Rating: 
Summary: vastly underrated
Review: this movie is coppola fundamentals. from a plot and acting angle, it doesn't necessarily stand out as a masterpiece. however, if you've ever read stoker's novel and have even a slight degree of familiarity with europe at that era, the adaptation makes perfect sense. in style, it matches perfectly, from the surreal and somewhat "detached" special effects to the two-dimensional acting of keanu reeves and gary oldman, who handles his over-the-top role in typical genius mode. watch it for the eye candy alone, if you want. eiko ishioka's insanely detailed costumes should be enough (a book is devoted to her costumes from this movie alone), and so should the stunning backdrops and bizarre visual going-ons throughout are worth it alone. the plot requires a very romantic heart to digest and understand, or maybe just a tall glass of ether.in conclusion: not necessarily a plot movie. if you want to poke holes in someone who says its garbage, though, challenge them to read stoker's novel and come up with a better interpretation. second, probably coppola's greatest marriage of visual style and plot, and probably one of the best in general. not for the snobs, but great for those with imaginations looking for something that can stand the test of time and repeated views -- you'll find something new every time you watch.
Rating: 
Summary: The First Time Keanu Took the Red Pill
Review: However in this case the film was not his to carry, only to support. This movie was primarily Gary Oldman's, and then Anthony Hopkins. There were a host of recognizable names in supporting roles, but none matched the two that I have mentioned. Francis Ford Coppola's version of this character that is one of the most filmed in history, is lavish for the eyes, slick with effects, even when a bit too clever for its own good. Fortunately the supporting parts are thankfully brief and even Winona Ryder who has a large role, only is appealing at the end as she become Satan's Mistress. Until this latter point she plays an insipid young girl with a tart for a best friend, and it is a contest between her and Reeves as to who has the most miserable English accent. It is telling that while the film did win 3 Academy Awards in 1992, none were for acting, directing, or any other of the major categories. It did win best costume design, best make-up, and best sound effects editing, and it is appropriate, for the film is fun for the eye and ear. Coppola gets too clever by half at times, when eyes repeatedly appear in clouds, and some special effects are either intentionally obvious for a reason, or are just simply badly done. Some sequences are filmed in a rapid stuttering progression that you will either find interesting or vertigo inducing; I doubt you will find the technique necessary or effective. The reason for the 4 stars is primarily for Gary Oldman who has placed a Count on the screen that will stand with those that have come before and those that will follow him. Hopkins is also very good, especially for the part he has, and the dialogue he was given to work with. He is an actor that can make the most of what he has, and more than other actors would dare attempt. At 130 minutes it is not brief, and a few minutes shorn would not have hurt the film. At the very least we would have seen Keanu's hair change color with less frequency, and more continuity. I watched the film on a 17 inch LCD screen, at a resolution of 1280x1024 with 32 bit color. In this transfer the DVD was not up to the task. There is a new "superbit" version of the film which encodes with a higher bit rate process that would probably allow the film to be visually more appealing, and to make better use of the technology that is standard today, but was almost pure fantasy 11 years ago.
Rating:
Summary: All the decadence you could ask for!
Review: This is the most decadent movie I've ever seen. It possesses huge amounts of every guilty pleasure you can think of: action, passion, adventure, battles, longing...you name it. I was particularly enthralled by the love story between Mina and Dracula; I especially liked how they were reunited centuries later because Mina was the reincarnation of Dracula's lost love. I even bought the book in anticipation of reading about this fabulous love story; unfortunately, I discovered that this is the way in which the movie deviates from the novel. However, BSD is still very good and probably comes closer to the novel than any other movie has. All the actors were great except for Keanu Reeves. I associate him so strongly with Bill and Ted and the whole air-guitar thing that I found it difficult to see him as the earnest, long-suffering Jonathan Harker.
Rating:
Summary: an enchanting adaptation of a great book
Review: Francis Ford Copola has created a visual and audio masterpiece with this adaptation of Bram Stoker's Dracula. The romantic element of this story resonates the loudest as the best adition to an already great story. This component allows the viewer to understand Dracula better, and gain a sense of the hopeless languish he is forced to endure, until his heart is reguivenated by the presence of Mina, allowing the perfect delivery of one of the greatest romantic lines in cinematic history, "I have crossed oceans of time to find you." No one could have said it better. Great movie!
Rating: 
Summary: While it's a good movie...
Review: The title of this story is most misleading. Except for the names of the characters, nothing is the same as Bram Stoker's novel. Lucy is not a slut, and Mina and Dracula are anything but star-crossed lovers. While Stoker did base Dracula on an actual historical figure, Drakula, no connection is drawn in the novel; he and Mina never knew each other, and there was no reincarnation in the story. There was also no reason given for him becoming a vampire, and he wasn't so much present in the story; he remained hidden from his pursuers. The Dracula of the novel was incapable of love, and only felt the need to survive by taking victims and drinking blood. The movie plot is perfectly fine, but the name of Bram Stoker should not have been added to the movie title. The direction is okay, though overly-dramatic. The sets are fine, and the acting is good, but again the characters are nothing like those of the original story. Dracula was not suave and sexy, but he also was not a disgusting old man who could reach across continents and oceans to control the will and actions of others. Van Helsing also was not an outrageous laugher, nor was Renfield so over-the-top; in the story, both men behaved as educated gentlemen, except on a couple of occassions. The script, direction, and acting were overall good; but when a movie is finally made that stays true to Bram Stoker's novel, it will surpass every Dracula movie ever made, if only because Bram Stoker created the perfect horror story that continues to frighten people throughout the generations since its publishing.
