Rating: 
Summary: Contemporary classic
Review: More Francis Ford Coppola's than Bram Stoker's, this "Dracula" near-faithfully adapts the novel but adds a superfluous romance between the Count and Mina Murray - probably to give the material an emotional pitch to match Coppola's baroque staging. Many have interpreted this version as being "about" HIV, but with its dazzling array of cinematic tricks and deliberate intertextual references I think it's more about the history of cinema (and the startling parallels between vampirism and the rituals of Catholicism). The performances are thoroughly indulgent, and rightly so. Hopkins and Oldman positively revel as Van Helsing and Dracula. Restraint might be the basis of style, but not here: the players are the perfect match for the otherworldly production design, ludicrous costumes, lush lighting, and Wojciech Kilar's wonderfully evocative score. The result is a kind of Romantic excess which will have you either swooning or smirking - probably a bit of both. Either way, it's great fun.
Rating:
Summary: Good to the Last Drop--Almost
Review: First, let me say that this version of "Dracula" is the first film adaptation to do justice to the novel. It is strikingly shot and directed with an almost operatic style. It draws the viewer in and does not let go.Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins absolutely chew up the scenery. It's enough to make you think, "Bela Who?" The supporting cast is also superb (I especially liked Tom Waits as the demented Renfield). Then there are Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder. Sometimes, unexpected casting can yield unexpected rewards (Tom Cruise in "Born on the Fourth of July" comes to mind). This, sadly, was not one of those times. Ryder seems uneasy in the role, like she never quite found her groove. Reeves, on the other hand, was an all-out distraction. First, he doesn't sound British; he sounds congested. Coming, as it did, only a year after Kevin Costner's now-you-hear-it-now-you-don't accent in "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves", this was a glaring flaw. His manner, in places, actually made me think he was having another excellent adventure. It just doesn't work. But back to the good stuff. Gary Oldman's Dracula is mesmerizing. This one deserved an Academy Award, in my opinion. And Anthony Hopkins' Van Helsing is another scene-stealing turn for this enormously gifted actor. The film would be worth the price for these performances alone. Francis Ford Coppola's direction gives the whole film a foreboding quality that never seems forced. He has made the definitive Dracula movie. It is too bad about the miscasting, though. A highly recommended film that could have been just a little bit better.
Rating: 
Summary: "Take me away from all this Death"
Review: I loved this Version Of Dracula..Gary Oldman truly did the part justice...I loved the steamyness of it...the passion..and somewhat erotic parts to it. I thought it very good and well worth Owning..which I do. The part of Lucy was a tad poorly acted, But wynona ryder and Keanu Reeves made up for it. The story is Dark..and keeps your eyes wondering whats coming next!
Rating:
Summary: the true dracula
Review: this is not only the greatest vampire film bar none its 1 of the greatest horror films of all time coming out in in early october 1992 when things vampiric were making a comeback winona ryder approached coppola with her version of what dracula should be mixing reallife facts of vlad the impaler and elizabeth tepez to perfection to this day it is the highest budget horror film made(170) million with the most stars in its cast and effects still unrivaled i have the superbit version and its simply beautiful insead of hdtv i have a really nice sony classic projection so the film looks just the way it did in the theatres in 1992 and with superbit its surround sound and vivid color depth is amazing gary oldman plays the perfect dracula and winona ryder the perfect mina its a disgrace the movie itelf won awards but they didnt to me its a love story with much more depth and meaning and better acting than the titanic and this movies worth seeing for the best effects and costumes used to this date in a horror film the green fog in particular is cool and