Rating: 
Summary: TOO LONG AND DRAGGED OUT
Review: I LOVE DRACULA. THIS MOVIE DID NO JUSTICE TO THE LEGEND. WIMONA RYDER WAS GOOD IN THIS ONE, BUT SHE AND GARY OLDMAN COULD NOT SAVE THIS. IT IS MORE OF A ROMANCE MOVIE THAN HORROR. IT SEEMED TO DRAG ON FOREVER. YOU WERE ACTUALLY FIND YOURSELF ROOTING FOR WINONA RYDERS CHARACTER TO STAY WITH DRACULA. I WAS BORED FROM THE BEGINNING AND WATCHED ONLY TO SEE IF IT WOULD GET BETTER. TO MY DISAPPOINTMENT IT DIDN'T. SAVE YOURSELF THE TIME AND AGONY OF NOT WATCHING THIS ONE.
Rating: 
Summary: Watch it a Second Time at 2 A.M.
Review: I hated this movie the first time I saw it. I was tired and didn't feel like listening. I woke up one night at 2:00 AM and couldn't go back to sleep. Dracula was just beginning. I watched it for the second time and was drawn in to every word. I later watched the movie in mute (with words scrolling across the bottom) because I couldn't understand Dracula's strong Transilvanian accent. The lines when Dracula is lecturing Keanu Reeves in his castle are brilliant and horrifying.The movie to me has a little bit of everything (terror, sex, fantacy, history, geography, violence, and great dialogue). It is one of the few movies I've purchased. I've asked friends who hated this movie the first time to to watch it again and they too think it is a great movie the second or third time around (I rarely watch a movie more than once, but if it gets better, why not?). I'd definately rather see this as a rental than a theater movie. I also think it was the best "Dracula" history lesson I've seen. I never knew the entire history of Dracula until I saw this movie, and I've watched all the older Dracula films. Try it again if you didn't like it. Try it in mute if you don't understand the dialogue the first time (it is fantastic).
Rating:
Summary: It's a romance movie not horror movie.
Review: (spoilers???)) the only thing horrific was that Dracula actually Died here. Sure I know what the legends are like but it's not actually like Dracula existed. With Fictional characters it's always easy to bend them a little. I personally love this movie. I personally think it's Winona Ryder's best movie and one Of Gary Oldman's best. Who couldn't forget his laugh. Planning on buying the DVD in a few days. A must for every couple. :)
Rating: 
Summary: Not even close.
Review: This is the worst dracula movie ever. There is nothing like the classic Dracula movies. I almsot stopped the movie before it ended. The potential was there but quickly turns sour. Bad movie.
Rating:
Summary: A brilliant adaptation, almost word-for-word!
Review: It is difficult these days to sit down and watch an adaptation of a classic novel and not be able to pick it apart and criticize it for not following the book. With "Bram Stoker's Dracula," you don't have to; there is no need to. The story, as well as the set and costume design, are so reflective of the actual novel and its characteristics that one cannot merely look on the surface and analyze it to bits. And with a movie as moving and opulent as this, you wouldn't even want to try. The source for the story comes from the original novel by Bram Stoker. Intense and truly frightening, it tells the story of a Romanian knight named Dracula, who leaves his true love Elisabeta to fight a war to save his country. His enemies send false news of his death to Elisabeta, and she kills herself. He flies into a rage upon his return when he learns that she cannot be saved because of her suicide, and vows to avenge her death when his own comes. The story moves ahead four centuries later, and Jonathan Harker is sent to Transylvania to sell a piece of land to a man by the name of Count Dracula. Upon his arrival, many strange things happen, but nothing stranger than the Count's reaction to a photograph