Rating: 
Summary: a great film but not as good as nosferatu
Review: this film is very good and it follows the book much better than the bela lugosi classic. the scene with the dumping of blood in the bedroom was unnecessary as well as lucy ripping her nightgown at every opportunity, but it's still quite good. the special effects are very eerie and very well done.
Rating:
Summary: JUST FOR FUN
Review: For two hours or so put aside Bram Stoker and Gothic Pathos andjust have fun watching Oldman and Hopkins having a field daydeconstructing and camping up Dracula and Van Helsing. Ryder and Reeves are the straight-men to the superior, if tongue-in-cheek, performances of these two Great Actors. Whatever Coppolla actually may have had in mind in making this film, it's redeemed by the humor and humanity of Oldman and Hopkins. You probably DON'T want to buy this; but, please, certainly rent it and prepare to have a good time.
Rating: 
Summary: Colorfully electrifying version of Dracula
Review: The same day I had finished reading Bram Stoker's ever-popular _Dracula_ I rented Coppola's version. The early scene where Jonathan Harker (Keanu Reeves) enters Transylvania and is driven by carriage to the Count's castle is spectacular and horrific. With the mysterious carriage driver and the visually awe-inspiring shot of the castle, the movie sucks you in and takes you on an unforgettable ride. Gary Oldman's portrayal as the evil Dracula is nothing short of brilliant. The sensuality and voluptousness of Dracula's three wives is twisted up a notch compared with the novel, and it definitely does a good job of conveying that sensousness Stoker created in his novel. Even though Coppola's movie distorts certain plot elements of the book, it still maintains itself as a fun, entertaining, sympathy-evoking, and at times erotic film.
Rating:
Summary: darkly romantic
Review: i found this movie, although mostly intended to be a horror flick, to contain a certain amount of romance that i found appealing. i was swept off my feet by the mysterious destined love between dracula and miss mina. i found myself crying more than once when i thought their bond was going to be broken. the acting in this movie is superb, anthony hopkins does a wonderful portrayal of Van Helsing. this really is a film of good versus evil but the most intriging thing about it is you dont always know which side is good and which is evil. if you've already seen the movie i would also highly recommend the book. although slightly different, it provided just as much entertainment. trust me, you'll love it. i did.
Rating: 
Summary: Bram Stokers Dracula
Review: Except for the name of the characters and some of the plot this movie really has nothing to do with the book by Bram Stoker. Still, it is a beautiful movie, very lush and rich looking with some great effects. Its not a bad movie, far from it, its much better than the majority of movies I've watched lately but there are some flaws:My major complaint is the way Reinfeild is potrayed in this movie. His character is much better in the book and has more dignity. He doesn't have much of a role in this movie. Also, what was up with making the insane asylum look like a torture chamber? People in the 1890s weren't that barbaric! I also didn't like the actor who played John Harker. He just didn't do a very good job and wasn't very interesting. His accent was also bad and so was Winona Ryders, but she did do a good job otherwise. The woman who played Lucy did a great job and so did the guy who played Dracula. He was one of the best Draculas I've seen in a film. One thing that they did do differently in this film than other Dracula films is they made Dracula sympathetic, probably due to the influence of Anne Rice. One other thing I noticed was that the movie is suppose to be set during the 1890s and yet everyone is wearing clothes from the 1870s. But thats just a small thing that most people wouldn't notice. This is one of the most beautiful and sensual movies I've ever seen and though those who love the book will be disappointed by the changes made in the movie it is still a very good movie and one of my favorites. Yet I only gave it three stars because it just doesn't do the book justice.
Rating: 
Summary: I just don't see it
Review: When this film came out in 1992, I was very apprehensive about it, so I avoided seeing it. Last year I decided to give it a chance and finally watch it. This film does the best job of following the events as they take place in the book of any film adaption of Stoker's story. The film also keeps the characters straight because the other film versions tended to eliminate a character altogether (Quincy) or change a character's role (Dr. Seward). There are some incredible visuals in this film, the beginnig sequence, the transformation of Dracula into the rats and the chase to the castle are the ones that really stand out. The costumes, sets and special effects are overall spectactular. However, I just cannot overlook the problems of this film. I tried to keep in mind the fact that other film versions of Dracula are far off from the book like Universals and Hammers versions and I love them, but I keep coming back to the unavoidable fact that they stuck Stroker's name on the film which insinuates this film will stick to the book. They did get events right and who the characters were, but the mood and how the characters behave is where this film fouled out. Dracula was not a love story, you simply cannot get around that, the final scene with Mina helping Dracula off to die just destroys any good the chase scene did. Stoker's Dracula was a monster, not the suave, hip, tragic figure that this film tries to portray him as. I normally like Anthony Hopkins, but his portrayl of Van Helsing was further off than any other character in this film. Van Helsing was eccentric to a point, but not a raving lunatic and that is how Hopkins comes across. I think this was the Batman approach, in that in Tim Burton's Batman Michael Keaton played the title character very low-key and Nicholson (the bigger name actor) played an in your face type role because he was the bigger name. In Dracula, Oldman plays a low-key lead character and Hopkins plays a loud, over the top performance. The problem is Batman was right on target and this film is way off kilter with the way in which they portrayed these charters. The overemphasis on sex added nothing to this film, totally unnecessary. This film hits on a few levels, but the way the characters are portrayed and the whole mood of the film is just very sub-par. I know a lot people will disagre with me, but anyone who gave this film five stars is looking at with a different pair of eyes than I was.
