Rating: 
Summary: brilliant, awesome, trippy
Review: forget the critics who panned this. this movie is brilliant, trippy., like images out of a bad dream filmed in grey and black and white. layered with meaning, filled with great casting. See it!
Rating: 
Summary: Great movie, not so great disc
Review: The stuff of legends in Eastern Europe, Vampires have become a staple of the horror film industry. From Max Schreck's Count Orloff in 1922 to Lugosi's Dracula in 1931, to Lee's unforgettable performances with Hammer studios during the 50's and 60's, the vampire has been primped, gussied up and redressed with every theatrical incarnation. In Bram Stoker's Dracula, Gary Oldman dons the fangs and cape and delivers one of the most incredible performances, the count has ever seen. Visually stunning in every detail, Dracula, tells the story of a Romanian prince who slaughtered many in the name of the church only to cradle the broken body of his wife at the conclusion of his conquests. A wife he knew would be safe because of his service to the church. Seeds of betrayal and rage bloomed and in a fit of madness brought on by the sheer pain of grief, Dracul renounced all things holy and set his sights on destroying that which he once fought zealously to protect. The twists in the story and derivations from the novel are plenteous but the overall texture of the film is pleasing to both the eyes and ears. Anyway, many centuries later, Dracula sets his sights on what appears to be his deceased bride in the semblance of Lucy Westerna (Winona Ryder). Upon his arrival in Great Britain, his sole purpose is to win her hand by the manifestation of his undying love for her as opposed to controlling her mentally and forcing her to bend to his will. This is something of a new concept in Dracula lore. Instead of the general heavy villainous bloodsucker, we are presented with a conflicted soul whose heart was broken but is now mending with the anticipation of re-establishing his connection to what would prove to be a soul mate. Mind you, the story of Dracula would not be much fun if he were a meek kitten seeking out his girlfriend's attention. Bram Stoker's Dracula is full of all the tricks of the trade any good vampire film bears. Ultimately, Dracula is bound by this affair of the heart and will stop at nothing to make Lucy his for all eternity. With Dr. Abraham Van Helsing on the trail and a host of newly trained vampire hunter-killers (Nod to Peter Vincent) fast on the hoof, a confrontation of incredible size is soon to take place. Visually, there is no better vampire film. Gary Oldman's performance is nothing short of inspired. There are sights in this film that have never before been attempted. If they have been put to film, they did not bear even an inkling of the panache Coppola imbued this movie with. From set design to costumes and transformations, Bram Stoker's Dracula is at the head of the pack. Personally, I am forever a Lugosi/Lee fan but Oldman definitely put on an act that will not soon be equaled. Not since Tim Curry's Lord of Darkness in Ridley Scott's Legend, has there been a sinister presence so captivating. Simply put, Bram Stoker's Dracula is a feast for the senses and should make any fan of vampire legend/lore very happy. The audio for Bram Stoker's Dracula is wonderfully presented in a very full and active DD5.1 platform that does wonders for the film's soundtrack and action. The dialogue is clear and easily understood and the movement between the speakers is tremendously involving. From the flapping of bat's wings to the smallest end of an echoed voice, the audio presentation is first rate. The sub does a great atmospheric job as well and contributes greatly to an already rich audio performance. This is a relatively aggressive mix and it really adds a wonderful measure of foreboding menace in every act of this tale. A 2-Channel stereo DD Surround platform is also included but as expected, it lacks the punch that the DD5.1 delivers in great abundance. The video for the feature is generally very good. There were a couple of instances where the images tended to be too dark for the presentation but on the whole I found the picture beautiful and well presented. Both a widescreen and full-frame version are available on the disc. For the purposes of the review, the Widescreen version was watched. The colors in the widescreen version are very rich and carry great depth. I did not notice any transfer errors other than the excessive darkness of two scenes. Regarding extras, this is as bare as they come. There are literally no extras. Additonally, the menu screens are rather old and nothing at all like the motion images or even the static menus produced of late. Seeing Dracula on the big screen and then on video and finally on DVD has given me a tremendous appreciation of this film. The scale of this production is tremendous. Coppola pulled out all the stops in developing and producing a first-rate vampire movie that stands on it's own with all the other great films in this genre. Using age-old tricks, Coppola creating imagery and a palatable presence onscreen that truly moves this film in a new and exciting direction. The character of Dracula with all of it's manifestations was magnificent. This would have been a perfect disc had Columbia Tri-Star given just a smattering of the extras that are available DVD treatment. Unfortunately, they provided merely the film. If memory serves, the ad campaign for this film was pretty intense. Would have been nice to see some of that make it to the DVD so, here's to hoping for a loaded SE. Since this one of the first discs to have been released, it's possible a Special Edition could be on its way. Let's hope so!
