Rating: 
Summary: Love so much of this movie!!!
Review: This is one of the classics. We overdone but that is the beauty of it. There are a lot of amazing actors in this movie. The costumes in this movie are amazing, and over the top. This is just a classic that everyone should have!
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant direction, brilliant acting
Review: Coppola is a friggin' genius. This is a great adaptation. The cinematography is beautiful. Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, and Anthony Hopkins all should've got Oscars for this. The only bad thing about the movie is Keanu Reeves. His character is so boring and his English accent is terrible.
Rating: 
Summary: A Dracula Movie??!!
Review: When I borrowed this movie from a friend (who unfortunately hasn't seen it yet)my expectations were high (academic prizes, reviews and all such stuff). I started to watch the movie with an aticipation for something really good and scary, but as the movie went on I was inclined more and more to laugh. My opinion about this movie can be summarized in a few words: a movie overdramatized and overstuffed with visual effects that got nothing to with the classic novel by Bram Stoker. The beginning looked very artifical (in the full sense of the word), the style was sentimental and so overdramatized that I couldn't get myself to believe anything that happened on the screen. Gary Oldman playing the count Dracula was quite amusing because of the fact that the fearsome vampyre looked like an eccentric fragile old man (G. Oldman acting an old man, yeah, a bad pun) with rather strange hairstyle and long crimson robe. Such Dracula looked more capable of falling apart from the first touch finger than of murdering the innocents and sucking out their blood. Jonathan looked like some bad version of Leonardo da-Vinchi (sorry, Leonardo di-Caprio) et cetera. The other rather horrible thing about this movie was its omnipresent eroticism. Lucy couldn't be that sexy just because it all happens in the nineteenth century and the views on sex there were rather strict. Dracula turning into something looking like large ape with long mane of black hair (meant to be a werewolf????) and half raping Lucy half sucking her blood was just ridiculous. The succubi in the castle were the only creatures that shoud have been sexy, no one else. Anyway sex is one of the things that destroy the atmosphere of gothic horror story, not creating it. In short, if you're a fan of Edgar A. Poe or H.P. Lovecraft, playing "Diablo" or listening to such stuff as "Iced Earth", to be precise, if you're a fan of the horror genre, don't watch this movie (whatever is said in the five-star ratings, they're all wrong).
Rating: 
Summary: Surprisingly wonderful
Review: In the early ninties, several superb horror movies like 'Candyman' lost column inches and theatre audiences to 'Bram Stoker's Dracula'. On a tide of publicity it swept through the cinemas, touted as the most faithful adaptation of Stoker's novel ever produced, and while critics remained stony-faced, audiences loved it.And with good reason. With the exception of Keanu Reeves, who really should be banned by the UN Supreme Court from ever making another motion picture, 'Dracula' is definitely the best Vampire movie ever made. It remains extremely faithful to Stoker's original novel and its strength lies in Francis Ford Coppola's visualisation of Stoker's 19th Century London-based Count. Big Names like Winona Ryder, Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins turn out excellent performances, but the real stars of this movie are the visuals used in production. Gowns are big and complicated, sets are lush and wholly convincing, and set-pieces like Lucy Westenra's Tomb scene and the opening sequence set in Transylvania are exquisitely realised and very engaging. Put simply, 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' is a wonderful movie for its visual beauty alone, and coupled with some strong performances, becomes a wonderful series of powerful images and sequences linked into one excellent production. The Superbit version of the DVD is really the only version worth owning, as the quality is almost unimaginable. Hook up some stereo speakers and indulge! Note: Keanu Reeves is the only reason I can't give this movie 5 stars. He's awful. In fact, he's worse than awful. But thankfully, he can't spoil the film. His part isn't big enough!
Rating:
Summary: brilliant
Review: Bram stokers dracula is fantastic.it has everything a good movie should have.it is exciting,passionate enthralling and you will want to watch it again and again guaranteed.
Rating:
Summary: blah, blah
Review: astounding work by Coopola with Gary Oldman(never been more eviler) in the part of Count Dracula/Vlad The Impaler. Vlad's love takes a dive off the building and he curses the church saying when he's dead he'll rise up and kill everyone, then he drinks the blood and leaves. four centuries later Jonathan Harker(Keanu Reeves) comes to do buisness with Count Dracula then Dracula seduces Reeves by 3 lovely vampire chicks so The Count can go take Reeves fiance, Mina(Winona Ryder)as his own. along the way we have great camera work with great scenery and special effects for the vampires and nifty trickery. the part where Lucy spits blood out of her mouth seems a little bit like the exorcist but that was vomit, but it was pretty cool. theres also a cool chase scene at the end where they all gang up and try to kill Dracula. Tom Waits as Renfield is fun and weird. nice horror pic
Rating:
Summary: Beautiful. Simply beautiful!