of Jonathan's betrothed, Mina. Dracula immediately makes plans to keep Jonathan trapped in his castle while he ventures to England to woo and win over the sumptuous Mina, who bears a painful resemblance to his past beloved. As he works his way into Mina's heart, a professor by the name of von Helsing begins investigating strange occurrences in town, leading him to a confrontation with the vampire. This begins a frightful race against time to save Mina from the spell of the vampire and Jonathan from his clutches, and to ensure that all are safe again from the curse of Dracula. There is little to be said about the film in terms of negative criticism. It is, by far, one of the most gothic and illustrious pieces of filmmaking I've ever seen, not to mention one of the most frightening. The colors of each and every costume and setpiece are so vivid and bursting that it seems to be the stuff that only dreams are made of. Indeed, these articles all fit the London setting quite well, and work in making this the best adaptation of the Dracula legend to date. Lighting and mysterious camera angles also set up the creepy and very frightening scenes in which Dracula takes on inhuman forms in order to escape his adversaries. The script sticks to the original plot of the novel very well, to the point that even most of the dialogue is exactly from Stoker's pen. Actors are all well-suited for this film, and even Keanu Reeves does a good job here. Gary Oldman was the ideal choice for the infamous Count Dracula, and his performance is so good that it makes the movie. Just try to imagine someone else playing the role... it's impossible to do. His charm, his demeanor, and his handsome good looks make his the perfect choice for the role, and he seems to know this as he plays out the part to perfection. Winona Ryder is a beautiful Mina, and her petite grace and sense of sentiment fit the role perfectly. Anthony Hopkins is, as always, a well placed actor is a fitting role, and he is able to exercise his ability to analyze and interpret throughout his onscreen appearances. And, for those of you who hate him, Keanu Reeves does a good job, too. He knows what he is doing, and for once, his dialogue sounds natural instead of strained. Director Francis Ford Coppola has created a beautiful and articulate masterpiece which will haunt the memories of those young and old for many years to come. Once you have seen it, you will not be able to forget it. It's like that song you just can't get out of your head, only with this film, you won't want to try.
Rating:
Summary: I'm Sorry. Frank Langella Was MUCH Better!
Review: Perhaps if I had not seen Frank Langella's "Dracula," I could have at least given this 3 stars. Instead of a dramatic but subtle start, we have an absurd implausible start. (When the start is implausible, the movie loses a big portion of its ability to frighten.) Instead of us gradually finding out who and what Dracula is, we are told at the very start. (No subtle unfolding as Frank Langella did.) Instead of the soft beautiful scenery in Langella's version, we have garrish and overdone backgrounds. Another thing that damages the movie is that Oldman lacks Langella's malignant charm. It is understandable why the girl falls in love with Langella, but it is not so with Oldman. Without ruining the ending, I can only say it is absurd and preposterous. I can sum things up this way. Oldman tries (and fails) to scare you with overblown effects and blatant gore. Langella tries (and succeeds) to scare you with subtleties that gradually unfold into terror. I will admit it is unfair to compare Anthony Hopkins to the legendary Laurence Olivier. So I will say that in all honesty, Anthony Hopkins is the ONLY element in this movie that saves it from being a complete disaster.
