Comments (27)Add a Comment
A movie that feels like it was made entirely so the creators could play with old special effects and do some truly remarkable things with them. Is it the greatest movie ever? No, but it wasn't trying to be.
This movie does not hold up. It's beautiful to look at and the cast is great (not counting Keanu Reeves). Surprisingly, it follows the book fairly closely...although it gives more backstory and a ridiculous romance to the count and Mina. This movie is overblown and too '90s in all the wrong ways. I found it - in particular a couple of scenes - a little too "sexy".
Filmed with early movie technology and theatrical styles. Watch if you are a BIG vampire fan in general.
I think of this movie as a timeless love story not so much a horror movie. It's also a reminder that redemption is possible.
I think Gary Oldman is an underrated actor. I really enjoyed his performance in this movie. My favorite Dracula.
an overly restrained performance by ms. horowitz. too bad ms. frost never worked again. the commentary is ho-hum. makes you wonder what goes on during the hot napa nights.
Great performance of Gary Oldman. The title language of the Special Features DVD is in Japanese.
Love this movie, that's why I'm getting it again. Gary Oldman is superb, special effects great, additional story line is so good. You should still get the original "nosferatu" and Bela Logosi's Dracula
Bloody, Baroque, Spectacular
Hark, all ye cinephiles. The master beckons! And few among your numbers shall resist him. For he brings to bear all the wondrous powers at his disposal.
Observe: shadow puppets dancing on the horizon against a crimson sky; iris apertures (in and out); transforming dissolves (from a frightful pair of wounds on a delicate neck into twin pinpoints of light in a wolf's eyes); miniatures and animation (a creepy, willful shadow finds its way across a castle wall); the startling recreation of early cinematic imagery (jerky-jerky, flickering movements from the dawn of motion pictures). Yes, faithful movie lover, gaze upon all this and be swept up in a maelstrom of inventive joy where you will find more... much, much more!
With awe-inspiring virtuosity Francis Ford Coppola pays deep tribute to the art of filmmaking with his deliciously overstuffed rendition of the old vampire chestnut. He calls it BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA and indeed parts of it, like Murnau's NOSFERATU (1922), are extremely loyal to the spirit and reality of the novel. But in his zeal to express his profound respect for the medium Coppola also bows to Browning and Lugosi.
Gary Oldman plays the title role (fiercely, tenderly, howlingly) in two stages, first as a wizened, pasty-faced, bouffant-coiffed, satin-robed nobleman (the Murnau/Max Schreck vision) and later as a dandified, well-heeled aristo-about-town (the Lugosi influence).
Using Victorian England, a veritable hothouse of repressed carnality, as the main backdrop, Coppola makes this the most sexualized, eroticized vampire movie in existence.
There's so much to mention and not enough space so here's the upshot: the movie is a treasure trove of technique and creativity. It's a sustained, focused, cinematic tour-de-force (and Keanu is good in it too!). It's atmospheric, exciting, kaleidoscopic.
You bet it was "made in Hollywood"- it's like something from Tinseltown's Golden Age.
Great cinematography, the sex scenes great and scary and realistic, acting super!
I will defend this movie with my life if it came to it. Gary Oldman is absolutely incredible as Dracula and gives one of my favorite performances in modern film. Winona Ryder is the perfect vision of Gothic beauty and elegance. Also, Tom Waits as Renfield, it just doesn't get better than that.
I think this movie is the perfect example of the power of names to impress. I can't believe this thing was critically acclaimed. The spooky atmosphere is about all I can find that's good about it. But the story--oh my God. People come to Dracula for horror and misogyny. The misogyny they indubitably got, but where, pray, was the horror? And adding some reincarnated love story to the mix? Spare me. I was extremely disappointed with this movie. I expected better of Coppola.
This film is beautiful. The score is amazing.... Gary Oldman does not disappoint. That being said, this is one of the worst waste of film i've ever seen. Ryder and Reeves are ridiculous and should stick to surfer movies. Blech. Peeee-ew.... waste of time.
This Dracula adaptation proved to be very classical in nature, bringing with it great actors and a believable story line!
