Rating: 
Summary: Oh my god!
Review: One of the worst movies on the subject ever made. A shocking script and terrible performances all round make this a laughable installation to the Dracula legend. Gary Oldman is at his usual over-acting worst, and Keanu Reeves is shocking as Jonathan Harker, effecting the worst English accent in the history of cinema. Winona Ryder bored my packet off; the exchanges between her and Reeves were sickening along with the rest of the script, Harker: We can be married when I return.
Mina: Oh Jonathan.....Jonathan....Oh Jonathan.....I'm sorry if I seem harsh, but please try and avoid this movie lest you like it. And of course we had to have a big American, with a big moustache and a big knife because obviously Mr Coppola thought our interest could not be aroused without an American charater. Balls, pure balls.
Rating:
Summary: THE WORST!!!!!
Review: I really don't know how any true Dracula fan could recomend this insipid vastly overrated waste of film. Every thing about this miserable version is objectionable, from the crass and misleading title that implies a faithfulness to the original source material (though actually this film disregards the original Bram Stoker story in favor of a hoary long lost "love" romance theme!?) to the uninspired acting and ill concieved production design. This film has no mood or ambiance (not to mention scares!)at all but is chock full of trite Mtv style flash filmmaking technique that completely works against the depiction of victorian era England (which is not convincingly evoked at all!} In fact some of the depictions in this thing are hilariously ludicrous (Vlad "impaling a victim single handedly,his "crazy" shadows, Drac's head sticking out of dirt on the boat!). A true failure and disapointment especially coming from the man who directed the Godfather and Apocalypse Now! Stick with the old lugosi/Lee classics or better yet check out Murnau and Herzog's Nosferatus and Polanski's Fearless Vampire Killers (or the BBC production with Louis Jordan). Coppolla's Dracula doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as these films, even the Frank Langella version is better!
Rating: 
Summary: An Awesome Movie, A Poor Edition
Review: This movie is one of the greatest movies ever made, best vampire movie ever out there, a surely 5-star.. It's based on Bram Stocker's best-seller Dracula. This is as close as the movies can get to the original book, and, in my opinion, the best Dracula movie ever made.
Starring stars such as Keanu Reeves, who is rocking with the Matrix movies today; Gary Oldman, perfect as Dracula; Anthony Hopkins, as Van Helsing; and Winoma Ryder, great in her role. Great acting, make-up, special effects for that year (1992)... This movie won 3 Oscars in 1992 Academy Awards (Best Costume Design / Best Make-Up / Best Sound Effects Editing).
As you see, the movie is great, but the edition is not... The movie didn't diserve this edition... NO EXTRAS AT ALL! Not even a Theatrical Trailer, Talent Bios or Commentary... Absolutely nothing... And this is really sad.
The sound is awesome in 5.1 (thank God it's avaliable in this DVD edition). It's a 2-Side DVD, in side A, the movie is presented in widescreen; in side B, standart (much better, in my opinion). There are 52 charpters in this DVD. It's captioned in English, Spanish, Korean and French.
A Francis F. Coppola's masterpiece in a poor DVD edition. Only worth for the movie and the 5.1 sound. But, like I said, it's definetly worth your money..
Rating: 
Summary: BEST DRACULA MOVIE EVER
Review: Well unlike alot of people i love this movie. Francis made Bram's Story 100 times better. He made Dracula more human and it came out very well. Gary Oldman is the best dracula i have ever seen. Unfortunetly i went to see Dracula 2000 which was the worst movie i have ever seen. But atleast the worse that one was made me realize how good this one is.