Rating: 
Summary: The Only Weak Link is Keanu
Review: ...OK, Bill Campbell (is that how he spells it?) it terrible as the Texan, also. So let's get the ugly stuff out of the way, first, shall we? I can't decide if Keanu Reeves is the worst job of miscasting in history, or if Kevin Costner still holds that title for Robin Hood. (Pretty funny, Kevin's accent, seeing as how he was surrounded by real live, classically trained ENGLISH actors. I kept expecting Little John to introducing him as "Robin Hood, my cousin from Kansas!") OK, maybe Kevin still wins, but only because he has even less presence than Keanu. But Mr. Reeves' accent has gone somewhere south of the border. His performance is so amateurish that it nearly kills this film. But there is Gary Oldman, perhaps at his subtle best, as the Count. And when was the last time you saw Oldman subtle? Sometimes you feel like he's becoming the next Robin Williams, always taking it over the top. But in Dracula, when he moans "I have crossed oceans of time for you," you feel the age, the yearning, the timeliness of the vampire, and the loneliness. Oldman is pretty damned brilliant. His best since Sid and Nancy. And there is Anthony Hopkins, the perfect Van Helsing. Nobody else could be the vampire hunter. His presence is awe inspiring. I love Hopkins, but do not see everything he does. But when he wants to, he can grab you by the nads. He's pretty damned good here. Winona and the rest are serviceable, and often better. If you can forget the Texan and Keanu, and concentrate on the art here, it's probably worth having this movie. Coppola's really at his best at times here. The point-of-view shots are innovative, presaging Spielberg's use of the strobing battle scenes in Saving Private Ryan, and that Ridley Scott eventually ran into the ground in Gladiator. Excellent cinematography! The sets and effects are inspired. Just watch as Dracula's shadow doesn't quite follow the Master's movements! What a scene! In spite of Keanu's wash rag acting! And the colors! Every vampire flick has been grey and brooding. Coppola decides to use rich, lush color and manages to make it gloomy! This movie has the best and worst of what Francis Ford Coppola can be! Buy it for the best, and try to forgive the rest.
Rating: 
Summary: Exceptional
Review: This movie is made wonderful by the acting and directing talents of Gary Oldman and Francis Ford Coppola. Oldman portrays all his characters masterfully and does so again. Coppola again amazes me with his talens also. But others bring down the show. Not that I don't like Keanu Reeves or Winona Ryder, but they didn't do a well job. Anthony Hopkins and Cary Elwes were very good. The script was very exceptional. --Michael
Rating:
Summary: Flawed but captivating.
Review: Like most of Cappola's post 70's work, this film manages to be both stunning and dissapointing. Keaunu Reeves as Jonathon Harker is another of Coppola's baffling casting choices. He is a blight upon this movie - grating and impossible to ignore. Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins give entertainingly wild, over the top performances and Winona Ryder is good as Nina, though her accent doesn't quite cut it. What really saves this movie though are the stunning, surreal visuals. Coppola creates an intense, dreamlike atmosphere and maintains it through out the film. Is is almost hypnotic.
Rating:
Summary: An Enormous Misfire...
Review: Having seen the film when it first arrived in theaters in 1992, I revisited this lavish production for the second time last night. In 1992, I remember being vaguely impressed by Coppola's staging and artful cinematography. Indeed, this is one of the only aspects of the film that holds up under any kind of scrutiny. It receives ONE star for remaining coherently faithful to Stoker's classic novel. ONE star for Coppola's artfulness, and ONE more star for Oldman's competent interpretation as Vlad Dracul. What? You notice I've given the film only TWO stars. That's because 'Dracula' loses an entire star for casting the two most dubious actors in the Hollywood pantheon of nitwits: Winona Ryder and, far worse, Keanu Reeves. Ryder's performance as Mina is thoroughly unbelievable, with her whiny Petaluma rugrat voice underscoring just how horrible her faux English accent is. (And we thought Madonna sounded bad trying to cop a Brit-brogue.)'DEE-AH DEE-AH JONathon, I wish I HOD the CHONCE to tell YOU how VEY VEY much I WAH-SHIP YOU.' Just plain bad is squeaky little Winona. As for Reeves, he is painful to watch when he opens his mouth. Thoroughly and unequivocably talentless. Pure wood. Stilted. Vacant as a beachside motel in the Arctic. His stab at an English accent brings the film almost to a level of light comedy, which was certainly not intended. Anthony Hopkins hams it up as Von Helsing, perhaps shocked by the necessity of working with 'stars' who appear to have been airlifted straight from their jobs straightening slacks at the Gap. Aside from these transgressions, the film makes a case for itself visually, and especially with Oldman's tortured performance. Though the extraordinary costumes make for an added delight, this film is not nearly as appealing as 'Interview With A Vampire.'
| 