Rating:
Summary: "We are all madmen for God"
Review: When I first saw this film I was completely carried away with Francis Ford Coppola's dark and brooding presentation of the novel that created the modern vampire. The visual composition, the use of color as theme, and the music overloaded my senses to the point that I barely noted the movement of the plot. After all, I had read Stoker's tale often enough to recite it word for word. Why pay too much attention? Going back over the film 10 years later revealed much that I missed the first time. Of course, the film really tries to capture the feeling of the book rather than be a literal copy, which may bother some aficionados. Coppola has chosen to gradually shift emphasis from a horror tale to the tragic story of an impossible love, without ever losing either thread. By shifting Dracula (Gary Oldman) back and forth from Rumanian hero to terrible monster, and allowing each persona to have its emotional context, he forces a foreboding dilemma on the viewer. Dialog and narration is sparse, just enough rather than florid. Again, nothing is allowed to distract from the building tension. What completely escaped me on the first viewing was Coppola's vision of a creeping corruption that infects almost all of the characters. British social mores fare little better than those of the vampires. Jack Seward (Richard Grant) is a morphine addict and Lucy Westenra's (Sadie Frost) sexual intensity proves her Achilles heel. Even Van Helsing (Anthony Hopkins) is subject to eerie, almost degenerate moments. This is a less pure, more disturbing world than that of Bram Stoker's imaginings. Coppola keeps the film working on many levels - foreboding horror, grand romance, sharp social commentary, and transcendental morality play. If love redeems, it only does so at a terrible price. Well worth viewing - several times.
Rating: 
Summary: This is the same director as Apocolypse Now???
Review: I know I'm pretty much alone in saying this but I really didn't like this movie. This movie really feels like it fails to go anywhere. This movie doesn't know what ideas it wants to convey or who it wants it's characters to be. Is Dracula a bad guy or a tragic figure? We'll never know for sure except well... when he looks ugly he's evil and... it's scary... isn't it??? This movie trys to scare you and trys to show you romance and as if it weren't bad enough it couldn't make up it's mind... well it fails at both. The creatures in this movie are more corny than scary such as Dracula in a very fake looking bat-form. Characters are so undeveloped, we have no insight into any of their personalities (except Lucy) and the performance by Keanau is flater than usual and Anthony Hopkins gives us a huge disappointment. His character is as goofy and senseless as this whole movie. The "beautiful" scenery and photography can't even save this film, even if it truly was beautiful.
Rating: 
Summary: Should Remove Bram Stoker's Name From The Title!
Review: By the title, I expected a straight forward adaptation of Bram Stoker's original all-time classic. But don't be fooled as I was; this tragic piece of sex-and-gore falls flat in the end, and exploits Bram Stoker's good name. The acting by Gary Oldman and Winona Ryder are very good, actually, but Keanu Reeves' performance as Johnathon Harker is one of his all-time worst. Anthony Hopkins is the only relief, who seems to be having a blast as the eccentric scientist/vampire killer Abraham Van Helsing, and is very entertaining to watch. There's just too much emphasis on sex and cool photograpgy, rather than spending time trying to scare you; it's NOT SCARY! You wanna see good Dracula? Then go see the 1958 Hammer verion (it's great!), or even the Mel Brooks spoof of it! Anything's better than waisting your time with this poor excuse for a horror film!
Rating:
Summary: Amazing!
Review: Amazing how this director manages to make so scary a tragic love story like this... He describes very well the dramatic story of Dracula's lost love and at the same time he makes it really frightening! I don't even know if this movie should be included in the, horror section of films or in the love stories.. It is really amazing and unique how this exciting director, in collaboration of course with the writer, manages to make the viewer fall in love with the story and the protagonists... unique and tempting for any viewer. Certainly a must-see for everyone who enjoys the combination of love and horror in a film!!
Rating:
Summary: Interesting Remake of a Legend
Review: I really do LOVE this movie, but I gave it only 4 stars because some of the gore and sexuality is over the top. However, I loved it because of the story telling (how Dracula came to be) the sensuality, costumes, setting, lighting, music, and most of all the romance! As a die hard romantic I found that this movie was honestly one of the most romantic I've ever seen. Now, I realize many will beg to differ and some feel that Mina and the Count were completely incompatible, however when I watch the scenes of them interacting and observe the passion that Ryder and Oldman bring to the roles it works. In fact, I think one of the most romantic things I've ever seen whether it be in cinema or real life, is the scene when Dracula turns Mina's tears into diamonds. I also thought Oldman did a terrific job in bringing vulnerability to the role of the Count who in most versions is seen only as a cold-blooded monster.
|