Rating:
Summary: Even Francis Coppola can't save a movie from Keanu Reeves!
Review: ... Case in point, Bram Stoker's Dracula. A Francis Ford Coppola movie. That's right, the greatest filmmaker of the last fifty years apparently drank too much of his Napa Valley wine and cast a non-actor like Keanu Reeves in his remake of Dracula. The rest of the cast is actually good, except for Winona Ryder.... Too bad Coppola didn't hire Kate Winslet for the role of Mina. ... Just about anyone would have made a better Jonathan Harker - and I do mean ANYONE! I doubt Steven Seagal could have performed a worse British accent. Worst of all was the scene in which Harker (Reeves) tells Van Helsing "I know where the BAWSTAHD sleeps -Carfax Abbey!" Not even John Travolta in Battlefield Earth, Elizabeth Berkely in Showgirls or Kevin Costner in Robin Hood, not since Rob Lowe sang "Proud Mary" to Snaow White at the Oscars, has an "actor" done something so unintentionally hilarious! Speaking of Costner, he must have sighed in relief to know that thanks to Keanu Reeves in Dracula, he is now responsible for only the second worst English accent in the history of movies! Speaking of [weak] accents (Dracula attracts them like molasses attracts flies), why do the actors who play Van Helsing insist on doing the most ridiculous Dutch accents? Olivier was over-the-top in Badham's Dracula and Anthony Hopkins (tongue planted firmly in cheek) in Coppola's version. They sound like Goldmember! The two best Van Helsings were Peter Cushing and Nigel Davenport, neither of whom offered Dracula a "shmoke and a pancake". Everyone else is good in the movie, though. Even Tom Waits. Bill Campbell and Cary Elwes and Richard Grant are all very good and should have got more screen time -especially if it meant less time for you-know-who. Gary Oldman is brilliant, as usual. However, Sadie Frost steals the show as Lucy. The costumes, while not historically accurate, are amazing. The cinematography is among the most beautiful I've ever seen. The old-school special effects are great, too. ... All these factors make Dracula worth a look -especially if you can fast-forward through the scenes with Keanu Reeves.
Rating: 
Summary: Better then any Dracula movie I have ever seen
Review: I have seen many of these movies and by far this one is the best I have ever seen.Most movies including this one don't keep exactly to the book but I think this one is the closest to it. If you like vampire movies I would think this is a must with you especially with this all star cast.
Rating:
Summary: A wonderful adaption
Review: All too often vampire movie vampires are too moody to be scary, too digusting to see seductive, or too poorly acted to be worth watching. Oldman makes a great Dracula -- scary, seductive, intense. The supporting cast is great too even if some of the actors on their own may come across as wooden, it all works pretty well here. It made me go back and rered Stoker's original -- the movie does a fair job of copying it, certainly better than Bela Lugosi's films.
Rating:
Summary: great, but not that great.
Review: This film won a ton of technically oriented Oscars, and it's obvious why. The cinematography and special effects are mind-bending. Finally, we actually get to watch all the creepyness of the Dracula story without the campiness of seeing all the wires and smoke machines. This is Transylvania, not Stage 42. The costumes are lush, the atmosphere eerie. Gary Oldman is repulsive and attractive at the same time, which is a remarkable feat of theatrics that any vampire would be proud of. Anthony Hopkins is excellent as usual, but seems to know, deep down, that he and Oldman are the only members of the cast taking this thing seriously. Unfortunately, everything else undermines whatever good the creepily excellent special effects or Gary Oldman could have done. The plot veers bizarrely away from the original story, but instead of hightening the interest in the characters, it diminishes it. You could care less about Lucy and Mina, who are both stupid and oversexed and don't seem to have motives for anything they do. Winona Ryder just doesn't do anything for me. (You spend a good deal of the film wondering why the heck she's with Keanu Reeves!) The guy who plays Renfield is creepy and wonderful, but the movie doesn't really establish him like the book does, and if you don't know the book well, you're likely to become confused. Oldman creates an amazingly sympathetic Dracula, despite all of these awful plot problems. The choice to make Mina a sort of reincarnation of his dead long-lost love was probably a bad one. It confuses the original issues and makes Dracula more of a Lloyd-Webber-Phantom-Adaptation-Character than anything else. Keanu Reeves proves in this movie, more than in any other, just what a terrible actor he is. It's amazing that this guy, who has apparently no redeeming dramatic qualities, continues to remain popular. Everyone seems to agree that he stinks. Maybe we just like feeling superior to movie stars now and then. I, on the other hand, think that we could easily have foregone Reeves' insipid, bland, exhausting Jonathan Harker quite easily. And what kind of accent is he trying to DO, anyway? Does he actually think that's a BRITISH accent?! So the plot (and Keanu) sucessfuly undermine this film altogether. Also, the way they adapted the book (so specifically stating that it is BRAM STOKER'S Dracula) is abridged to a fault. Instead of maintaining the integrity of a thorough adaptation by keeping the script, this watered-down version makes me long for a good script writer who had the guts to say "forget abridging something that's already good by itself. Let's just write something original and forget the book!" Unfortunately, in an attempt to follow Stoker's orginal work, this movie has destroyed it, and placed the poor author's name right there in the title for him to cringe at from beyond the grave. It's lucky Bram Stoker didn't become a vampire, because I can think of quite a lot of people involved in this film who deserve to get bitten.
