Rating: 
Summary: REEVES KILLS IT AGAIN
Review: It's amazing that Keanu Reeves continues to be cast in otherwise great films. This picture, along with "Devil's Advocate", is another great picture that needs an actor like Johnny Depp in the lead role. Reeves' wooden delivey of his dialogue makes this film almost unbearable and, like "Advocate", is carried entirely by a masterful director and a powerhouse supporting actor (Oldman/Pacino). The casting of Reeves in movies such as "Speed" or "The Matrix" I don't find so bothersome since they could only be slightly better without him, but it really angers me to see a good film entirely destroyed like this. If you want to see Keanu Reeves at his best, see "Parenthood" where he sticks pretty close to his "Bill & Ted's" character, which seems to be what he does best.
Rating: 
Summary: a fabulous Dracula !
Review: This is a voluptuous, stunning film that I have viewed dozens of times. Coppola's use of color, light and fog is superb and Gary Oldman gives a powerful performance as the count...erotic as well as demonic.The rest of the ensemble cast is excellent, with special kudos going to Keanu Reeves. The part of Jonathan Harker, perhaps one of the hardest in all literature to flesh out on film, is played here with great sensitivity, and one can see his courage and character build through the trials he must endure. This is a must for any collector of this genre !
Rating:
Summary: Unfortunately a little disappointing
Review: This movie had a lot going for it - it starred the excellent Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins, was directed by the creator of 'Apocalypse Now' and generally promised to be a beautiful, engaging movie. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it couldn't live up to all this!Allegedly based closely on Bram Stoker's novel, Coppola actually takes breathtaking liberties with the story - the original novel never suggests that the Count had any sort of lost love or that he had any identity other than Dracula. Coppola replaces Victorian reserve with overt erotic symbolism - lots of blood, sex and nudity, in other words. So he's strayed from the original story (not unusual these days) and has created a picture where the visuals (which are very impressive, particularly on this DVD release) are far more important than the story. The film does have its good points - Oldman makes an excellent vampire (even though, in his old-Dracula make-up, he reminds me of Glenn Close), his living-shadow effect is truly chilling, and the absinth-hallucination scene is great. And this film has nowhere near as many bad points as Kenneth Branagh's version of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein!
Rating: 
Summary: NOTHING TO SINK YOUR TEETH INTO
Review: I really don't know where to start in my review for this film. All I know for sure is that I was truly disappointed with this film. I was expecting something great from this movie. I mean after all it was directed by Francis Ford Coppla. There are two things that really bother me about this film. First is the acting. I'm sorry people but the acting was bearly decent. Why was Keanu Reeves put in this film? Can anyone answer that question? What happened! Did Coppola have ear plugs on when Reeves auditioned. It's amazing actually just how bad he is in this film. And Sir Anthony Hopkins? How can a man of his stature deliver such a horrible performance. But this leads into my second problem with this film. Now I know that this is suppose to be very close if not exactly to what was written by Bram Stoker,but to be honest,I DON'T CARE! I honestly don't care how well the transition is from novel to screenplay. It was simply bad. That could be the reason why the acting was so bad. I mean the actor can only do so much with what they are given. If a scrpit is bad,it's bad. The actor or actress can't do to much to save it.The movie just seemed to go on and on. I couldn't take it. The only person who I enjoyed watching was Winona Ryder. I think she was the best thing to come out of this film besides Coppola's fine directing. As for the effects? Well I must admit they really didn't shock me. They were mediocre at best. What I did like though was the production design's as well as the costume design's. So all in all the film to me had more bad points then good points which were Winona Ryder,Coppola's directing,and the production and costume designs. So to be fair this film really deserves ** 1\2 out of *****. ONLY watch it if your a die hard Dracula fan!
Rating: 
Summary: Good movie... old DVD
Review: This was one of the first DVDs you could buy, so, you can imagine how plain it is. The menu, compared with the later DVD's menus, is like D.O.S. compared with Windows 2000. The colors are a bit blurry, the sound quality is very good. The DVD lacks of special features, and is single layer. Another fault is the translations of the hungrian speechs are permanent, so, when you choose spanish subtitles, they are over those characters, and this is a little unpleasant. If you are a Dracula fan, don't regret buying this DVD, but if what you are seeking for is a DVD with full special features and great picture quality, you'll be a bit dissapointed.