Rating:
Summary: Lush, inventive yet uneven--very enjoyable!
Review: When I heard, back in 1991, that Gary Oldman was going to be playing, of all characters, Dracula, I couldn't believe it. Too perfect! I waited and waited for this movie to come out... and was perplexed by it once I saw it. Certainly the opening sequence ranks with Coppola's great works, with the animalistic, guttural grief of Oldman's Vlad almost too intense to bear, and the over-the-top gushing blood, sacrilege, and "vengeance upon God" motif. But after this fantastic prologue, the movie gets slightly bogged down by the amazingly lightweight Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder. Fortunately Sadie Frost as Lucy perks things up--more please! This girl has carnality dripping from every pore... and of course, in a vampire film, it means she has to die. Alas. But doesn't she make an appealing, erotic, seductive vampiress! Yummy. Anthony Hopkins hams it up as Van Helsing, Richard M. Grant is underused as Dr Seward, as are the others portraying Lucy's suitors, who are too many to keep track of. That's the fault of trying to follow the novel too closely. Actually, this is "Bram Stoker meets Anne Rice divided by Francis Ford Coppola ego's Dracula." Coppola and screenwriter James V. Hart drop the one-dimensional portrait of Dracula from the novel and impart upon him Anne Rice-style anguish and guilt. Still, Dracula is as soulless as Michael Corleone or Kurtz, it's just that Coppola's got to have him redeemed by love. The love story is all right, but Ryder just cannot hold her own with the great Oldman. Whether as an Oscar Wildean dandy, a grotesque bat-creature, or a decrepit, bizarre-looking old man in Klimt robes, Oldman shines. That this didn't make him a huge star baffled me. Each time I watch this film I like it more, despite its faults. Coppola used no filmic device that was not available in the 1920s, when the first vampire movie was made (Murnau's "Nosferatu"), and the result is a completely unique-looking movie. Problem is, it adds nothing to the story! But there's vampire chicks, absinthe drinking, Diamanda Galas on the soundtrack and Tom Waits as Renfield. As one movie vampire once said, "My world is waiting for you--forsake the Cross and join me there!"
Rating:
Summary: What the heck?
Review: Why all the praise. Interview With The Vampire is scarier and much more gorgeous. There is no bad acting like Mr. Reaves. This film was cheesy and cheap looking. Winona is spectaculer and so are some other roles. It is also boring. It does have some wonderful cinematogrophy but, it pales in comparison to Interview.
Rating:
Summary: We got a winner here!
Review: Vampirism always has had its origins in sensuality. Starting with Nosferatu in the twenties, to Bram Stoker, to Christopher Lee, Frank Langella...Women swoon for him...even the ugly Nosferatu stays with Lucy for a night of passion...Well, Coppola gets kudos for not forgeting this fact, and bringing a new level of erotisism to the genre. Starting with the harem of female vampires in Dracula's castle, all very gorgeous actresses by the way. Except, I keep waiting for Harker to tell Dracula, "Hey, dude!" He was a bit miscast...Winona was well cast as Nina, but the star of the show was the sexy Sadie Frost as Lucy..the scene where Dracula ravishes her naked body can be compared to the erotic scene in "Excalibur" for its sheer sexuality/sensuality. Dracula returns to Lucy, and eventually makes her his bride..The scene of her death is terrifying, ranking up there with Linda Blair's portrayal of Meagan, and Sissy Spacek as "Carrie". I think that Hopkins makes the best Van Helsing, yet. I just wish that there was a bit more of a sinuous love scene between Mina and the Count. I would have enjoyed seeing the evil old version of Drac making vampiric love to her. The opening scene is powerful stuff, and makes you think about Vlad's situation. The end is sad, and tragic, but it is enjoyable all the way through!
Rating:
Summary: A Gothic Extravaganza That Has It All.
Review: I recently went to Blockbuster and rented Bram Stoker's Dracula because, as a small child, I had seem commercials for it and had always wanted to see it to know just how terrifying it really was. Well, I was totally blown away by every aspect of this movie. The performances by the actors as well as the cinematography and special effects were spectacular. The script remains ever-so-true to the novel by Bram Stoker, and the resulting performance of Dracula, as played by Gary Oldman, is nothing short of amazing and horrifying. The ending of this movie will move most sentimental people to tears, as well as make them look out the window as they go to bed. The DVD has no special features, but the image and sound quality of this DVD is truly wonderful, full of vibrant colors and dynamic sound. Rent it, buy it, it is one of the best.
|
