Rating: 
Summary: one of my fav's
Review: A really captivating movie. I think all the characters (except Kenau Reeves) were cast great. Whose idea to K.R. must have been sleepy that day. Other than that I think it is a must have for any fan of vampires, horror, or Coppola's work.
Rating: 
Summary: Some flaws
Review: Like many people have already said, the movie has little or nothing to do with Bram Stoker's novel. I saw the movie a couple weeks ago and, not having read the novel, I thought it was great. The scenes were perfect, the costumes were great, and so was the cast (with the exception of Keanu Reeves, everytime I saw him I erased him from the screen). Having seen it I bought the book and read it. It is amazing how this movie and the book it comes out of can be so different. One might even think that Coppola is just ripping everybody off by giving the title "Bram Stoker's Dracula". Bram must be rolling in his grave. To begin with, Dracula is supposed to be ruthless, unloving, a monster, a senseless beast; while in the movie he behaves as if he had problems of the heart, making him look like an emotional doof. Coppola was trying to say that even the lord of darkness has a heart. Bram never intended that to happen! Dracula is the enemy of humanity, he has no heart! Second, Bram's Renfield is an important element to the story. His quest to acquire life does not make him an absolute lunatic, he looks more like an eccentric intellectual. Coppola's Renfield is just a damn sorry loony with no vital role in the movie. Third, now that I think about it, I didn't really know what was going on in the movie. Places and events were so mixed up that one just sits and admires the special effects and scenery. For those who haven't read the novel, Coppola throws an endless bunch of intermixed scenes which would make sense to one who's read it, but which are badly done and totally cut. Basically this movie, though it has some awesome scenes, is a rip-off. I haven't yet seen other significant Dracula movies, but this is definitely one which is like any cheap Hollywood rendering of good novels. It's a lot of flash and hype, but there's little benath it. Read the novel, it contains much more action and suspense than the movie and it's a lot clearer than the movie will ever be.
Rating: 
Summary: Pitiful horror film
Review: I'm surprised this film had such a huge outing at the box office and on tape. It was the second best selling horror film of 1992 behind only Army of Darkness. I would suggest you skip Dracula and go on to Army of Darkness or to Candyman.
Rating: 
Summary: Tolerable.
Review: I am possibly one of the biggest Dracula fans in the world. I could not wait for this movie to hit the theater although I was skeptical about the casting of Gary Oldman in the title role. After seeing the finished product, my skepticism was justified. Gary Oldman does not fit as Count Dracula. His first appearance in the film was laughable. I am sorry, but, I can't picture Count Dracula as a ludicrously wrinkled old man with long white floor length hair tied up in twin buns. In addition, Count Dracula is supposed to be a bloodthirsty, malevolent monster, not a love-sick wretch grieving over the loss of his love, Elizabetha. I can't find anywhere in Bram Stokers novel any mention of this woman. Simply put, Dracula is not how Gary Oldman portrayed him. Mr. Oldman needs to take some serious lessons from Christopher Lee, the ultimate Count Dracula in terms of sheer horror and malevolence. Frank Langella and Louis Jordan both did better jobs as Dracula than Gary Oldman who only managed to surpass the performances of John Carradine and Lon Chaney Jr. Winona Ryders' performance as Mina was well played. I enjoyed her performance even if it was a little prissy. Sadie Frost was the best Lucy Westenra that I have seen. She was definitely the sexiest version of this character teamed with some fine acting. Anthony Hopkins was splendid as Professor Van Helsing although a little kooky. I thoroughly enjoyed his performance. His tongue in cheek humor was captivating. As for Keanu Reeves, Coppola should have let the vampire brides have him! Whomever had the less than intelligent idea to cast Keanu as Jonathan Harker is obviously insane and should be committed alongside of Renfield. To put it simply, this movie, while brilliant in its scenery, music, special effects, and slight historical accuracy during the intro, is not one of the best. It diverges egregiously from Bram Stoker's novel and was only barely worth sitting through at the theater. I would only recommend this video for the serious Dracula collector.
Rating:
Summary: So "DEEP"
Review: it may seem boring but going through its story,soon you realize its not that scary it may have some horror scenes but it really focuses at winona and gary oldmans role,if this wasnt a little scary you may see its dramatically romantic.one more thing is that it has so many scenes where blood explodes that usually it is obvius that it was only placed on a bucket and threw it fast on action.even lucy's blood puking looks like she has a hose in it.
Rating:
Summary: A SO_SO MOVIE THAT COULD'VE BEEN A REAL CLASSIC.
Review: I saw DRACULA and afterwards I felt letdown about it. Having seen BELA LUGOSI'S version I was hoping it would be like that unfortunatley it wasn't and here's why I think it wasn't as good as the above. I found that KEANU REEVES and WYNONNA RYDER to be miscast in thier respective roles who they play I won't say just watch and see what I mean. Also I found GARY OLDMAN to be a little weak as DRACULA in his potrayl he didn't seem to scare me at all. The only person who I feel saves this film is ANTHONY HOPKINS who's great in his role who he plays I won't say but I'm sure you'll agree So all in all I can't recommend DRACULA.
Rating:
Summary: I think it's the best Dracula ever!
Review: I love this movie, everything about it was great
Rating:
Summary: My all time favourite
Review: I beleive that this the story Stocker had in mind and is hidden between the lines of his book.I don't think I will ever be able to get over the shock of the first viewing.Love that goes beyond grave and defies even God trully touched my heart. A definite must see.
Rating:
Summary: Unfortunate casting choice just ruins the whole flick
Review: All right - you're a casting director, and you've assembled this amazing group of actors: Sir Anthony Hopkins, Gary Oldman, and Winona Ryder among them.And into this fray you through in Keanu? no no no no no no no! Bad dog! No Milkbone! (TM) I've never heard Costner's infamously bad English accent, but I'm sure Keanu's (I won't even dignify him by his last name) was pretty comparable. And the man simply cannot act. Not in a box, not with a fox. Not in a hat, not on a cat. Not in shirt, dang, it just hurt! It's the classic "weak link in the chain." Altogether, this was a brilliantly executed film(although some section didn't mesh well with others), but Keanu? If I want to see him at his peak (which is never), I'll go find "Bill and Ted."
Rating: 
Summary: great movie
Review: this movie is great movie. it startede well it ended well. it is just all around well done. the acting is good, the screenplay is awesome. I would suggest this movie to almost anyone who wants to have a great horror movie
|