Rating:
Summary: Vampiric Fun
Review: The movie Dracula has been made and remade since the epistolary novel by Bram Stoker was written. Bram Stoker's Dracula is the latest installment of Dracula movies. The movie starts with a prologue dating back to 1462. The mighty Byzantine Empire is at war with the Turks. Vlad, Prince of Transylvania stood at the forefront of the war as a formidable warrior fighting for the Byzantine Empire in the name of God. He was
notorious for leaving his enemies impaled on spears in the wake of his army. One day, Vlad leaves his loving wife, Princess Elizabetha, to fight a particularly crucial battle against the Turks. Vlad's army massacres them. But during the battle, a group of Turks fire a message-laden arrow into Vlad's castle. It carries the false message of Vlad's demise. Elizabetha dives of the cliff of the castle and leaves a note for her homecoming prince. Vlad arrives and sees Elizabetha's recovered body and damns God for his plight. After driving a sword through a large stone cross, he drinks the blood that bleeds from it. From then on, he is the immortal Dracula, the prince of the damned that feeds on mortal blood. Fast forward to 1897. A young rising real estate broker named Jonathan Harker is sent to Transylvania to arrange property sales for Count Dracula. Jonathan is kept as a prisoner in Dracula's castle and then the Vampiric fun begins. Dracula is a very lush movie. It's lush in color, good cinematography, better sets, spectacular costumes, deep symbolism and a wonderful score. The color scheme is done in the way that Sleepy Hollow was done. The settings are mainly dark, but have characters in clothes that contrast delightfully. The cinematography by Michael Ballhaus is exceptional. It gives wonderfully fitting angles to beautiful scenes. And the sets, o the sets. They're marvelous. They're so masterfully designed, you'll think that it was all shot on location. The costumes are absolutely amazing. The costume designer, Eiko Ishioka, won an Academy Award for his masterwork in the movie. They're so good, they're indescribable. They click not only with the Victorian setting, but also with the mood of each scene. The transitions are stunning and effective. They flow seamlessly into each scene. The symbolism is immense. There is a great deal of recurrent themes and colors. It helps make the movie deeper than the average splatter house thriller. The score by Wojciech Kilar is fantastic. It's haunting and suspenseful. I would have it no other way for a movie like Dracula. The acting is quite spectacular with one exception: Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker. He's dead weight in the movie. His British accent is done in a quasi-effeminate voice and stays at one monotone level. There is no exaggeration when I say that there was next to no inflection in his voice. However, everybody else played their parts magnificently. Gary Oldman plays Dracula. A beautiful performance with the rights guttural noises and just the right accent. Wynona Rider portrays Mina, Harker's fiancé and Dracula's love interest. She plays the part flawlessly and gives the modest Mina the right expressions and inflections. Anthony Hopkins plays the sometimes eccentric occult know-it-all Dr. Van Hellsing. It's a sterling performance. Hellsing provides the occasional dry humor and he couldn't be better played by anyone except Hopkins. Sadie Frost plays the vivacious and bubbly heart-breaker, Lucy. Frost's voice is the embodiment of Lucy and her acting is quite exceptional. Music legend Tom Waits plays the amusingly insane Renfield. Even though the part is relatively small, Waits shines. No small triumph in this movie is the directing. The movie is directed by cinema master Francis Ford Coppola who orchestrated the classic The Godfather. Overall the movie is a passing magnificent tribute to Bram Stoker's classic. Despite the baleful acting by Reeves, Bram Stoker's Dracula is a must-see. My rating is 5 out of 5 stars.
Rating: 
Summary: Bram Stoker's Dracula? I don't think so.
Review: I'm sorry, but this is not what Bram Stoker wrote. This is what Francis ford Coppola wrote. This is a beautiful film, yes, but Not Stoker's DRACULA.
There are good things with this film and others that are not so good, but let's make things perfectly clear once and for all. THERE IS NOT A LOVE AFFAIR BETWEEN MINA HARKER AND COUNT DRACULA!
Dracula is a vampire, a monster and Jonathan Harker is his ticket to ENGLAND. After the deed to his new estate is signed, Harker is a dead man left to Dracula's three vampire wives.
In England Dracula gets Lucy and then Mina and Mina is the only link to Dracula because she is under his power and it is through her that Van Helsing and the other men can chase Dracula back to his Castle and destroy him. Forget the romance,Dracula is a horror story and perhaps one day will be done the way it was meant to be. As for now the closest thing to Stoker's novel is El Conde Dracula (Count Dracula) with Christopher Lee.
Rating:
Summary: Okay, I admit...it looked cool
Review: Yes, yes, hear me out. While this was a visually stunning film, call me a fuddy-duddy for saying that it wasn't true to the book. It was just twisted around enough for it to not make a lot of sense if you had read the book. Maybe all those illiteracies in Hollywood have caught up to the big wigs, but there were scenes where I had to say, "I don't remember THAT ever happening". Yes, the picture quality is marvelous. The sound is great. The special effects were amazing. But if you're going to make a vampire movie and call it Dracula, don't have the monster being a womanizer with romantic intentions. Hopkins is excellent as VanHelsing, the vampire hunter. That alone is worth watching.
Rating:
Summary: No special features and bad subtitles
Review: The movie it self is great but the dvd version is one of the worst because it has no special features nor does it have english subtitles available for the hearing impared. All it has is subtitles in korean and spanish. And the subtitles run across the entire screen where it makes viewing the film impossible.
I was very dissapointed with the dvd because i was hoping for some kind of extra features and a decent setup option but its really no different from the vhs. Colors are brighter i suppose but still it could be better
Rating:
Summary: What the [heck]!
Review: Horrible. This is the worst version of Bram Stoker's classic. Hell, even Mel Brook's movie is more acurate! Mina in love with Dracula? He's a monster, not a womanizer. What was that tiger part? Probaly the worst film of everyone involved. And finally, why does Dracula turn into a Sasquatch?
Rating:
Summary: Beautiful movie...
Review: Different than the previous versions you may have seen. Gives a new perspective on the fabled tale. Gary Oldman turns in a fine performance as the Count. The photography is stunning.
I still prefer the 1979 Dracual with Frank Langella, but this one follows close on its heels.
| 