A full blooded adaptation of the Stoker story benefits from Oldman in the lead, with Anthony Hopkins, Winona Ryder, Cary Elwes, Richard Grant, and Bill Campbell all doing good turns in various roles. The one glaring problem with the film: Keanu Reeves, who can't hold an English accent for more than five minutes and lacks the presence the role required. He should count himself lucky that Speed and the Matrix were films still in his future when he made this.
gary oldman. gary oldman. gary oldman!!!!!! oh, and tom waits!!! enough said.
It was too tempting for me to see this movie available on "Super Bit" for $5.00 and not buy it. I will admit i was not that happy while watching this movie on my HOMETHEATER. But the visual effects were great and Mr.Oldman was impressive as Dracula. The shape shifting, mist movements and shadows were done very well. The werewolf that turns into rats was very good.There are some good sound effects, but mostly all around sound. However, when Dracula was not in a scene, i wasn't feeling this movie that much. It was not boring. Just some of the characters were not that interesting and it made the film drag a bit for me. But i'll give this movie 3 stars. For Gary Oldman's performace of Dracula, and the visual effetcs. 2 large home made hamburgers with plenty of ketchup and a touch of mustard, with thick french fries, two rolls, and a large glass filled with ice and rootbeer.
I can’t believe I went to the theater to watch this movie—and stayed till the end! Not even two great actors—Oldman and Hopkins—could have saved this pastiche. There are so many problems and ridiculous scenes I kept wondering if it was not actually meant as some dark comedy… No surprise on Reeves and Ryder, two of the worse actors ever—he, as always wooden-looking and she squirming and giving little moans and cries that made her look even more like the little mouse she is. And why—oh, why?!—do they get American actors to imitate British accent?! In short, this is the story of bitter, baby-killer, brutal, odd-looking Count Dracul, who surrounds himself with a bunch of nymphomaniacs; he lives from orgy to sucking blood from babies, to finally find his beloved, a the mousy, perverted, sex-crazed Mina, etc, etc, etc. Oh, did I forget to mention Oldman’s ATROCIOUS accent, which will make you LOL and, at the same time, wish you could wring his neck?
OMG this was a terrible movie. Keanu Reeves' attempted English accent was a crime against language. Bram Stoker probably did a few spins in his grave after Coppola's treatment of his classic novel. Even Anthony Hopkins turns in a rare stinky performance. In a nutshell - this movie encapsulates the worst of 1990's Hollywood. Thankfully they did not make a sequel..."Dracula 2 - this time he's twice as undead!"
Why this movie is called “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” is beyond me, since it bears little resemblance to Stoker’s novel. By the end of the movie you don’t care about any of the characters, since they’re all so depraved. You certainly don’t feel any sympathy for the baby-killing Count Dracul, even though at the end you are presumably supposed to feel glad that he finally finds peace.
None of the characters are able to control their sexual desires, even the cross-wielding Van Helsing. The women especially are portrayed as weak and fallible. They are portrayed as either prim and proper prudes or sex-crazed whores, with the former quickly becoming the latter. Love is equated with lust. There are countless scenes of perverted sex with copious amounts of blood. One particularly disgusting scene involved one of Dracula’s concubines licking blood squirting from another concubine’s nipple.
The movie is just one long orgy of depraved sex and blood-sucking, with a ridiculous ending tacked on. There doesn’t seem to be any rationale for Mina Harker’s adulterous passion for Dracula – why would anyone become besotted with a mass-murderer who turns into a werewolf to have bestial sex with other women? Why does the movie end with Mina saying that her love for Dracula was their salvation, as if it is a noble thing to “love” someone even more evil than Jeffrey Dahmer? To me, love is fidelity, self-sacrifice, and the cultivation of virtue, not adultery, lust, and an eternal “life” of vampirism.
Even evil can have a love story and this movie plays into that very well.
17+ due to sexual content, theme, and graphic portrayals
Gary Oldman, Keanu Reeves, Anthony Hopkins and Winona Ryder play in this star studded movie that if you can get past the evil is a romance story that includes separation of church.
Other than the horrible acting of Keanu, this was an interesting movie take on the book. It is visually quite stunning and some scenes will stick with you.