youll notice little things in the background going on all through the movie very slick like the pro review before says probally the best movie made in the 90s and that says alot this movie holds alot of meaning to gen xers many of us were 14 and in love for the first time and 1992 seemed to be the coolest year in history from the clothes to the music to the fashion its hard to believe its been over decade now since this masterpiece! this movies now a legend everybody loves AND TRUE LOVE LASTS FOREVER ps on amazon.com true fans can find the limited edition dracula 1992 comics still sealed for (...) bucks for the whole series they also have dracula 1992 statuettes original scripts even the sunglasses gary oldman wore and another interesting notei got 1992s premier magazine featuring dracula it talks how gary oldman and winona ryder had a thing that fell apart before the movie ended and it talks how gary oldman would show up drunk threatening the cast lol
Rating:
Summary: not bad
Review: The acting and effects in this film were very well done and the story was deeper than the shallowness of horror as it recognized that all have their motives. It was, despite the critisism of some of the nay sayers, very faithfull to the book in many ways ( the vampire being abroad in day light, the facination for the modern, etc). The only real point of divergence from the book was the love story added. Many have complained that the Dracula of the novel was an heartless unfeeling monster not the gentle mis-understood lover in the film. While this analysis has textual merit, the film was certainly within the relm of legitamate interpretation. The novel was in the epistolary form, each section being only a letter, diary entery, recording, etc of a specific characters recounting of events. There was no omniscient narrator, to tell us how dracula viewed things. The only examination of dracula in the epistolary form was, per-force, that of those who were bent on his destruction and would tend to view him as a monster, and from Mina, who might understandably leave out some detail. Thus, while this was probably not what the author intended, there is actually plenty of room in the text to contain such an interpretation.
Also the complaints about the nudity and so on are misplaced when one considers that, with even a tighter eye on the text and sociolgical background, a huge part of the "evil" of dracula was the symbolic sexulaity verboten at the time it was published. The wontonness/nudity of dracula's "wives" was ther very symbol of evil at the time. In addition the films focus on the lush sexuality of Lucy and the more restrainted, but perhaps just under the surface sexuality of Mina would mark them as easy tagets for the devil of the time. Any discomfort we as veiwer feel about the nudity, sexuality, etc, indicates that the film/novel is makeing its point.
The interseting thing that I have not seen addressed by most reviewers relating to the film is the nature of faith. In the film Dracula basically become what he was becuase of the injustice of God againt him. He fought to protect christiandom from invation, he was rewarded with his love dead and, apparently, damned. He become what he is becuase he rejects God. We don't all have the paitence of Job, in this film even after failing at his test of faith, it is implied that he can still be reconciled with God through love and the triumph over fear.
While this film looks beyond the book it never contradicts it and it tells a story that has levels of meaning that the text does not contain. If I have to choose between a fun book or a thoughtfull and fun, meaningful film, I will take the film.
Rating:
Summary: Fred Saberhagen's Dracula
Review: Ever since reading the purple prose and thin plotting of Bram Stoker's original book I had been looking for something that would give it the kicking it deserved. I found it in this movie. The undead monster is more human and more alive than the sadistic vampire-wannabe Van Helsing or the other feckless characters. And I mean that in a very good way. It has strong connections to Fred Saberhagen's pointed and entertaining book "The Dracula Tape", which everyone who liked the film should go out and read.
Rating:
Summary: One of the greatest films in cinematic history...