Review: Since Halloween is less than 2 weeks away, I felt that now is the time for me to briefly review the 1992 version of "Bram Stoker's Dracula." If you are seeking a lovely vampire movie, this is a lavish and sumptuous masterpiece featuring the most infamous bloodsucker in history. This isn't just another film about Dracula; it's a reimagining fattened to the grandest scale. While incorporating opulent costumes and sets, advanced special effects, and an all-star cast, this piece of cinematic drama carefully blends elements of horror, forbidden romance, and eroticism. Central to the film's core is the mental battle between morality and desire; how Dracula himself is both repulsive and enticing in his motives. In addition, Dracula is given several frightening incarnations related to the extent of his power; he can travel across the oceans and invade people's thoughts. He can transform into either a beastly wolf, a gargoyle, or even a cloud of mist. It's even revealed why Vlad the Impaler despises Christianity; how he renounced God after his love, Elisabeta, committed suicide while he battled the Muslim Turks invading Romania. I think what I truly adore about "Dracula" is how the plot is driven by the ensemble; although Gary Oldman and Winona Ryder are given the central roles in the story, actors Keanu Reeves, Anthony Hopkins and Sadie Frost are all allowed a generous running time for their performances. In my opinion, this 1992 effort is more like an opera; it ought to be shown inside a theatre where flickering candles are embedded in carved statues. Indeed, Francis Ford Coppolla has directed a movie that's tasteful, titilating, gruesome, but not at all campy. BUY THE DVD! IT'S A MUST HAVE!
Rating: 
Summary: I'll Make This A Quick Drink...
Review: At one time I liked this movie. This was when I saw it in November of 1992. Now that it's over ten years later, this Dracula needs some Buspar and Prozac. He's on the verge of an anxiety disorder. Unsure of himself, and a hopeless romantic, he has to hide in shadows, become a leather bat, and a wolf-beast for a few minutes a time. Anthony Hopkins redeems the film beautifully by being the straight forward doctor who will make sure the vampire is seized and penalized to fullest extent. Keanu Reeves and the rest of the cast provide characters as close to the novel as possible. The film has heavy eroticism to mix with the horror of the vampire.
I read an interview with Christopher Lee, the most popular actor to ever play Dracula (7 times). He wasn't happy with the movie. Actually, Lee is the only actor to ever play the character correctly from the novel. He talks at one point about the first scene with Gary Oldman. Gary had a huge hair style and long red dress?? Excuse me?! From the novel itself you'd read that Dracula was dressed all in black with a crimson cape and some white from his shirt showing. Sharp white teeth hid behind a grey beard. His eyes had a red shine to them. In all the films Lee made, he always integrated pieces of the novel from having read the novel several times. Look to "Horror of Dracula" and "Bram Stoker's Count Dracula" for accurate portrayals. With vampires like this, there can't be much room for interpretation of the British Literature classic until the story is told. Coppola is still a great director. If he wanted to make a Dracula film, he should have called it his own.
Rating:
Summary: Dracula is very cool
Review: Francis Ford Copploa's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" is the most faithful adaptation to the origanal novel in the "Dracula" film history. Not only dose it have everything from the novel, Copploa even adds a love story between Dracula and Mina Harker. The story is still the same, but it's easily the most expensive and lavish version ever, and personally this one is my favorite. I thought all the actors did a very good job. Gary Oldman's Dracula is lonely and heart broken, and he dose that well, Oldman is very underappreciated, much like Bela Lagosi. Wynona Rider dose an alright job as the emotionally torn Mina Harker. Keanu Reeves is preety good as lawyer turned vampire killer Jonathon Harker. But the show is stolen by Anthony Hopkins as the boyant Profesor Van Helsing, an expert in medicine, paraphyscology, magick, and the occult. The visuals are unbelieveable, it is so over the top with shadows moving on their own, men crawling up the walls, women materializing out of no where, it's just a real treat for your eyes. You may think that the story is full of cliches; but remember, the book "Dracula" made all them cliches. It is a real good movie for horror fans, and mainstream audiences should like it too.
Rating:
Summary: follows the book - but the book sucked (heh heh)
Review: If you liked the book, you'll probably like this movie. However, if you agree with me and think the book was boring, then don't bother with this film.
|
