole problem with this film is the title -- or rather, the impressions that the title gives -- to one crowd (the literate crowd) that this will be a dark parable about excess and taboo in the vein of Stoker's novel, and to another crowd (the horror flick crowd) that this will essentially be a slasher flick with long teeth. While a good percentage of the film is true to the novel in many ways, the underlying sense, the underlying essence of the experience has changed -- this film is an overwrought romance, not a horror film or a moral play. As a romance, it is beautiful, haunting, full of depth -- and full of Ford Coppola's incredible touch (you know you love it)... a stunning film and one of my favorites, I must admit. The chemistry between Gary Oldman (the count) and Winona Ryder (Mina) is truly seductive and the acting is nuanced and utterly believable by my estimation, though I can see that some viewers might see the entire film as being just a bit over the top... But then, not everyone can easily slide into the role of hopeless romantic for an evening. If you can't, then this isn't your film. If you're looking for a creepy monster flick... you're going to be sorely disappointed, because it isn't that at all.
Rating:
Summary: Waste Of Money !!!!
Review: This is for anyone who has read the Great Novel Dracula. This Movie displays nothing but Nudity, Horrible Direction with a badly failed attempt to influence the audience with a heavy accent. Any sensible movie lover is encouraged NOT to waste money on this movie, which I justs did. Entire movie fails to grip the attention, and is filled with NOT REQUIRED nudity. Overall a totally ruined presentation of one of the greatest piece of literature with less than mediocre acting.
|