Rating:
Summary: Lush, but not perfect
Review: The main reaasons for seeing this film are based around the craft of filmmaking itself, as the sets, costumes, cinematography, and score are all excellent. This film won many "technical" Oscars, and with good reason. It is a feast for the eyes and ears. The actual acting and script are not bad, though a little overdone on both accounts. That's the greatest weakness of the film, the pacing is uneven, and the dialog and acting can be a bit hammy.
Now, as for its closeness to the original novel, well, its hardly exact, but the main changes related to the romance are not unprecedented. Dracula has become an increasingly sympathetic character in each film version produced. The rest of the details are fairly close, however, with the vast majority of the books cast included, unlike most film versions. (The reviewer of July 2 2003 form Australia is wrong, Coppola didn't add the Texan, Quincey Morris is a character straight from the original book.) The inclusion of Stoker's name in the title was done largely for copyright reasons, and invariably gives a false impression that this is a 100% faithful adaptation.
So,in short, this is an enjoyable version of the classic tale that strives for a great artistic statement, but could have used a better script.
Rating:
Summary: Great movie
Review: This is the first movie that I've watched that is actually better than the book. Gary Oldman does a superb job at being evil. He will leave you breathless! He also shows a very human side in this movie. Your heart can't help but ache for Dracula! Being torn between God and love makes Dracula all the more human!
Rating:
Summary: FABULOUS!
Review: This is the best version of Dracula I've ever seen! The movie basicly it goes along the same lines of the book. It has powerhouse peformances from Gary Oldman, Winona Rider, Keanu Reeves, Anthony Hopkins, and more! Its Romantic and Scary! Get it today!
Rating:
Summary: Is it BRAM STOKERS Dracula?
Review: After buying the film that when I was seven, thought that it was very disapointing to watch in full. With some horror films (ie. The Shining), time has done them even more justice (as nowadays Kubricks masterpiece is even more terrifying). This is not with Stokers Dracula. Francis Ford Coppola (The Godfather) directs a film that sadly does not terrify you the way a gothic horror vampire myth should.
The Story? Young Jonathon Harker (Keanu Reeves, The Matrix) goes on a buisness trip to meet with Dracula (Gary Oldman, The Fith Element), an aging Transylvanian (hope I spelt that right!) count who is buying property in London. However, Harker's soon-to-be bride Mina Murry (Winona Ryder) is the reincarnation of Dracula's dead wife, who died four centuries ago and turned Dracula agaisnt God, causing him to turn into a vampire.
So Dracula travels to London to meet Mina, causing all sorts of panic as his lust for blood grows. When Mina falls in love with him, Harker tries to fight for her but all is lost. Until Richard E. Grant calls in the highly thought of Professer Van Hesling (Tounge in cheek Anthony Hopkins) to rid the world of Dracula once and for all.
Sadly the special effects let the film down and the acting (despite a very highly rated cast) is nothing to write home about. It's the costumes and settings that Dracula is worth watching for, and it is not scary as Dracula isnt a scary character, he's just an old man yearning for the love of his dead wife.
Also, is it a true port of Bram Stokers novel? I have yet to read the book but apparently he says nothing of Mina being a look-like of Draculas wife nor Dracula becoming a vampire to spite God.
Though it is entertaining and worth watching, but not worth buying.
|