Review: An absolutely fangtastic rendition of the legendary vampire. This version is far maore entertaining & visually stunning than most of the productions made thusfar, due partly because Coppola kept as close to the original story as cinematically possible. Which is what we are seeing a lot of lately. It is raw in its reality-prone situations, but there still are scenes that are left up to the Imagination as well, which makes it that much more entertaining. Particularly entertaining, are the awe-striking scenes in the beginning, which shows what made Dracula the supernatural creature he has become. Emotional upheaval, rebellion, & empowerment. Here is the classic story about a solitary vampire who falls in love with a beautiful mortal girl, who reminds him of his lost love who met with a tragic & heart-wrenching death. He turns her into one of the undead, & they WOULD have been happy, but meddling self-righteous mortals compelled by sanctimonious perfidity come encroaching along. Such is often the case. These bastards attempting to make a name for themselves by trying to pull down a superior individual, thus hoping to use him or her as a ladder to their ill-gotten recognition. They might steal credit, or be rotten enough to know that somehow they disrupted someone else's peace of mind, albeit temporarily, until they themselves are exterminated. It makes them feel significant. These psychic leaches, pathetic misdirected masochists. This DRACULA is one of the best movies I have had the indulgence to have seen. The costumes are elegant & accurate, thanks to Eiko Ishioka, & the panoramic vistas are breath-taking, & it is very well cast. Vlad Dracul, played by Gary Oldman of Sid & Nancy fame, transforms throughout the picture into a bat-like demon, a werewolf, & even green glowing fog. His humanistic forms vary as well. From a stoic, stately older gentleman, to a younger gentleman visiting London. One thing is for sure, I have never seen Dracula with so much hair! I believe it is more accurate than the mode of appearance potrayed popularly. Indeed, wood-carvings, particularly that infamous portrait of Vlad Tepes, shows the Prince/Count with long hair, which was the mark of nobility in that time. Only peasants had to cut their hair, so it would not get in the way of their common chores. The term "long-hair" can be looked up in most dictionaries as meaning an intellectual, a nobleman. Such was the case from Mideival times, unto the Reinassance. It really is too bad that those damned hippies had to marr the perception! True Long-Hairs would spit on those peacenick peasants! Satanic Witchery alert! Lucy, a gorgeous redhead, uses her feminine wiles to captivate her suitors, & manipulates them into a frenzy of lust, while pristine Mina {Winona Ryder} looks on in envy. VanHelsing {Anthony Hopkins} is accuratly portrayed as a stuffy, rude, raving madman who gluttonizes at every damned chance he gets. The soundtrack, oh, the soundtrack! Composed by Wojceich Kilar, is just amazing. Satanic to the hilt. Effectively employabl;e for ritual use. You may find yourself being whipped up in the emotional tidal wave, in the rises & falls of this masterpiece. As if taken within Leviathan's whirlpool, surrounding & penetrating. DRACULA is a romantic, dramatic, horror monsterpiece that pleases & excites. After being submerged in this enchanting dark world, this film promises an eventful night with a date, & may leave one in a higher state of mind, reminiscient of the aeshetically-proliferous Victorian Era. Just think, such beautiful surroundings will be available to be experienced in the not-too distant future. Though some of us have already created our own private totalized environments, it would also be pleasing to be part of a whole community of like-minded individuals. Even a whole city, with arcane architecture with modern conveniences. DRACULA is a must-see for all Satanists, Vampires, Werewolves, Ghouls, & the rest of you, whatever you are. Bring the son of the devil into your darkened theatres, & let the nightmarish joy begin!
Rating:
Summary: Bram Stoker's Dracula
Review: Erotic rendition of the Bram Stoker horror tale. Not what I was expecting, but when I say this, I mean well. This version is well thought out, acting is pure and real, script is decent, costumes are beautiful, and direction is eerie. Probably one of the more creepy Dracula films, but not so scary that you can't breathe. It is the type of scary that includes realism and it comes in one package. This is one film that is loaded with characteristics from all types of genres.
Rating: 
Summary: I used to think this was good
Review: When I first saw this movie i was really impressed by how interesting it was and i really liked it. Then I read the book. Now usually I'm not the type of person to compare book to movie but since they did title this Bram Stoker's Dracula that implies that it should resemble the book a lot more than this did. If you like this movie i suggest that you do read the book. I only marked down two stars for not resembling the book which otherwise implies that to those of you who havent read the book this is a perfect movie.
Rating:
Summary: Good But the same old story
Review: I personally love the story of Dracula but it has been done to death. I give this movie four stars because of the acting and beautiful surroundings, that establish a feel for the era. Of course, the special effects are better then any of the previous Dracula stories, only because this is now and that was then. If you are a fan of Bram Stokers Dracula then this movie is well worth having in your collection.
|