Rating:
Summary: A viewer from Victoria, Australia.
Review: Coppola's film version of Stoker's Dracula is absolutely superb; the best. Dracula is my favourite horror story and the '92 movie is my all-time favourite horror film. It's eerie and some scenes are quite grusome, but it's a top thriller. A must have for a video collection; buy it now.
Rating:
Summary: THE BEST DRACULA FILM EVER MADE!
Review: FRANCIS COPPOLA DID A WONDERFUL JOB WITH THE CAST OF THIS FILM! GARY OLDMAN HAS PROVED HE IS ONE OF HOLLYWOODS BEST ACTORS. WINONA RYDER IS TRULY BREATHTAKING! TO ANYONE WHO HAS NOT SEEN THIS MOVIE RENT IT TONIGHT! YOU WANT BE SORRY! THE SEEN WERE LUCY HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE IN SEARCH OF BLOOD AND IS FOUND BY VAN HELSING AND THE OTHERS IS VERY CREEPY! IF YOU ARE A BIG HORROR FAN LIKE I AM YOU NEED TO PUT THIS ONE IN YOUR VIDEO COLLECTION.
Rating:
Summary: Francis: For This, I forgive you for Godfather 3
Review: I have never read the novel. I therefor have no complaints about inaccuracies and such. Anyone who reviews a movie on that basis shouldn't be reviewing it. The film itself is spectacular. Dracula himself is a wonderfully deep character and Oldman is beyond great. The use of physical changes are interesting. The cast is all-around great, yes even Keanu Reaves. But how, you ask? He is not nearly as good as everyone else. This is very true but the point is that he and his desire and life are nothing next to Dracula's. The fact that he is so outclassed is fitting in my opinion. Color symbolism and costume work abound. Deep film if you care. Someone told me the budget was tiny for this movie which makes me wonder why more films aren't this beautiful. And for once the visual opulence, nudity, and violence aren't unnecessary tack ons but bona fide devices. The kind of movie that reminds you of a Kazantzakis book.
Rating:
Summary: it could have been great. . .
Review: This really could have been a great movie. Without the lifeless Reaves, the cast was perfect. The director has made other great films. The original story is great. So why was it so bad? The main culprit is the screenplay. Dracula was never a love story, and the love story here doesn't make sense. The contradictions are too big. We see Dracula looking and acting like a monster, and yet we are supposed to see him as a big teddy bear who was really driven to everything by his undying love. Give me a break. Another major problem with the film is in the characterizations of Van Helsing, Lucy, and of course, Jonathan Harker. Hopkins is an incredible actor and it would have been nice to see what he could have done with a character like the Van Helsing in the book. Instead, it's as if the filmmakers decided that the Hannibal Lector mad scientist bit was the way to go. In this way, Van Helsing was more comic relief than anything else. The only difference between Lucy the woman and Lucy the vampire is blood drinking. There is a lack of innocence in the beginning which would have shown a real change after her transformation. There was also a totally unnessisary beastiality scence between her and Dracula that was really baffaling. Reaves' Harker was a stick figure. It's almost as if they had to take away depth from Harker in order to make the love story between Mina and Dracula make sense. It didn't work. All this did was make the first half hour of the movie almost unwatchable. The casting, with the exception of Reaves, is very well done and this is a riviting film visually. It's a shame that someone decided to improve on Stoker's story, and then put his name in the title. I don't think they would have had his approval.
Rating:
Summary: Blood and Nudity seems to do it all....
Review: This movie is one of the most visually disturbing movies in the history of mankind. It has good scenery, and some very original special effects. This is probably the movie of it's time (not saying it is a good one). I have two complaints about this movie, though. The first one is the amount of blood. In very scene there seems to be fallons of blood splashing on someone or it is dripping from a cross, or it is come from the Virgin Mary's eyes, or it is smothered across someone's face. There is so much taht it seems that they had to have more than fifty trucks of red paint to make this movie. The book didnt have NEARLY as much blood in it, and they shouldnt make it so the movie has to. The other complaint is the nudity. In every other scene with "miss Lucy", she seems to be ripping off her gown and showing off her breasts in just about every scene that she is in. Not good. There is also scenes where three of Dracula's vixens are topless and trying to seduce Keanu Reeves. There is much sex in this movie, unlike any other movie that is based on the same story. This movie was very good, but it xhould have stayed out of the theatres.
|
